GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, October 9, 2013 9:00 a.m. 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
A G E N D A1
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 October 9, 2013 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Transportation Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for October 9, 2013 as circulated.
2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
2.1 June 20, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Transportation Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held June 20, 2013 as circulated.
2.2 July 23, 2013 Joint Meeting Minutes That the Transportation Committee adopt the minutes of its joint meeting with Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee held July 23, 2013 as circulated.
3. DELEGATIONS
3.1 Mayor John Douglas, City of Port Alberni Zoran Knezevic, CEO, Port Alberni Port Authority Subject: Development of a New Container Port in the Alberni Inlet
1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.
September 17, 2013 Transportation Committee Regular Agenda October 9, 2013 Agenda Page 2 of 4
4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS
4.1 Peter Xotta, Vice President, Planning and Operations, Port Metro Vancouver Subject: Smart Fleet Trucking Action Plan
4.2 Bob Paddon, TransLink Subjects: · Consultation on Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project · Regional Transportation Strategy Implementation Plan Update · Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
5.1 Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook Designated Speaker: Ray Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Board convey its support for the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook to the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation.
5.2 TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application Designated Speaker: Ray Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Board: a) endorse the 2013 list of TransLink projects to be forwarded to the Gas Tax Management Committee for consideration as Approved Eligible Projects under the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement; and b) request that TransLink submit to the Metro Vancouver Board for consideration proposed amendments to prior year projects that require scope changes before submitted to review by the Gas Tax Management Committee.
Transportation Committee Regular Agenda October 9, 2013 Agenda Page 3 of 4
5.3 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Designated Speaker: Ray Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Board: a) advise the Premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure that the proposed bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel should be subject to further evaluation as to the potential effects on the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and Regional Transportation Strategy based on the Province’s technical information on project scope and performance. b) request the TransLink Board provide Metro Vancouver with technical analysis and commentary on the potential transportation and emissions implications of expanding transportation capacity on the George Massey Tunnel corridor and effects with proximate Fraser River watercrossings, including tolling and non- tolling scenarios, and the degree of consistency and support the proposed bridge would have on the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, the Regional Transportation Strategy, and Regional Goods Movement Strategy.
5.4 Manager’s Report Designated Speaker: Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment That the Transportation Committee receive for information the Manager’s Report dated September 25, 2013.
6. INFORMATION ITEMS
6.1 Letter from City of Coquitlam re Regional Transportation Strategy, 2014 TransLink Base Plan, Pattullo Bridge Study and Northeast Area Transit Plan dated July 30, 2013.
6.2 Letter from Port Metro Vancouver re PMV Land Use Plan Update Phase 3a – Legacy Map Designation Feedback dated July 30, 2013.
6.3 Letter from City of Vancouver re Transit Referendum dated July 12, 2013.
6.4 Letter from City of Vancouver re Transit Plan for the Homeless dated July 11, 2013.
6.5 Conference Announcement re Moving the Future: A New Conversation about Transportation and the Economy
7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.
Transportation Committee Regular Agenda October 9, 2013 Agenda Page 4 of 4
8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No item presented.
9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION That the Transportation Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of October 9 2013.
Membership: Watts, Dianne (C) – Surrey Drew, Ralph – Belcarra Meggs, Geoff – Vancouver Jackson, Lois (VC) – Delta Fassbender, Peter – Langley City Mussatto, Darrell – North Vancouver City Brodie, Malcolm – Richmond Forrest, Mike – Port Coquitlam Walton, Richard – North Vancouver District Clay, Mike – Port Moody Harris, Maria – Electoral Area A Wright, Wayne – New Westminster Corrigan, Derek – Burnaby
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Transportation Committee held at 12:37 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2013 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond (departed at 3:06 p.m.) Director Mike Clay, Port Moody (arrived at 12:37 p.m.) Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Councillor Mike Forrest, Port Coquitlam Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver (arrived at 12:49 p.m.) Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Peter Fassbender, Langley City Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A
STAFF PRESENT: Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer/General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Corporate Services
OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Holmes, Alternate Director, Electoral Area A
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 June 20, 2013 Regular Meeting Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for June 20, 2013 as circulated. CARRIED
2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
12:37 p.m. Director Clay arrived at the meeting.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Transportation Committee held on Thursday, June 20, 2013 Page 1 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 1
2.1 April 18, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held April 18, 2013 as circulated. CARRIED
3. DELEGATIONS
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee hear the late delegation Shauna Sylvester, Executive Director, SFU Carbon Talks. CARRIED
3.1 Shauna Sylvester, Executive Director, SFU Carbon Talks Shauna Sylvester, Executive Director, Carbon Talks – SFU Centre for Dialogue, introduced a revised SFU Carbon Talks project, focused on road pricing, and presented the objectives of the project; the importance of community engagement; the role of the SFU Centre for Dialogue; the proposed role of Metro Vancouver; and a revised funding request.
On-table presentation material is retained with the June 20, 2013 Transportation Committee agenda.
12:49 p.m. Director Meggs arrived at the meeting.
Discussion ensued on: · The importance of a dialogue and community engagement and education on the issue · Consortium members · The need for engagement and leadership by the provincial and federal government · Concern about the limited resources to respond to public concerns that may be triggered by the project
4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS
4.1 David Colledge, Colledge Transportation Consulting Inc. David Colledge, President, Colledge Transportation Consulting Inc., provided a presentation titled “Understanding the Demand Outlook for Goods Movement in Metropolitan Vancouver”, highlighting the following: · The nature of transportation demand · Global trade routes and North American gateways · The role of exports and imports in the region · 2012 non-container and container traffic
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Transportation Committee held on Thursday, June 20, 2013 Page 2 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 2
· Port Metro Vancouver’s 2012 commodity profile · Key considerations for commodity and container outlook · 2020 Port Metro Vancouver’s container projections · Conclusions: o Goods movement growth is being driven by international demand for resources and the demand for household and consumer goods due to population growth. o The most rapid growth is with the vast markets of Asia where most of the global growth is expected to occur. o The demand outlook is volatile and complex reflecting changing economic conditions, trade relationships/policies, shifting demographics and community values. o Responding effectively to the growth challenges will require better dialogue and coordination between local governments and private/port sector interests. o Getting the facts on the table is a necessary first step o Proponents and local governments benefit by engaging in regular dialogue to improve understanding, build trust and to resolve issues in a collaborative manner.
Presentation material is retained with the June 20, 2013 Transportation Committee agenda.
Comments were provided on the following: · Consider extending the data to a 10-year term (rather than using a 5-year data range) · It would be useful to see how the changes in commercial interest impact Metro Vancouver’s regional transportation infrastructure · Truck traffic and container movement in communities is another issue that should also be taken into consideration · One of the challenges of the regional goods movement prognostics is that it is influenced by many variables · Concern about information received by the City of Burnaby contradicting the results presented by Colledge Transportation Consulting · Concern about Port Metro Vancouver being led by economic interest and convenience of companies rather than by an overall interest of the province and the country · Concern about the use of the port not being maximized · Suggestion that the Committee assesses the location and the use of ports so that its operations have the least environmental impact · Railways and other private sector stakeholders need to contribute to infrastructure funding from which they benefit, they need to provide their infrastructure renewal plan
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Transportation Committee held on Thursday, June 20, 2013 Page 3 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 3
In response to questions or comments, the Committee was informed about the following: · Main market that Port Metro Vancouver serves is container traffic · Vast majority of goods in the region are handled by train · 50% of imported containers are handled by trucks for local distribution or for handling in re-load centres · Fraser Surrey Docks is underutilized; more effective use of the Fraser Surrey Docks would reduce truck traffic across the region · Port Metro Vancouver’s resources need to be better utilized prior to proceeding with port expansion
4.2 Robert Paddon, Executive VP, Strategic Planning and Public Affairs, TransLink Robert Paddon, Executive Vice President, Strategic Planning and Public Affairs, TransLink, provided an update on the Goods Movement Strategy, highlighting the following: · Related studies released by TransLink since 2008 · Recent goods movement investments in Metro Vancouver · Feedback received from the public consultation · Framework pertaining to TransLink’s infrastructure plans; research; information, awareness building and leadership; and facilitation and coordination with TransLink’s partners · Goods movement strategy development timelines
Members’ inquired about the following: · TransLink’s plan, if any, to include as part of the study potential for use of the river (barge shipment) · Statistics pertaining to truck traffic across the border
4.3 Robert Paddon, Executive VP, Strategic Planning and Public Affairs, TransLink Robert Paddon, Executive Vice President, Strategic Planning and Public Affairs, TransLink, highlighted the following from the presentation pertaining to the Draft Strategic Framework for Consultation: · Metro Vancouver is a polycentric region, travel is moving across Metro Vancouver in much different patterns than in any other region · Investment in the magnitude of $23 billion would be necessary over the next 30 years to meet all transportation needs · It is unlikely that the target pertaining to travel mode shift will be met · Transportation pricing is the preferred funding alternative · It is important that land use is taken into consideration in transportation planning · Trip distances reduction by 1/3 would result in more compound communities, protection of green zone, reduction of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and improved human health · Emphasis of the plan are on the principles of affordability
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Transportation Committee held on Thursday, June 20, 2013 Page 4 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 4
Presentation material is retained with the June 20, 2013 Transportation Committee agenda.
Discussion ensued on the following: · road pricing: o status of the road pricing study being prepared by TransLink o funding necessary to undertake a comprehensive study o type of road pricing envisioned by TransLink o examples of road pricing implemented by other North American jurisdictions · The role of the TransLink board versus local government elected officials in dealing with public transportation issues · The decision-making role of the province in preparation of TransLink’s plans · Whether municipal projects are screened by TransLink for potential inclusion in an implementation plan; the benefits of input of municipal transportation staff · The role of Metro Vancouver and the Transportation Committee
5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
5.1 Comments on Regional Transportation Strategy Framework On-table report dated June 19, 2013, from Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer/General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing a progress update to prepare the first in a series of goods movement fact sheets to inform deliberation by the Transportation Committee. The Committee may choose to provide comments to staff on the content and fit of the draft fact sheet prior to being finalized.
Presentation material is retained with the June 20, 2013 Transportation Committee agenda.
The Committee proposed the following changes to the report: · under section “3. headline targets”, relate comments pertaining to multiple- occupancy vehicles with actions to reduce distances driven by one-third · Pertaining to transportation demand management, include consideration of shifting timing from peak to off hours; this could increase capacity significantly · Under section “4. Strategic Investments”, replace a “call for projects” with “identification of issues” · The provincial and federal government should co-lead the road pricing study · Insert a statement that “parking is a municipal work”
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Transportation Committee held on Thursday, June 20, 2013 Page 5 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 5
Discussion ensued and/or comments were also provided on the following: · The need for inclusion of all partners in the decision-making process · Concerns about the lack of senior transportation funding · Timing and the extent of the road pricing study · Clarification of timelines for completion of the Regional Transportation Strategy and the implementation guidelines
Concerns were expressed about the lack of appropriate time to review and consult on the report with municipal council and staff. The Committee requested that the report be referred back to staff and staff be directed to convene a special Committee meeting in July to further consider the strategy.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee refer the report titled “Comments on TransLink’s Regional Transportation Strategy – Draft Strategic Framework for Consultation” dated June 19, 2013 back to staff for further consideration. CARRIED
Request of Staff Staff was requested to convene a special Transportation Committee meeting in July 2013 to further discuss the TransLink’s Regional Transportation Strategy – Draft Strategic Framework.
5.2 Progress Update on Goods Movement Fact Sheet Report dated June 14, 2013, from Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing a progress update to prepare the first in a series of goods movement fact sheets to inform deliberation by the Transportation Committee. The Committee may choose to provide comments to staff on the content and fit of the draft fact sheet prior to being finalized.
Concerns were expressed about information related to ports being supplied by involved parties. Concerns were expressed about costs incurred by local government as a result of port and related activities.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee receive for information the report dated June 14, 2013, titled “Progress Update on Goods Movement Fact Sheet“ and direct staff to report back on feasibility of a study pertaining to best utilization of port in Metro Vancouver and on regulatory tools available to proponents to contribute funding to work that needs to be carried out in support of the proponents’ activities. CARRIED Director Drew absent at the vote.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Transportation Committee held on Thursday, June 20, 2013 Page 6 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 6
5.3 Process for Monitoring and Reviewing Regionally Significant Infrastructure Projects Report dated June 10, 2013, from Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing additional information on the approach for bringing forward regionally significant infrastructure projects to the Transportation Committee for review and comment as appropriate.
3:06 p.m. Director Brodie departed the meeting.
Discussion ensued on the potential of establishing a transportation staff advisory committee.
Request of Staff Staff was requested to raise the potential for establishing a staff transportation advisory committee at a future Regional Administrative Advisory Committee meeting.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee receive for information the report dated June 10, 2013, titled “Process for Monitoring and Reviewing Regionally Significant Infrastructure Projects”. CARRIED
5.4 Metro Vancouver Applied Transportation Research Update Report dated June 10, 2013, from Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, updating the Committee on several applied transportation research initiatives that Metro Vancouver is undertaking to support the Transportation Committee.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee receive for information the report dated June 10, 2013, titled “Metro Vancouver Applied Transportation Research Update”. CARRIED
5.5 Manager’s Report Report dated June 13, 2013, from Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer/General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing an update on the SFU Carbon Talks “Moving in a Livable Region” and the Transportation Forum on Goods Movement.
Discussion ensued on the SFU Carbon Talks funding request presented earlier at the meeting.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Transportation Committee held on Thursday, June 20, 2013 Page 7 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 7
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board approve a one-time $15,000 grant to the SFU Centre for Dialogue to design and conduct community consultations on regional road pricing. CARRIED
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee receive the report dated June 13, 2013, titled “Manager’s Report” for information. CARRIED
6. INFORMATION ITEMS
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee receive for information the following information item: 6.1 Letter dated April 4, 2013 to Chair Moore from TransLink. CARRIED
7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.
8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.
9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee conclude its regular meeting of June 20, 2013. CARRIED (Time: 3:15 p.m.)
______Klara Kutakova, Dianne Watts, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees
7546334 FINAL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Transportation Committee held on Thursday, June 20, 2013 Page 8 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 8
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT REGIONAL PLANNING AND AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE JOINT MEETING
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Transportation Committee held at 9:06 a.m. on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia, to discuss TransLink’s Regional Transportation Strategy.
Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee: PRESENT Chair, Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby* Vice Chair, Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Mike Clay, Port Moody* (arrived at 9:56 a.m.) Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Jack Froese, Langley Township Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City* (departed at 11:31 a.m.) Councillor Kerri Palmer Isaak, Anmore Councillor Ian Paton, Delta Director Michael Smith, West Vancouver Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster*
MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Councillor Brad West, Port Coquitlam
Transportation Committee: MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Vice Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Mike Clay, Port Moody* (arrived at 9:56 a.m.) Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby* Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City* (departed at 11:31 a.m.) Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster*
* member serves on both, Regional Planning and Agriculture and Transportation Committees
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Transportation Committee held on Friday, July 23, 2013 Page 1 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 9
MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Peter Fassbender, Langley City Councillor Mike Forrest, Port Coquitlam
ALSO PRESENT: Board Chair, Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam
STAFF PRESENT: Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer/General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Corporate Services
Director Watts, Chair, Transportation Committee, chaired the meeting.
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 July 23, 2013 Special Joint Meeting Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee and Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee adopt the agenda for the special joint meeting scheduled for July 23, 2013 as circulated. CARRIED
2. INVITED PRESENTATIONS
2.1 Bob Paddon, Executive VP, Strategic Planning and Public Affairs, TransLink Bob Paddon, Executive VP, Strategic Planning and Public Affairs, TransLink, presented the results of TransLink’s consultation to date and the evolution of the Regional Transportation Strategy Framework, highlighting the following: · consultation carried out on the Regional Transportation Strategy by TransLink since June 2013 · correlation between the regional growth strategy and transportation planning · population growth forecast and TransLink’s proposed strategy to accommodate the growth · shift in transportation management, investments and partnership · the updated vision · benefits of a 50% target of trips by walking, cycling and transit · links between Transport 2021 and the Regional Transportation Strategy
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Transportation Committee held on Friday, July 23, 2013 Page 2 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 10
· connections between the Regional Transportation Strategy and the Regional Growth Strategy · consultation and collaboration with agencies since November 2011 to July 2013 · findings of the consultation process · key timelines
Concerns were expressed about: · TransLink’s comments about the lack of investment in the system (despite the legislated 3% annual property tax increase and dedicated gas tax funding); request for more funding may not be realistic in this economic climate · the consultation process: o low number of on-line respondents o the lack of a broader consultation with municipalities and the public o transit users not being consulted o consulting with the wrong people about what the system should deliver; the lack of information to make high quality decisions about where to allocate the resources · the lack of transportation projects prioritization · inaccuracies of the employment statistics and employment areas in the maps provided in the strategy · insufficient/lacking transportation services, length of commute/number of transfers in many areas across the region · segregation of land use planning and transportation · potential short timeframe for a referendum advocacy program · targets in the plan do not resonate with commuters
Comments were provided on the following: · the need to better define the benefits not just for the transit users but also for commuters that need to use an automobile · the importance/benefits of the frequent transit network · integrated urban mobility · the need to make transit more affordable and attractive
In response to questions and comments, members were informed about the following: · TransLink’s challenges to fund the existing services, articulated in the Base Plan · 3% legislated increase of property taxes dedicated to TransLink translates to 1% increase in revenues for TransLink · fuel tax revenue decline · consultation carried out by TransLink, including meetings with stakeholders, panel discussions, and engagement of municipalities
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Transportation Committee held on Friday, July 23, 2013 Page 3 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 11
· appropriate funding sources will be identified as part of the long-term plan preparation · working in partnership and achieving the most productivity of the existing system is the key elements of the strategy · the decline in the property tax revenue is approximately 4 million annually · the needs of additional funding capacity to fund the existing services has been raised with the Minister and his staff · referendum may not be linked to the 2014 municipal election date; referendum question has not been determined yet · the need for better data sources for employment travel data · the goods movement strategy will be completed in fall 2013 · Directors Walton and Wright meeting with the Minister in the upcoming week to discuss matters pertaining to the referendum
Presentation material is retained with July 23, 2013 Special Joint Meeting of the Transportation Committee and Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee agenda.
9:56 a.m. Director Clay arrived at the meeting.
3. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
3.1 Updated Comments on the Regional Transportation Strategy Framework Report dated July 17, 2013, from Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer/General Manager, and Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing formal comments on the draft Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS) Framework.
Presentation material is retained with July 23, 2013 Special Joint Meeting of the Transportation Committee and Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee agenda.
Committee members suggested the following additional changes to the report: · under comment #3, add a headline target for “the reduction in single- occupancy vehicles” · under comment #5, replace the reference to “rapidly growing suburban parts of the region” with ”rapidly growing cities” · under comment #6, maintain the originally-proposed language pertaining to regional priorities, as outlined in the June 20, 2013 staff report (the original recommendation reads as follows: “Figure 2 in the Strategic Framework should be amended to remove the “confirmed regional priorities”, and instead be labeled as “study corridors for potential rapid transit expansion”. They and other regional priorities that emerge from forthcoming dialogues and technical analysis will be confirmed through the preparation of the Implementation Plan.”)
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Transportation Committee held on Friday, July 23, 2013 Page 4 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 12
· under Comment #9: o revise the titled to “Demand-Side Management” o replace the characterization of the Mayors’ Council position on “road pricing” with “integrated mobility pricing”
Committee members suggested the following additional comments on the Regional Transportation Strategy Framework: · TransLink to include maps depicting journey-to-work patterns and key employment nodes to replace Figure 3 titled “Existing and Future Projected Population & Employment Density, indicating areas where transit demand is expected to grow” · TransLink to outline conditions that need to be met by municipalities in order to receive transportation services · TransLink to outline transportation solutions for accommodating travel past agricultural areas, which by its nature have a lower density
Committee members also commented on the following: · the importance of integrated planning; the integration regional priorities and senior government priorities during the implementation phase · buses as the most effective way for moving people; the need for communities to accommodate/prioritize buses, such as through dedicated bus lanes and synchronized traffic lights). Seek TransLink’s input on where municipalities are failing to provide priority for buses · capital cost analysis pertaining to bus acquisition need to take into consideration municipalities that will be over capacity in near future · consider whether the traffic congestion in the Massey Tunnel corridor could be alleviated by funding more buses in the area and by working with Port Metro Vancouver on alternative goods movement in the affected area; more technical analysis needed · the need for TransLink to prioritize projects; TransLink needs to provide informed, objective recommendations · the Fraser Valley Regional District should be involved in future discussions about regional road pricing given the interregional travel that takes place between the two regional districts
The Committee was informed that comments from the meeting will be included in a report that will forwarded to the Board.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board convey the comments in this report on the draft Regional Transportation Strategy Framework to the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation. CARRIED Director Wright absent at the vote.
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Transportation Committee held on Friday, July 23, 2013 Page 5 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 13
3.2 Phase 3 Consultation Comments on Draft Elements of Port Metro Vancouver’s Land Use Plan Update Report dated July 15, 2013, from Raymond Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing an update on the range of technical comments staff intends to submit to Port Metro Vancouver as feedback for the current consultation on the draft elements of the Port’s Land Use Plan Update.
Committee members commented on the following: · concern about the expansion of port activities to farmland · the need for better utilization of the existing Port Metro Vancouver industrial land · the need for a shift in timing of port-related movement of goods and services; concern about labour relations issues associated with the suggestion and the impact on businesses · truck parking issue; request that truck parking be accommodated on Port Metro Vancouver lands · ports as an important job creator · assistance provided by local governments to Port Metro Vancouver · the need for more clarity pertaining to Massey Tunnel replacement project · the lack of planning relative to the impact of ports operations on neighbouring lands · the need for better utilization of inland ports and railways in goods movement · concern about environmental assessment of port activities being carried out by Port Metro Vancouver
11:31 a.m. Director Mussatto departed the meeting.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee and Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee: a) receive for information the report titled Phase 3 Consultation Comments on Draft Elements of Port Metro Vancouver’s Land Use Plan Update dated July 15, 2013; and b) recommend that the Board: 1. reiterate its strong objection to the use of agricultural land for port purposes, and insist that the Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan confirm that agricultural land will not be used for Port Metro Vancouver’s current needs nor expansion; 2. recommend that Port Metro Vancouver expansion in the region will take place on industrially zoned properties; and 3. write a letter to Port Metro Vancouver, the Ministry of Transport Canada, the BC Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission advising of the Board’s position. CARRIED
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Transportation Committee held on Friday, July 23, 2013 Page 6 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 14
Request of Staff Staff was requested to preface its letter by highlighting the importance of agriculture as an economic driver for the region.
3.3 Manager’s Report Report dated July 5, 2013, from Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer and General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment, informing about the Pattullo Bridge review.
Regarding the Pattullo Bridge review, concerns were expressed about: · additional traffic to Burnaby and other communities · the discrepancies between the original and current provincial assessment of the bridge conditions · funding sources · the project not fitting in the regional priorities, the project competing with other TransLink’s priorities
Request of Staff Staff was requested to draft a report pertaining to the matter, including information on the condition of the Pattullo Bridge prior to the bridge transfer from the Province to TransLink.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee and Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receive for information the Manager’s Report dated July 5, 2013. CARRIED
4. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee and Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee close the special joint meeting scheduled for July 23, 2013 pursuant to the Community Charter provision(s), Section 90 (1) (k) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a regional district service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the board or committee, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district if they were held in public.” CARRIED
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Transportation Committee held on Friday, July 23, 2013 Page 7 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 15
5. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Transportation Committee and Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee adjourn the special joint meeting of July 23, 2013. CARRIED (Time: 11:45 a.m.)
______Klara Kutakova, Dianne Watts, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees
7649373 FINAL Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the GVRD Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Transportation Committee held on Friday, July 23, 2013 Page 8 of 8 TRANSPORTATION - 16
PRESENTATION SUMMARY
The concept envisioned by PAPA is in its early stages of feasibility and development. Essentially, the concept involves the construction of a new container port in the Alberni Inlet to capture, sort, and deliver by barge a significant percentage of ocean cargo passing by our region. Much of this cargo is currently destined for the Lower Mainland where it experiences significant off loading and trucking delays or to ports in the states of Washington, Oregon and California where the economic gain to Canada is lost.
PAPA’s concept will dramatically increase the efficiencies of the logistics chain by receiving and delivering containers just when needed, just where needed and increase the capacity of the overall Asia-Pacific Canada Gateway network.
Some of the benefits to communities other than Port Alberni include:
1. Reducing traffic congestion, wear and tear throughout Lower Mainland infrastructure 2. Reducing traffic congestion will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 3. Reducing number of ship calls and time spent in BC Waters, which also leads to less GHG in coastal BC’s atmosphere 4. Capitalizing on underutilized facilities along the Fraser River by maximizing its potential as a “marine highway” 5. Utilizing more container handling facilities in the Vancouver Harbour and along the Fraser River 6. Diversification and strengthening of BC’s and Canada’s economy 7. In Comparison to the Terminal 2 project, Port Alberni’s proposal will result in much smaller environmental impact to land utilization and community exposure
During our presentation we also plan on providing further details on PAPA’s other related goals for bulk and liquefied natural (LNG) shipment.
We are seeking Metro Vancouver’s support for this concept which will assist in advancing this beneficial project.
TRANSPORTATION - 17 5.1
To: Transportation Committee
From: Ray Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department
Date: September 25, 2013 Meeting Date: October 9, 2013
Subject: Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
RECOMMENDATION That the Board convey its support for the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook to the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation.
PURPOSE This report provides comments and a recommendation regarding TransLink’s draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook (Attachment).
BACKGROUND TransLink is required under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act to adopt a base plan and outlook document each year. TransLink must set out the relationship between the major actions planned in the base plan and regional objectives, and to consult with Metro Vancouver. This document must be submitted to the Regional Transportation Commissioner for review and to the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation for information no later than November 1st of each year. Mayors’ Council action is required only for a supplemental plan. The TransLink Board will consider the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook for approval on October 30.
The base plan identifies all anticipated expenditures, including transportation services and major capital projects, to be funded with approved revenue sources. It also identifies borrowing limits and accumulated surpluses. The affected period is 2014-2016. The outlook component identifies the transportation services and major capital projects for the period 2017-2023. It is TransLink’s practice to forecast only expenditures fundable by approved revenue sources in its outlook.
DISCUSSION The draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook is in essence a one-year increment on the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook. This report highlights some of the key items from the plan, including commentary as appropriate.
Financial Element Highlights · TransLink’s budgeted revenues will grow from $1.421 billion in 2013 to $1.608 billion in 2016. · The cumulative funded surplus is forecast to remain above TransLink’s policy level of 12% if the sales of real estate assets proceed in 2016 and 2017. The amount of proceeds from the sale of assets is deemed a medium to high risk. · Transit fares will be raised in 2015 after the full roll-out of the Compass farecard system. TransLink is allowed to increase short-term fares by a maximum of 2% per year without seeking the approval of the Regional Transportation commissioner. TransLink anticipates 7878062 TRANSPORTATION - 18 Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 2 of 4
implementing the next incremental fare increase in 2015. Fare revenue is deemed a medium risk. For example, a 1% rise in ridership will result in an additional $5 million per year in revenue. Transit fare revenue as a share of all revenues is expected to increase from 35% today to 39% by 2023. If it isn’t doing already, TransLink should work towards designs to leverage the Compass farecard system in the future to increase ridership and fare revenues. · Property tax revenue will continue to grow by 3% per year as permitted in the legislation. Property tax revenue as a share of all revenues is expected to remain relatively stable (20- 22%) over the horizon of the outlook. · Fuel tax revenue is deemed a high risk revenue source. Fuel tax revenue as a share of all revenues is forecast to decline from 24% today to 18% by 2023.
Investment Element Highlights · The 2014 Base Plan and Outlook maintains investments introduced in prior base plans: o 109,000 additional transit service hours introduced in the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook have been fully implemented and will remain funded; o The King George Boulevard 96 B-Line commenced service in September 2013; o The Highway 1 rapid bus commenced service in December 2012; o TransLink will provides its share of contribution to the Evergreen Line; and, o Upgrades to the Expo Line SkyTrain stations are in progress.
· The 2013 Base Plan and Outlook allocated $150 million for the rehabilitation of the Pattullo Bridge. TransLink is proposing to increase the allocation to $299 million based on updated cost information. For 2014, $22 million is budgeted for additional engineering design work to refine the scope of rehabilitation and potentially commence physical work. The majority of the physical work would commence in 2015.
According to TransLink, a full rehabilitation of the existing bridge would involve replacing the deck, which would then have a useful life of 25-30 years, and upgrading the seismic robustness of the structure (but not to current standards). The actual scope and amount of money that will be spent on rehabilitating the bridge depends on the results of the engineering design analysis in 2014 and the outcome of the Pattullo Bridge Strategic Review Study. The Study is anticipated to yield a preferred solution in 2014 in conjunction with the preparation of the Regional Transportation Strategy. If the Study yields a preferred funded solution for a new bridge, then TransLink would seek to minimize the rehabilitation investment in the existing bridge. At face value, staff believes this is a prudent course of action in light of the current pace to systematically evaluate and identify a preferred solution. TransLink should ensure that maximum flexibility is preserved to modify and reallocate these committed funds should the preferred solution be a new bridge.
TRANSPORTATION - 19 Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 3 of 4
· TransLink also identifies a list of “unfunded needs”.1 While the list identified in the plan is useful as a reminder that much work remains to improve the regional transportation system, it would be more useful if the plan instead framed that a more complete list of unfunded needs will be identified, evaluated, and prioritized during the preparation of the Implementation Plan for the Regional Transportation Strategy.
ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board convey its support for the 2014 Base and Outlook to the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation. 2. That the Board provide additional comments to the TransLink Board on the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS It is the role of the Regional Transportation Commissioner to provide detailed comments on the reasonableness of the assumptions and parameters used by TransLink in the development of the base plan and outlook.
If the Board approves Alternative 1, it is indicating support for the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook which essentially maintains current levels of investment in the regional transportation system and current revenue streams. For example, the motor fuel tax will remain at 17 cents/Litre, the property tax revenues will grow at 3% per year as permitted in the legislation, and transit fares will be raised in 2015 within the allowable range permitted in the legislation.
The 2014 Base Plan and Outlook presents a stable scenario for TransLink in the near-term as it works through the preparation of the Regional Transportation Strategy and a commitment by the Province to carry out a transportation funding referendum in 2014. TransLink’s 2014 Base Plan and Outlook demonstrates continued improvements to maximizing transit efficiencies, maintaining assets in a state of good repair, continuing with the necessary work to modernize transit assets, and preparing the system for the Evergreen Line. There are worrisome elements in the plan, such as the static level of transit service hours in a growing region, the declining sustainability of fuel tax revenues, the continued operating subsidy for the Golden Ears Bridge, and the planned sale of real estate assets that is required to maintain a minimum cumulative funded surplus. Also, within the 3- year base plan period, a new agreement will be reached on the Federal Gas Tax allocation to the region – the provisions for which may look different from the current agreement.
If the Board chooses Alternative 2, it may wish to convey other comments on the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook and advise the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council accordingly.
REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS Overall, the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook provides support for the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy by holding steady transit service hours and continuing to make progress on maintaining assets in a state of good repair, and making strategic infrastructure upgrades. But the pace of new investment to expand the Frequent Transit Network, and to provide greater cycling,
1 Example: Additional bus service hours, 15-minute SeaBus all week, Lonsdale Quay upgrades, additional SkyTrain cars, improvements to capacity and reliability on the Broadway 99 B-Line, etc.
TRANSPORTATION - 20 Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 4 of 4
walking, and multiple-occupancy vehicle choices must increase soon. The implication is that transportation patterns and today’s land use decisions may be irreversibly locked in to the most convenient way to travel in the region today – by car, and this will be detrimental to the development of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION TransLink is consulting with Metro Vancouver on the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook. TransLink must submit an approved document to the Regional Transportation Commissioner by November 1, 2013. No action is required by the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation. It is anticipated that the TransLink Board will consider the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook for approval on October 30. The 2014 Base Plan and Outlook, while not proposing any expansion of the transportation system in general, remains aligned with past approved base plans, and supports the Regional Growth Strategy’s goal of providing sustainable transportation choices. The focus must remain on developing transportation strategies to support the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy and other regional objectives, including goods movement, and continuing the dialogue on long-term sustainable transportation funding. Staff recommends Alternative 1.
ATTACHMENT TransLink’s draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook (Orbit #7914266).
TRANSPORTATION - 21 2014 Base Plan and Outlook DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION
Transportation & Financial Plan for 2014 to 2016 and Outlook for 2017 to 2023
October 3, 2013 TRANSPORTATION - 22
ii Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook TransLink Board Members Nancy Olewiler, Board Chair Howard Nemtin, Board Vice-Chair Robin Chakrabarti Rick Christiaanse Lorraine Cunningham W. John Dawson Barry Forbes Don Rose Marcella Szel
About TransLink The South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (“TransLink”) is Metro Vancouver’s regional transportation authority. TransLink is responsible for regional transit, cycling, roads, goods movement and commuting options, as well as AirCare and Intelligent Transportation System programs. Transit services are delivered through operating companies, including Coast Mountain Bus Company, British Columbia Rapid Transit Company and third-party contractors. TransLink also shares responsibility for the Major Road Network (MRN) and regional cycling with its municipal partners in Metro Vancouver. TransLink is the first North American transportation authority to be responsible for planning, financing and managing all public transit in addition to major regional roads, bridges and cycling.
About the 2014 Base Plan Under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act (“SCBCTA Act”), TransLink is required to prepare a three-year base plan and seven-year outlook every year. The base plan is guided by TransLink’s long-term transportation strategy, and aims to support progress toward the Provincial Transit Plan, Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), provincial greenhouse gas reduction targets and municipal plans. The base plan, as modified by any supplemental plans approved by the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation, forms TransLink’s strategic plan for that year.
This document constitutes TransLink’s 2014 Transportation and Financial Base Plan and Outlook (“2014 Base Plan”). The 2014 Base Plan is an update to the 2013 Strategic Plan (the 2013 Base Plan as modified by the 2013 Supplemental Plan). It identifies the strategic initiatives, programs, investments and services that TransLink intends to pursue from 2014 through 2016 (the “plan period”), drawing only on established funding resources. It also identifies the services TransLink plans to provide and the major capital projects TransLink plans to complete from 2017 through 2023 (the “outlook period”).
Caution regarding forward-looking statements From time to time, TransLink makes written and/or oral forward-looking statements, including in this document and in other communications. In addition, representatives of TransLink may make forward-looking statements orally to analysts, investors, the media and others.
Forward-looking statements, by their nature, require TransLink to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risk and uncertainties. In light of the uncertainty related to the financial, economic and regulatory environments, such risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond TransLink’s control, and the effects of which can be difficult to predict, may cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements.
TRANSPORTATION - 23
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary and Context 1 What’s in the Plan 2 Funding the Plan 4 A Renewed Vision: Regional Transportation Strategy 5 Looking Ahead 7 1. Invest Strategically 9 Transit Services 9 Roads, Bridges and Bicycle Investment Program 13 Summary of Capital Expenditures 17 Unfunded Needs 18 2. Manage the System 21 Transit Services 21 AirCare 23 Multi-Modal Programs 24 TransLink Corporate and Transit Police 25 Efficiencies 27 3. Partner to Make It Happen 28 Getting Land Use Right 28 The Goods Movement Strategy 28 Real Estate Program 29 Pass Programs 29 4. Funding the Plan: Revenue Sources 30 User Fees 30 Taxation Sources 32 Senior Government Contributions 33 Interest Income 35 5. Achieving Our Goals 36 Outcomes 36 Key Performance Indicators 41 6. Conclusion 44 Appendix A: Financial Information 46 Debt Service 46 Funding Adjustment 46 Cash Flow Statement 47 Balance Sheet 47 Key Assumptions 48 Risk Assessment and Sensitivity Analyses 49 Appendix B: Financial Tables 51 Appendix C: Consultation 60
TRANSPORTATION - 24 iv Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
TABLES Table 1: Total Transit Service Hours by Service Type (thousands) ...... 9 Table 2: Transit Operations Expenditure Forecasts (millions) ...... 10 Table 3: Overview of Station Upgrades for Which Capital Funding Is Secured ...... 12 Table 4: Summary of Roads Capital Expenditures (millions) ...... 13 Table 5: Summary of Roads Operating Expenditures (millions) ...... 14 Table 6: 2014 to 2016 Capital Cash Flow (thousands) ...... 18 Table 7: Major Capital Projects in the 2014 Base Plan (thousands) ...... 18 Table 8: TransLink Corporate and Transit Police Expenditures (millions) ...... 26 Table 9: Efficiency Measures in the 2013 Base Plan and 2014 Base Plan* (millions) ...... 27 Table 10: Summary of Revenues (millions) ...... 30 Table 11: Transit Revenue Projections (millions) ...... 31 Table 12: Golden Ears Bridge Toll Rates (July 2013–July 2014) ...... 32 Table 13: Property Tax Projections (millions) ...... 33 Table 14: Senior Government Contribution Forecasts for Capital and Operations (millions) ...... 34 Table 15: Ridership Forecasts (millions) ...... 37 Table 16: Key Performance Indicators ...... 42 Table 17: Debt Service Expense (millions) ...... 46 Table 18: Funding Adjustments (millions)...... 47 Table 19: Key Assumptions for the 2014 Base Plan ...... 49 Table 20: Consolidated Statement of Financial Position (thousands) ...... 51 Table 21: Statement of Operations (millions) ...... 52 Table 22: Funded Statement of Operations (millions) ...... 53 Table 23: Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows (thousands) ...... 54 Table 24: Projected Borrowing Compared to Borrowing Limit and Select Financial Ratios (millions) ...... 55 Table 25: Capital Cash Flows – Projects Approved and Proposed (thousands) ...... 56 Table 26: Transit Service Hours (thousands)...... 57 Table 27: Schedule of Golden Ears Bridge Toll Rates ...... 58 Table 28: Schedule of Transit Fares ...... 59 FIGURES Figure 1: RTS Strategic Framework ...... 6 Figure 2: Regional Weekday Mode Share from the 2011 Trip Diary ...... 36 Figure 3: Transit Mode Share Trends and Forecasts ...... 37 Figure 4: Percentage Change in Personal Vehicle Kilometers Travelled Through the Plan and Outlook Periods ...... 40 Figure 5: Cumulative Funded Surplus Level Forecasts for 2013 through 2023 ...... 47 Figure 6: Debt Level ...... 48
TRANSPORTATION - 25
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 1
SUMMARY AND CONTEXT
As the first transportation authority in North America to integrate management of regional transit, roads, cycling, and goods movement, it is TransLink’s mandate to plan and provide for the transportation needs of Metro Vancouver residents and businesses. This includes daily commuters, periodic travellers and the goods haulers who support regional and national economic prosperity. TransLink also has a statutory responsibility to produce a three-year Base Plan and seven-year Outlook, annually. Development of the Base Plan and Outlook must be guided by TransLink’s long term transportation strategy. The Base Plan and Outlook also aims to support the Provincial Transit Plan, Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy, provincial greenhouse gas reduction targets and associated municipal plans.
This 2014 Base Plan and Outlook shows TransLink to be performing well and under budget for 2013, and despite revenue challenges, meeting the commitments laid out in last year’s plans. On the transit side, TransLink’s bus, SeaBus, SkyTrain, and West Coast Express services continue to earn an all-time high customer-satisfaction rating of 7.7 out of 10. The ongoing management of the Major Road Network continues to improve regional traffic flow, and facilitate the timely and reliable movement of goods and services. And TransLink is having continued success in partnering with municipalities to improve and connect cycling infrastructure.
Given that TransLink’s principal sources of revenue are limited by statute (in the case of transit fares and property taxes) or projected to decline (in the case of fuel tax revenue), the major challenge in the Plan and Outlook period will be to extend TransLink’s success in improving service through efficiencies. While the TransLink rapid transit network continues to expand with the construction of the 11-kilometre Evergreen Line from Lougheed Town Centre to Lafarge Lake-Douglas Station in Coquitlam, this Plan anticipates no further expansion in bus, SeaBus or West Coast Express services. Similarly, on the Major Road Network, the Base Plan concentrates on maintaining the safety and serviceability of current infrastructure, and integrating new elements (such as the South Fraser Perimeter Road) smoothly as they come on stream.
Metro Vancouver residents and businesses have high expectations for their transportation network and great aspirations for its future; there are numerous pressing projects on the regional priority list. The region is also expected to welcome a million new residents, and support half a million new jobs, between now and 2045. As is evident in the Base Plan analysis of Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy and TransLink’s Regional Transportation Strategy, new funding sources will be needed to accommodate current demands and future growth. In that regard, the Provincial Government has mandated a public referendum in 2014 to help guide future funding decisions. This Base Plan offers a starting point from which to launch the referendum discussion.
TRANSPORTATION - 26
2 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
What’s in the Plan
TRANSIT
Operational Efficiency Since 2010, TransLink has consistently improved its operational efficiency: current operating costs per passenger are lower; revenue per passenger is higher; boardings per service hour are higher; and cost recovery has improved. These gains reflect a wide range of efficiency measures. For example, in 2012, TransLink’s Coast Mountain Bus Company reallocated 56,000 hours of bus service from under-utilized routes to areas of otherwise under-served high demand routes. This enabled TransLink to increase bus boardings per service hour by 3.4 per cent while at the same time reducing the cost per boarded passenger by 2.2 per cent.
Other efficiencies include the adjustment of schedules to reduce route and driver down time, the rightsizing of fleet vehicles to ensure the most appropriate and affordable vehicle is used on every route, and the centralizing of dispatch and administration. The new Hamilton Transit Centre in Richmond, which will be operational in 2015, will increase dispatch efficiency yet further.
In its custom transit services, TransLink successfully reduced the HandyDART fleet size by 14 vehicles (4%) while maintaining the same level of service. Under the Base Plan, HandyDART will reduce the fleet further this year, again while maintaining ridership.
Service Improvements As included in the 2013 Base Plan, TransLink has added 109,000 additional bus and SeaBus service hours this year, including the new King George Boulevard B‐Line service between Newton Exchange, Surrey City Centre and Guildford Town Centre. The Highway 1 Rapid Bus (route 555), connecting Carvolth Exchange and Braid SkyTrain Station over the new Port Mann Bridge, began operating in December 2012, and will be extended to Lougheed Town Centre SkyTrain Station once the Highway 1 ramps at Government Street are complete. And in 2016, service will commence on the Evergreen Line, connecting Lougheed Town Centre to Coquitlam.
Capital Expenditures Although no major new service expenditures are contemplated, the 2014 Base Plan includes significant expenditures for fleet improvement and capital upgrades for rapid transit, bus exchanges and park-and- ride assets. These include:
• $245.5 million for the replacement of conventional buses • $10.7 million for community shuttles • $156 million for the Expo Line upgrade
TRANSPORTATION - 27
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 3
Additional capital has also been set aside for trolley overhead system replacement.
Construction of the Evergreen Line is being led by the Province, with TransLink providing a financial contribution. Capital expenditures during the Base Plan period that will complement the new Evergreen Line include six new stations, bus exchanges, park and rides, and roadworks. These will be complete for the start of Evergreen Line operations in 2016. Operational changes will also adjust bus connections and improve the functionality of the West Coast Express, whose riders will have an option to connect to SkyTrain through the Evergreen Line.
Compass Card and Fare Gates TransLink is Beta testing the new Compass Card and Fare Gate system to optimize the transition to this new service option. The Compass Card, which will replace the current one-time use cards, is designed to increase customer convenience, improve fare collections (reducing fare evasion), improve safety and security, and improve service quality through data analysis.
Transit Police Improved efficiency has reduced Transit Police per-officer costs to among the lowest of any independent police agency in Metro Vancouver. In 2012, for example, Transit Police reduced overtime costs by 32 per cent and helped improve the perception of system safety by 16 per cent. The Base Plan proposes zero growth in the number of officers in the force.
MAJOR ROAD NETWORK
The 2014 Base Plan includes $25.7 million annually for Operating and Maintenance and $18.4 million annually for Rehabilitation of the Major Road Network, which includes more than 2,300 lane-kilometers of regionally significant roadways.
Pattullo Bridge The 2014 Base Plan identifies up to $299 million in funding for rehabilitation of the Pattullo Bridge. This funding level is higher than in the 2013 Base Plan to reflect new information about the state of the bridge deck, which will require rehabilitation sooner than previously expected. A joint review with municipal, regional and provincial partners is underway for the Pattullo Bridge. This review will define the most appropriate replacement or rehabilitation solution for the long term and will determine the scale of rehabilitation work to be undertaken in the near term. Public consultation on this review will continue into 2014.
Goods Movement TransLink is committed to providing an efficient Major Road Network and to making it easier and more convenient for people to move from personal automobiles to walking, cycling and transit, leaving the roads clearer for the movement of goods and services. TransLink is preparing a draft Goods Movement Strategy for a fall 2013 consultation on ways to foster collaboration and consistency on goods movement policies, regulations and strategies. These include investment, management and partnership activities. TransLink will then work with partners in 2014 on implementation.
Cycling The 2014 Base Plan includes $1.55 million annually for a cost-sharing program with municipalities in which TransLink contributes up to 50 per cent of capital costs for regional cycling upgrades. Also, TransLink has allocated funding to rehabilitate the BC Parkway, and construct secure bicycle parking
TRANSPORTATION - 28
4 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
structures to replace some of the aging bicycle lockers located at park and ride lots, transit exchanges and SkyTrain stations. Funding the Plan
TransLink has found efficiencies sufficient to come in under budget in the last fiscal year – and is on track to do so again this year. But population and inflation pressures are outstripping revenue increases, which has required special measures (including the sale of real estate assets) to stay within budget during the Base Plan and Outlook period.
Total annual revenues are expected to be $1.44 billion in 2014, rising to $1.60 billion in 2016.
REVENUES
Three sources of revenue comprise 80% of all available TransLink income: Transit Fares, $518 million in the 2014 budget; Fuel Taxes, $338 million; and Property Taxes, $305 million. Both Fares and Property Tax increases are limited by statute to a degree that is inadequate to keep pace with the combination of inflation and population growth. Fuel Tax revenue has been dramatically affected by the general move toward fuel-efficient vehicles, more walking, cycling and transit use, and leakage of fuel purchases to areas outside the region. There was a sharp decline in fuel consumption in Metro Vancouver in 2011 and 2012, a trend that is reflected in other parts of North America. Accordingly, TransLink has significantly lowered its forecast for fuel volume sales, anticipating a Fuel Tax revenue drop of $35 million during the Outlook period.
Although other sources of revenue are technically available, TransLink requires Provincial Government approval to access any of these. Accordingly, adding or increasing services – beyond what can be achieved through efficiency – must await the outcome of the 2014 referendum on public preference for new funding sources.
TRANSPORTATION - 29
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 5
A Renewed Vision: Regional Transportation Strategy
According to legislation, TransLink’s Base Plan and Outlook must be guided by its long-term Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS). In collaboration with governments, stakeholders and the public, TransLink recently updated that strategy, previously called Transport 2040. The resulting RTS Strategic Framework, approved in July 2013, sets out an approach for accommodating the one million additional residents and supporting the 500,000 additional jobs expected in the region by 2045. This rise in residents and jobs will increase system demand from six million trips per day to nine million trips per day over this period. An overview of the RTS Strategic Framework is presented in Figure 3.
TRANSPORTATION - 30
6 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Figure 1: RTS Strategic Framework
TRANSPORTATION - 31
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 7
Three high-level strategies will be essential in achieving regional goals: Invest, Manage, and Partner.
The first, Invest, is most obvious – and most dependent upon new sources of revenue. There is a growing list of projects and service improvements on the regional priority list, including rapid transit lines in Surrey and along the Broadway corridor in Vancouver. Much of TransLink’s planned investment is focused on maintaining the services and infrastructure currently in place.
The second, Manage, also has funding implications. One of the most effective ways to manage traffic flows, for example, is with pricing that encourages people and businesses to use the system more efficiently, for example by avoiding peak hours or areas of potential congestion, whether on the road or transit network. For the purposes of the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook, TransLink has concentrated on optimizing the management of its own assets and areas of responsibility.
The third strategy, Partner, recognizes that TransLink is a service provider to and partner with every municipality in the Metro Vancouver region and that our mutual success depends heavily on the extent of our collaboration. This is particularly true in the case of land use decisions that affect the provision and efficiency of transportation. Accordingly, TransLink will continue working with all of its partners, at every level of government, as well as the public and stakeholders to provide the best range of transportation options and to support land use decisions that promote a compact urban area that functions well and preserves valuable natural and agricultural spaces in the region.
Looking Ahead
This 2014 Base Plan sets out a path to pursue the three high-level RTS strategies of Invest, Manage and Partner over the Plan and Outlook periods. The Outcomes section highlights areas of progress and priorities for future attention, to support the RTS goals of Choice, Economy, Health and Environment.
The number of people using transit is expected to continue to grow; however, current funding levels cannot keep pace with RTS targets. For example, increases in transit services since 2009 have been overtaken by population growth. Per capita service levels have begun to decline and will continue to do so without new funding. The 2014 Base Plan and Outlook recognize this reality while continuing to align programs and strategies with long-term capital priorities.
There are clear and urgent public and political calls for more investment, specifically the desire for rapid transit in Surrey and along the Broadway corridor in Vancouver, as well as the need for more bus service across the region and more investment in roads and cycling. The dialogue with the region on the RTS and the feedback generated in the 2014 provincially mandated referendum will be important in clarifying what future the region wants, as well as the options stakeholders and taxpayers prefer. This will ensure our region can achieve that future in a timely and affordable way.
TRANSPORTATION - 32
8 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Structure of the 2014 Base Plan Document
1. Invest Strategically, 2. Manage the System, and 3. Partner to Make it Happen In keeping with the RTS Strategic Framework, the services, programs, and infrastructure investment commitments in this plan are organized under the three high-level RTS strategies. 4. Funding the Plan: Revenue Sources This section explains how investments will be funded. 5: Achieving Our Goals This section describes the outcomes and performance expectations of the 2014 Base Plan investments.
TRANSPORTATION - 33
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 9
1. INVEST STRATEGICALLY Invest strategically to maintain and grow the transportation system is the first of three core strategies in the RTS Strategic Framework.
This section summarizes the expenditures TransLink will make over the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook periods to invest in maintaining our current services and infrastructure. Some improvements are included; however, given our available resources, no new infrastructure or service investments are introduced in this plan.
Transit Services
TransLink’s integrated transit system meets the needs of diverse markets with services of various levels of frequency, speed and daily span, provided by bus, rail, marine, commuter rail and custom transit. No new service hours are proposed under the 2014 Base Plan. Total service hours in 2014 are 6.8 million, which is slightly lower than in 2013 because of reduced non-revenue hours from scheduling efficiency improvements. As part of ongoing efficiency and optimization programs (outlined in the Manage the System section, starting on page 18), TransLink will continue to lower total vehicle hours while maintaining existing service. Table 1 below summarizes proposed service hours by service type.
Table 1: Total Transit Service Hours by Service Type (thousands) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook Service Hours in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2023 Conventional Bus 4,239 4,233 4,165 4,163 4,163 4,134 Community Shuttle 565 567 600 628 632 665 West Vancouver Conventional Bus 134 135 139 140 140 140 SkyTrain Expo and Millennium Lines 1,149 1,126 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096 SkyTrain Canada Line 196 196 196 196 196 196 SkyTrain Evergreen Line 0 0 0 0 47 136 Rapid Transit Total 1,345 1,322 1,292 1,292 1,339 1,428 SeaBus 11 11 11 11 11 11 West Coast Express 41 42 41 41 41 41 Total Conventional Transit 6,335 6,310 6,248 6,275 6,326 6,419 Custom Transit (HandyDART) 592 598 598 598 598 598 Total Service Hours 6,927 6,908 6,846 6,873 6,924 7,017
TRANSIT OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES
Transit operating expenditures are forecast at $896.4 million in 2014, increasing to $953.4 million in 2016. Operating costs for bus and SkyTrain Canada Line transit services are held constant in 2014 reflecting continued focus on operational efficiency and effectiveness and then grow with inflation from 2015 onward. SkyTrain Expo and Millennium line and West Coast costs increase 4.2 per cent in 2014 before returning to inflationary level increases. These increases are driven by initiatives to improve maintenance and asset management practices, contracted service increases and impacts from the Evergreen line project. The operating expenses associated with the Evergreen Line are based on operation starting in late-summer of 2016.
TRANSPORTATION - 34
10 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Table 2: Transit Operations Expenditure Forecasts (millions) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2023 Bus $ 623.0 $ 639.2 $ 639.4 $ 656.3 $ 670.5 $ 741.0 SkyTrain Expo/Millennium Lines & West Coast Express $ 131.2 $ 142.3 $ 148.2 $ 151.8 $ 156.3 $ 156.1 SkyTrain Canada Line * $ 107.1 $ 108.8 $ 108.8 $ 109.9 $ 112.2 $ 126.7 SkyTrain Evergreen Line ** $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 14.5 $ 18.4 Capital Infrastructure Contributions $ - $ 8.6 $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Operations $ 861.4 $ 898.8 $ 896.4 $ 918.0 $ 953.4 $ 1,042.3 * The Canada Line expenditures include payment to the concessionaire to cover its operating expenditures and capital repayments, which are elevating the average annual growth rate metric. ** Evergreen Line operating costs in 2016 are for start-up. The Evergreen Line will go into service in 2016.
BUS AND SEABUS SERVICES
The 2013 Base Plan introduced 109,000 additional annual bus and SeaBus service hours. All of these hours have now been implemented, including the new King George Boulevard B-Line service, which started in September 2013 and operates between Newton Exchange, Surrey City Centre and Guildford Town Centre. The Highway 1 Rapid Bus (route 555) operating over the Port Mann Bridge, connecting Carvolth Exchange and Braid SkyTrain Station, began operating in December 2012. This service will be extended to Lougheed Town Centre SkyTrain Station once the Highway 1 ramps at Government Street are complete. No new revenue service hours are planned for the 2014–2016 plan period.
Over the Plan period, TransLink has committed $245.5 million in capital expenditures for the replacement of conventional buses, and $10.7 million for community shuttles. Capital has also been set aside for trolley overhead system replacement.
CUSTOM TRANSIT
TransLink’s Custom Transit services provide transportation for customers who cannot use conventional transit without assistance. The Custom Transit program includes:
• HandyDART (a shared ride, pre-booked, door-to-door service that uses specialized lift-equipped vehicles for registered people with temporary or permanent disabilities) • HandyCard (a prequalified program for people with permanent disabilities that provides concession fares on conventional transit, the ability to bring an attendant on conventional transit for free and the opportunity to buy TaxiSaver coupons) • TaxiSaver (a taxi subsidy available for people who qualify for HandyCard) HandyDART is an on-demand service, so service hours fluctuate based on demand. The budgeted envelope of available service hours, however, will remain constant over the three-year Plan period.
Custom transit provided 1.38 million passenger trips in 2012, for which TransLink currently operates 318 custom transit vehicles. As a result of improved efficiency and asset use, TransLink reduced the fleet size by 14 vehicles from 2011, and in August 2013 it will cut eight more vehicles while still providing the same level of service. To maintain the custom transit service in a state of good repair, approximately 15 per cent of the fleet is replaced every year. Approximately 160 HandyDART vehicles will be retired over the three-year Plan period and will be replaced with a new mix of vehicles chosen to suit customer demand. A trial of smaller, van-based vehicles was conducted in 2013, but these were not found suitable for the type of service currently provided.
TRANSPORTATION - 35
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 11
TransLink also began a taxi pilot project in April 2013 that reallocated 10,000 hours of budgeted HandyDART service to taxis under specific conditions. Supplementary taxis are used where HandyDART is unable to provide the requested service effectively or economically. Taxis were used for less than two per cent of annual HandyDART service hours, and we expect that through diverting these 10,000 service hours to taxis, HandyDART will provide an additional 7,000 customer trips at the same cost. The program will be monitored for effectiveness.
In 2014, TransLink will continue work on the Custom Transit Service Delivery Model Review initiated in 2013 to ensure a sustainable custom transit delivery model that can adapt to the varied transportation needs of customers.
RAPID TRANSIT
TransLink’s rapid transit system consists of three high-capacity rail services in dedicated rights-of-way: the Expo Line, the Millennium Line and the Canada Line. Under the 2014 Base Plan, service on the Expo, Millennium and Canada Lines will be maintained at 2013 levels.
There are a number of state-of-good-repair projects on the Expo Line initiated in 2013 that will continue in 2014. Those projects will replace 34 kilometers of original power rail that supplies SkyTrain vehicles with power, and six switch controllers that allow trains to change tracks. These projects will ensure that the Expo Line continues to provide reliable service.
TransLink will also refurbish 114 Mark I cars to extend their service life by 15 years.
Evergreen Line Program In 2012, the province’s Evergreen Line Project Office awarded the major design-build contract for the 11-kilometer extension of SkyTrain line from Lougheed Town Centre to Lafarge Lake-Douglas Station in Coquitlam. The project includes six new stations, bus exchanges, park and rides, and roadworks. The extension will be complete and in service by the late-summer of 2016.
TransLink plays three roles on the project: future operator, contributing partner and transit service provider during construction. TransLink’s responsibilities include design review and construction support; testing and commissioning systems and infrastructure; procuring additional SkyTrain vehicles; and working with the contractor on temporary facility and service adjustments to maintain service during construction.
Evergreen Line Multi-Modal Integration Integration of the Evergreen Line will require upgrades across the transportation network. TransLink is responsible for the multi-modal integration projects within the 2014 Base Plan period as identified below:
• Commercial-Broadway Station upgrades to accommodate expected traffic from the Evergreen Line as well as growth in the local population and employment • Development of Evergreen Line station area plans in collaboration with municipalities • Wayfinding improvements to inform customers of the new operating pattern and make navigation easier
TRANSPORTATION - 36
12 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Station Upgrades TransLink has begun making station upgrades on the Expo Line to improve capacity, accessibility, and customer amenities, and to implement fare gates. The $156 million upgrade program outlined in Table 3 is consistent with the Provincial Transit Plan and Expo Upgrade Strategy. It has received $123.6 million in funding from the federal and provincial governments.
Table 3: Overview of Station Upgrades for Which Capital Funding Is Secured Expected Station Status Select Project Elements Completion
• New east station house with escalator and elevator Main Street- Under construction access 2014 Science World • Reconfigured west station house • Additional retail and bike parking • Bus exchange and park and ride modifications Scott Road Under construction 2014 • Station accessibility and customer amenity improvements New • Replacement of end-of-life station elements Detailed design 2015 Westminster • Upgraded lighting and finishes • Replacement of mesh screens with glazing • Additional inbound Expo Line platform, new Commercial- footbridge, and associated stairs, escalators and Detailed design 2016 Broadway elevators • Widened crossing of the Grandview Cut • Upgraded bus passenger waiting areas • New east, west and central station houses Metrotown Detailed design • Up and down escalators and expanded elevator 2016 capacity • Reconfigured and expanded bus exchange Joyce- Planning • High-priority capacity and accessibility upgrades to 2016 Collingwood be identified
• High-priority capacity and accessibility station Surrey Central Planning upgrades to be identified 2016 • Station improvements coordinated with planning for reconfigured bus exchange
Station and Exchange Planning In addition to the station upgrade projects, TransLink has an active program of station and exchange planning to identify future facility requirements and respond to proposals for modification by others. Planning is underway or complete for the following stations:
• Brentwood Town Centre (redevelopment) • Richmond-Brighouse Exchange (new facility) • Phibbs Exchange (upgrade) • Langley Centre and Willowbrook exchanges (new facilities) • Lougheed Town Centre (redevelopment) • Lonsdale Quay (upgrade) • Surrey Central Exchange (upgrade)
TRANSPORTATION - 37
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 13
• Burquitlam Station and exchange (new facility)
Planning will consist of identifying functional requirements for each facility and applying the TransLink Transit Passenger Facility Design Guidelines and Transit-Oriented Communities Design Guidelines in cooperation with local municipalities and other stakeholders. The timing for implementation of some elements depends on how funding is allocated in future plans.
WEST COAST EXPRESS
The 20-year service agreement between TransLink and the Canadian Pacific Railway to operate the West Coast Express expires in 2015. Negotiations for renewal are expected to be complete within the Plan period. In 2013, TransLink completed the West Coast Express Strategy, which considers the likely interaction of the West Coast Express with the Evergreen Line and other travel markets in the same corridor. The preferred path for service and infrastructure improvements will be selected and confirmed in concert with the service agreement renewal process.
West Coast Express service levels, including TrainBus, will be maintained at 2013 levels throughout the Plan period.
Roads, Bridges and Bicycle Investment Program
TransLink’s mandate is to provide a multi-modal regional transportation system that moves people and goods. This includes supporting the overall efficiency of the road network to serve drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. TransLink has responsibilities to:
• Establish guidelines to identify which roads can become part of the Major Road Network (MRN) • Establish standards for managing, operating, building and maintaining the MRN • Review and approve all proposed changes that could result in a reduction of people-moving capacity on the MRN • Designate routes and times for dangerous goods movement on the MRN • Approve the municipal prohibition of truck movements from any road in the region (including non-MRN roads) • Provide funding as outlined in Table 4 and Table 5 below
Table 4: Summary of Roads Capital Expenditures (millions)
ITEM 2014 2015 2016 Rehabilitation $18.4 $18.4 $18.4 Municipally-Owned Regional Road and Upgrades – MRN 0 0 0 Bicycle Assets Upgrades – Bicycle (BICCS) $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 Pattullo Bridge Annual Repairs – $3.0 $3.0 0 TransLink-Owned Capital Road and Bicycle Pattullo Bridge Rehabilitation $22.0 $78.0 $77.0 Assets Project – Capital Bike Asset Capital $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 TOTAL CAPITAL $45.95 $101.95 $97.95
TRANSPORTATION - 38
14 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Table 5: Summary of Roads Operating Expenditures (millions)
ITEM 2014 2015 2016 Municipally-Owned Regional Road and Operating and Maintenance $25.7 $25.7 $25.7 Bicycle Assets Golden Ears Bridge Tolling TransLink-Owned Road $6.1 $6.4 $6.9 Operation and Bicycle Assets Other Bridges Operating $1.8 $1.5 $1.5 TOTAL OPERATING $33.6 $33.6 $34.1
FUNDING FOR MUNICIPALLY-OWNED REGIONAL ROAD AND BICYCLE ASSETS
The Major Road Network (MRN) encompasses the major municipally-owned arterial corridors in the region and connects the provincial highway system with the local road network. The MRN enables people to access major destinations through the efficient movement of buses and longer-distance auto travel, and forms the backbone for the movement of goods throughout the region. Some MRN corridors also serve significant volumes of cyclists and pedestrians.
TransLink assists with the management and operations of the MRN through the funding and investment programs described below.
MRN Operations, Maintenance and Pavement Rehabilitation TransLink works with municipalities to ensure the MRN is in a state of good repair for the efficient movement of people and goods. TransLink provides operating funding for the operation and maintenance of the MRN, which is distributed to the municipalities, which then undertake the necessary work. The amount of funding is based on the number of MRN lane-kilometers within each municipality; for 2014 there are approximately 2,300 total lane kilometers across the region, and TransLink’s contribution is $11,140 per lane kilometer. TransLink has budgeted a total of $25.7 million in operating funding.
TransLink also contributes capital funds for pavement rehabilitation, which in 2014 is budgeted at $7,960 per lane kilometer, for a total of $18.4 million. In 2013, TransLink introduced flexible terms for municipalities by allowing them to transfer TransLink funds between operations and maintenance funding and the rehabilitation funding. The annual budget is adjusted based on municipal requests, up to the total amount available.
In 2014, TransLink will conclude a review of the actual recent costs incurred by municipalities for the operation, maintenance and pavement rehabilitation of the MRN. TransLink will adjust future Operating, Maintenance and Rehabilitation (OMR) payments in consultation with the municipalities and in accordance with TransLink’s mandate and long-term goals.
MRNB Minor Capital Program (Upgrades to the Regional Road and Bicycle Networks) TransLink has a cost-sharing program to contribute up to 50 per cent of eligible capital costs to upgrade roads on the MRN and bicycle infrastructure anywhere on the transportation network. Funds are
TRANSPORTATION - 39
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 15
allocated to each municipality based on its proportion of the population and employment growth forecast in the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. Consistent with the 2013 Base Plan, $1.55 million is allocated annually for the BICCS (Bicycle Infrastructure Capital Cost-Sharing) Regional Needs Program. No funding for MRN upgrades is budgeted for 2014–2016.
In recognition of the need for upgrades on the MRN and bicycle network, TransLink has made it possible for municipalities to transfer capital funding from the Pavement Rehabilitation Fund to the MRNB Minor Capital Program. A municipality that transfers funding into the MRNB Minor Capital Program then enters into a cost-sharing capital funding agreement with TransLink to complete the eligible upgrade project within four years. The rehabilitation funds are not replaced by TransLink, and municipalities continue to be responsible for appropriate pavement rehabilitation.
FUNDING FOR TRANSLINK-OWNED ROAD AND BICYCLE ASSETS
TransLink owns and maintains a number of road-based assets, including bridges and cycling infrastructure. Below is a description of these assets and planned investments related to those assets.
TransLink Bridges TransLink owns and maintains five major bridges in the region: the Pattullo Bridge, the Golden Ears Bridge, the Knight Street Bridge, the Westham Island Bridge, and the Canada Line bike and pedestrian bridge. TransLink hires private-sector companies to operate and maintain these bridges. This work includes minor repairs, sweeping, lighting and responding to traffic incidents. The 2014 budget for these service contracts is $1.8 million.
Ongoing “state of good repair” investments include repairs to bridge decks, deteriorating concrete, drainage and railings. As each bridge ages, it will need repairs or replacement.
i. PATTULLO BRIDGE Technical studies have revealed that many components of the 76-year-old Pattullo Bridge are now reaching the end of their useful lives and the bridge is at risk of being undermined by river scour. In its current condition, the bridge is at risk in the event of a moderate earthquake or ship collision. The Pattullo Bridge does not meet current roadway design guidelines (for a new bridge built today) for lane widths and curvature, which may contribute to collisions. Pattullo Bridge facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, such as sidewalks, barriers and connections, could be improved to provide greater protection from traffic. A strategic review process is underway to examine all practical rehabilitation or replacement alternatives (see below).
TransLink manages the Pattullo Bridge to ensure safe operations, which includes conducting continuous short-term repairs to various components of the bridge. In 2014 and 2015, $3 million in capital funding per year is allocated to Pattullo Bridge repairs, which are intended to address minor repairs to the bridge.
To ensure that the bridge remains open until a long-term solution is in place, TransLink is proceeding with the design work for a rehabilitation program to mitigate the seismic risk and maintain the structural integrity of the bridge. Based on current cost estimates, a budget of up to $299 million is included in the
TRANSPORTATION - 40
16 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Plan and Outlook periods for Pattullo Bridge rehabilitation work, which would be completed by 2017. This is an increase from the $150 million that was included in the 2013 Base Plan, reflecting updated information about the condition of the bridge. During 2014, $22 million is budgeted for engineering design to provide better definition of the rehabilitation measures required, the costs, and the options for proceeding. The scope of the rehabilitation will be informed by the design work in 2014 and the outcome of the Strategic Review. The assumptions in this plan are based on the information available today and will be updated if and when new information is available.
Strategic Review Process Together with its partners the City of New Westminster, the City of Surrey and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, TransLink will continue the Pattullo Bridge Strategic Review to examine all practical rehabilitation or replacement alternatives. Adjacent municipalities (Burnaby, Coquitlam and Richmond) have also been involved to the extent that some alternatives under consideration affect them. In 2013, the partners screened 25 alternatives, identifying six that warrant further evaluation. These findings were the subject of extensive consultation in June 2013. Additional technical and financial analysis, supported by public consultation, will continue through the remainder of 2013 and early 2014 to identify two or three preferred alternatives, from which a final solution is expected to be selected in early 2014 in conjunction with the development of the Regional Transportation Strategy.
ii. GOLDEN EARS BRIDGE TransLink’s investment in the Golden Ears Bridge (and its associated road network) is managed through a contract with the Golden Crossing General Partnership (GCGP). This contract covers capital payments, operations, maintenance and rehabilitation for the bridge until 2041. The contract payments to GCGP are budgeted for $66.5 million in 2014. A separate contract for the toll system operations is budgeted at approximately $6.1 million in 2014.
TRANSLINK’S BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
TransLink owns and operates three major bicycle infrastructure assets: the BC Parkway, bicycle storage structures and the Canada Line bike and pedestrian bridge.
BC Parkway TransLink is responsible for the BC Parkway, which runs parallel to or under the Expo SkyTrain Line. TransLink has budgeted $650,000 for repairs along this important cycling and pedestrian facility in 2014, and will continue to work with other stakeholders in the corridor to identify and implement further improvements.
Bicycle Storage Infrastructure TransLink owns and contracts the operations and maintenance of over 400 bike lockers located at park and ride lots, transit exchanges and SkyTrain or Canada Line stations. Many of the lockers are now past their useful lives, and the inventory is shrinking as lockers are disposed of. To continue to meet the need for secure bike parking, TransLink uses a small amount of the budget to repair bike lockers and move inventory to new locations. In addition, TransLink is introducing secure bike parking structures, which
TRANSPORTATION - 41
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 17
are stand-alone modular buildings where cyclists can enter and lock their bicycles, for which $350,000 is budgeted in 2014. The advantages of a secure bike parking structure include a higher capacity for parking bikes in a small area, good security measures to discourage theft, good visibility of the bike parking availability and more flexible terms for customers to park.
OTHER PLANNED ROAD INVESTMENTS
TransLink is actively engaged with partners to deliver several major goods movement projects now underway in the region. In 2014, TransLink will contribute $18 million (toward the project cost of $50 million) to the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor project. This is a multi-partner initiative to reduce road/rail crossings between Delta and Langley, improving safety and facilitating the movement of goods. It will also include a new Rail Crossing Information System (RCIS) to help drivers choose appropriate routes. The project is within budget, and completion is scheduled in 2014.
TransLink has contributed $3.7 million and $5 million respectively to the Powell Street Overpass Project in Vancouver and the Low Level Road Project in North Vancouver. Both of these projects are intended to improve the reliability and safety of goods movement and will be under construction in 2014.
In partnership with Transport Canada and the Province, TransLink introduced the Real-Time Traffic Map on the Provincial DriveBC website and on TransLink’s website in 2013. The map allows drivers to monitor travel conditions on the region’s major roads so that they can choose the best route.
The Regional Traffic Management Centre (RTMC), which will help manage and coordinate traffic conditions in the region, received a $1 million contribution from TransLink. It will be fully functional in 2014.
TransLink will continue its involvement with the Applied Freight Research Initiative, a program of studies sponsored by TransLink, Transport Canada, and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. TransLink will also continue to support research into technology methods to reduce unnecessary truck trips by making more information about container locations available online.
Summary of Capital Expenditures
This section summarizes all planned capital expenditures over the Plan and Outlook periods, including those expenditures mentioned in previous sections of this plan. TransLink plans to invest $2.61 billion in capital over the Plan and Outlook period, of which $1.44 billion will be invested between 2014 and 2016 to address corporate priorities, including maintaining existing services and a state of good repair and, based on previously approved projects, undertaking upgrades or expansion.
TRANSPORTATION - 42
18 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Table 6: 2014 to 2016 Capital Cash Flow (thousands) Net 2014 - 2016 Capital Cash Flow 2014 - 2016 Less 2014 -2016 Net 2014 - 2016 CF Gross CF Funding Cash Flow SUMMARY Equipment 27,637 (1) 27,637 Facilities 120,542 (75,792) 44,750 Infrastructure 339,222 (191,543) 147,680 Major Construction Projects 477,141 - 477,141 Technology Applications 54,877 - 54,877 Vehicle - Convention Revenue 299,856 (276,490) 23,365 Vehicle - Other Revenue 8,595 (3,387) 5,208 Subtotal 1,327,870 (547,213) 780,658 Capital infrastructure contributions 111,672 - 111,672 Total 1,439,542 (547,213) 892,329
In the outlook period, TransLink will invest an average of $150 million per year, of which about 37 per cent will be funded through government contributions.
MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS
In accordance with Section 194 of the SCBCTA Act, all capital projects exceeding $50 million planned for the Plan and Outlook period are shown in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Major Capital Projects in the 2014 Base Plan (thousands)
Cash Flow Planned Total Capital Beginning in Year of Cost Year 2014 2015 2016 Completion
Evergreen Line Contribution $89,725 $221,603 $10,813 $375,000 2012 2016 (excludes contributions already made) EXPO Line Propulsion Power $27,996 $0 $0 $58,361 2009 2014 System Upgrades Hamilton Transit Centre Design $58,846 $34,452 $0 $125,633 2012 2015 & Construction Compass Card & Fare Gate $77,187 $0 $0 $194,200 2008 2014 Project - Phase 3 Pattullo Bridge – $24,466 $78,000 $77,000 $299,000 2014 2017 Seismic upgrade
Unfunded Needs
The 2012 Moving Forward Plan included several priority investments that could not be funded last year and are not included in the 2014 Base Plan. They include:
• Increased bus service hours to reduce overcrowding, accommodate population growth, and meet U-Pass demand
TRANSPORTATION - 43
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 19
• Extending 15-minute SeaBus service to seven days a week, year round • Upgrading Lonsdale Quay bus terminal and SeaBus terminal passenger amenities • Station area improvements • Increased funding for Major Road Network and cycling upgrades
In addition, TransLink has identified the following as population growth-related priority items:
• Additional SkyTrain cars to meet demand • Increased West Coast Express capacity • Improved capacity and reliability of the Broadway 99 B-Line
These remain priority items that will be considered for funding should TransLink’s revenue picture change within the Base Plan and Outlook period.
TRANSPORTATION - 44
20 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
- - This page intentionally left blank. - -
TRANSPORTATION - 45
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 21
2. MANAGE THE SYSTEM Manage the transportation system to be more efficient and user-focused is the second of three core strategies in the RTS Strategic Framework.
This section outlines the programs and services TransLink has or will implement over the 2014 Base Plan and Outlook periods to ensure assets and resources are being used in the most efficient manner. Key elements of managing the system include:
• Making travel safe and secure for all users • Making travel easy and attractive for all users • Optimizing roads and transit for efficiency, safety and reliability • Using integrated mobility pricing for fairness, efficiency and revenue • Managing parking for fairness, efficiency and revenue
Under this Plan, TransLink will continue to optimize bus service, price our Park and Ride lots for efficiency and effectiveness, provide our customers with information to enable them to make informed decisions, implement the Compass Card program and fare gates, and use Transit Police to protect people, property and revenue.
Transit Services
MAKING THE BUS SYSTEM MORE EFFECTIVE
Service Optimization is TransLink’s ongoing program to improve the productivity of the transit system by reallocating resources from low-productivity uses to routes and times where demand is higher. Since 2010, service optimization has played an important role in increasing the productivity of TransLink’s existing bus network. To date, more than 276,000 hours, or 5.6 per cent of total bus service hours in the region – have been reallocated. The 2013 Base Plan committed to reinvesting 25,000 service hours each year by reallocating revenue hours from low-productivity services and time periods to those with higher demand. The program follows principles established in 2010 to maintain the integrity of the network and guide reinvestments.
To inform this program, TransLink conducts an annual review of system performance. This review examines trends in bus service ridership at a system-wide, sub-regional and route-by-route basis.
The results of this review demonstrate that optimizing service across the region has allowed TransLink to serve more people without increasing resources. The 2012 Bus Service Performance Review1 shows a trend of increasing productivity and cost-effectiveness. In 2012, bus boardings per revenue hour increased by 3.4 per cent while cost per boarded passenger decreased by 2.2 per cent, as compared with performance in 2011.
1 This report is available online at www.translink.ca/networkmanagement.
TRANSPORTATION - 46
22 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
In 2012 and 2013, TransLink reallocated approximately 102,000 annual service hours of bus service from lower-performing services to areas of higher performance. After public consultation, projects were advanced, revised or deferred based on input received. Proposed service change concepts for 2014 are in the preliminary planning stages and will be advanced for public consultation in the fall of 2013.
MAKING THE BUS SYSTEM MORE EFFICIENT
TransLink is committed to ensuring the bus system operates as efficiently as possible, in partnership with its operating subsidiaries. Over the 2014 Base Plan period, Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC) will pursue the following initiatives:
• Recovery times: Recovery time is included at the end of each trip so that a bus can make the next trip on schedule. CMBC is using bus trip data to reduce recovery and other non-revenue time, while maintaining reliable service and without compromising safety. In 2012, CMBC removed 48,000 non-service hours from the conventional bus system, reducing recovery time to 17.1 per cent of total service hours from 18.2 per cent. The 2014 Base Plan sets a target of further reductions to 16 per cent of total service hours in 2016 and to just over 15 per cent by the end of the outlook period.
• Scheduling efficiencies: CMBC continually seeks efficiencies in bus scheduling and operations. Efficiency initiatives underway include trolley vehicle conversions, assessing timing points for bus connections, optimizing bus stop distances and reducing the pay to platform ratio.
• Reducing the pay to platform ratio: A key statistic to assess the efficiency of the operators’ shifts is the pay to platform ratio. This statistic divides platform hours (the number of hours a bus is on the road) by pay hours (the number of hours that a bus operator is paid for). This ratio is improved by reducing non-operating driver allowances and premiums such as travel time, make up and overtime. As of September 2013, CMBC has reduced the rate to 1.0955, bringing the total reduction since 2011 to 1.25 per cent per cent and saving $1.5 million dollars each year.
• Improving schedule reliability: To assess and monitor the effect of recovery time adjustments and scheduling efficiencies, CMBC relies on staff and customer feedback and GPS data from the buses. In 2013, CMBC added over 19,000 annual service hours to maintain and improve schedule reliability. TransLink’s increased provision of real-time transit information also helps customers plan their journey when buses are delayed.
• “Rightsizing” the vehicle: TransLink and CMBC work to analyze passenger demand and make adjustments to ensure that each transit route is served by a bus of appropriate size and capacity for customer demand. To take advantage of a lower cost per hour of service, the plan will increase the share of low-demand service provided with minibuses.
• “Rightsizing” the fleet: CMBC and contracted transit services continue to review and revise the size of the vehicle fleet and spare ratios to balance service reliability with vehicle investment and support costs. By retiring and not replacing vehicles, CMBC has reduced the size of the conventional bus, HandyDART and non-revenue support vehicle fleets in 2012 and 2013.
TRANSPORTATION - 47
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 23
• Depot administration: In September 2013, CMBC increased efficiency by centralizing dispatch and operations administration, reducing the number of operating depots from six to one. This centralization streamlined processes and removed duplication of tasks, saving $1.4 million in annual operating expenses.
DEPOTS
In accordance with our regional bus facility plan, TransLink began construction of the Hamilton Transit Centre in Richmond in 2013; the centre is expected to be operational by 2015. This modern facility will allow efficient maintenance and dispatching and have capacity for future service growth. TransLink will close the outdated North Vancouver Transit Centre in 2015 and service will be redistributed to the remaining transit centres.
AREA TRANSIT PLANS
Area Transit Plans identify future transit networks and priorities for improving local transit service in each of seven sub-areas within the Metro Vancouver region. Each plan includes a long-range (approximately 30-year) transit network vision, established in coordination with local growth patterns and land use plans. It also includes identified shorter-range transit network priorities for consideration in subsequent base or supplemental plans or ongoing network management efforts. The Northeast Sector Area Transit Plan will be completed in 2014, to be followed by a plan for the Richmond area.
COMPASS CARD AND FARE GATES
In 2013, TransLink will introduce an automated fare collection system, called Compass, across all transit modes. This project is a key initiative to increase customer convenience, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of collecting fare revenue, improve transit service quality through data analysis, reduce fare evasion and increase revenue, and improve safety and security on the transit system. The Provincial and Federal governments are providing a financial contribution to this project.
As a result of the introduction of Compass, TransLink has made changes to our fare products. Phased implementation of the Compass card program began in fall 2013 with a Beta Test period. Results from the Beta Test may also result in further tariff changes, which will be reflected in our transit tariff.
AirCare
The AirCare program, administered by TransLink since 1999, is considered to be one of the most effective vehicle emissions testing programs in North America. Since its implementation in 1992, AirCare has tested 2,754,298 vehicles, with 964,901 failing an emissions inspection at least once. By requiring these defective vehicles to be repaired, AirCare has significantly improved air quality in this region. The Province announced it will end AirCare testing for light-duty vehicles on December 31, 2014, shifting the government’s focus to controlling diesel particulate matter, which is generated mostly by heavy-duty diesel trucks. The program will continue normal operations until the end of 2014, performing about 450,000 inspections.
TRANSPORTATION - 48
24 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Multi-Modal Programs
MOBILITY PRICING
As outlined in the adopted RTS Strategic Framework, TransLink will work with partners to undertake a near-term study to understand the impacts and implementation requirements of applying mobility pricing to the transit and road systems. This major regional study will increase the awareness and understanding of options for how to align the price of transportation more closely with how the system is used. TransLink will start engaging with stakeholders to scope and design the study, with the main part of the study taking place in 2014 and 2015.
PARK AND RIDE
TransLink adopted a comprehensive Park and Ride Policy in 2012 to guide the strategic decisions concerning park and ride facilities in the region. Park and ride facilities serve an important role in the regional transportation system because they provide access to the transit network to customers with low transit accessibility where they live. The policy addresses inconsistencies in facility amenities, pricing, management and access priority across the park and ride facilities that are under our control.
The pricing of park and ride facilities is consistent with TransLink’s broader mobility pricing strategy, as established in the RTS Strategic Framework. The price levels will be set to meet a number of key objectives, including: equity (all transportation users are paying for the infrastructure they use); cost recovery (both land and operational costs); efficiency; recognizing future land development potential; and leveraging the best use of assets and major TransLink projects. Charging for park and ride use provides some customer service benefits as well: customers can be more certain of finding a parking space at busy facilities, and TransLink will be able to provide more consistent facility amenities.
Since the adoption of the policy, fees were introduced at the new Carvolth Exchange park and ride facility in September 2013. Further work is underway to use variable pricing at all parking facilities under TransLink control.
For the purposes of this plan, increases in revenue are assumed starting in 2014.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
E-Communication Customer information is core to TransLink’s business. People who are well-informed about options and current conditions will be able to make more efficient and timely travel choices. TransLink has engaged in a number of electronic communication initiatives, including:
• Implementation of the real-time Next Bus travel information system for buses, mobile devices and desktop applications • Implementation of the Regional Traffic Data System (RTDS) to provide real-time road speed and travel time information • Social media applications that integrate with the TransLink website
TRANSPORTATION - 49
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 25
• Integration of transit data with Google Maps • Improved navigation and search features for the TransLink website • A new online customer information tool for Compass (AskCompass)
Under the 2014 Base Plan, TransLink will continue to improve our communications tools and look for new opportunities where appropriate. In addition, TransLink will continue to measure and report annually on effectiveness in all of our operations, as part of the statutory reporting requirements.
Wayfinding Wayfinding refers to the various types of information that customers rely on to plan, confirm and complete a journey. TransLink developed a wayfinding strategy that lays the groundwork for an integrated system of information across modes.
Consistent with past plans, TransLink will continue to upgrade wayfinding at new or renovated facilities, and wayfinding improvements will be implemented with the Evergreen Line rapid transit project.
TRAVELSMART
TravelSmart is a suite of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that use information, outreach and online tools to promote changes in travel behaviour by increasing awareness of travel options and trip reduction initiatives.
Under the 2014 Base Plan, TransLink will continue to provide a wide range of programs under the TravelSmart brand, supported by partnerships with employers, municipalities, schools and other public and private agencies. The Travelsmart.ca website will continue to be a hub for program support, information and tools to help Metro Vancouverites make more sustainable travel choices. The programs include:
• Support for carpool and vanpool programs • Active transportation sponsorship and promotion • TravelSmart Schools program • Targeted outreach to new Canadians and seniors • Other programs such as Corporate Car Share, Telework, Guaranteed Ride Home program and help with implementing workplace travel programs TransLink Corporate and Transit Police
Under the 2014 Base Plan, the combined expenditures for TransLink Corporate and Transit Police total $118.6 million in 2014, a decline of $3.4 million from 2013, and are forecast to further decline to $113 million in 2016.
TRANSPORTATION - 50
26 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Table 8: TransLink Corporate and Transit Police Expenditures (millions) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2023 TransLink Corporate $ 55.3 $ 56.3 $ 58.6 $ 61.4 $ 62.2 $ 67.8 SmartCards and Gating and Studies $ 9.1 $ 34.6 $ 28.0 $ 16.4 $ 17.3 $ 20.7 Subtotal - TransLink $ 64.5 $ 90.9 $ 86.6 $ 77.8 $ 79.5 $ 88.4 Transit Police $ 28.2 $ 31.1 $ 32.0 $ 33.1 $ 33.5 $ 36.6 Total TransLink and Police $ 92.7 $ 122.0 $ 118.6 $ 110.9 $ 113.0 $ 125.0
TRANSLINK CORPORATE EXPENDITURES
During 2013, TransLink continued to streamline corporate processes and seek out efficiencies. As of July 2013, payroll, financial systems support, administrative services, human resources, BCRTC technology services, and procurement and purchasing were centralized at TransLink. In 2014, TransLink started allocating the cost of shared services to its subsidiaries.
In 2014, TransLink will incur the following one-time costs:
• Compass start-up costs of $11 million, which were deferred from 2013 • Pattullo Bridge Strategic Review, costing $900,000 • Feasibility studies for roads, costing $1.5 million
The cost to operate Compass is estimated at $19.8 million per year for the remainder of the Plan, of which approximately $12 million per year is contract payments to Cubic, the Compass card and fare gate contractor. The remaining $7.8 million of ongoing operating costs are included in TransLink corporate costs.
TRANSIT POLICE
The Transit Police force has a vital role in ensuring safety and security on public transportation in the Metro Vancouver area. This dedicated policing presence remains an effective and flexible way to reduce crime and disorder, ensure high levels of police presence on the region’s transportation network and increase perceived safety. The Transit Police focuses on protecting people, property and revenue.
Addressing crime and fear of crime on public transit directly affects TransLink’s financial sustainability, as the perception of violence and fear of crime reduces ridership and revenues. The Transit Police will continue to focus on reducing crimes against people (both riders and transit personnel), such as assaults and robberies, and on controlling disorder, such as aggressive panhandling, vandalism, graffiti, unauthorized vending, and people avoiding payment of fare or flagrantly violating rules. While disorder offences may seem minor, these quality of life violations result in rider discomfort, and the discomfort fuels perceptions of fear.
Transit Police is committed to zero growth in the number of police officers it employs in the coming years. In 2012, Transit Police reduced overtime costs by 32 per cent and reduced the cost per police officer to one of the lowest rates among independent police agencies in Metro Vancouver2.
2 Ministry of Justice Police Resources in British Columbia, 2011 (dated January 2013). Available online at: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/policeservices/statistics/docs/PoliceResourcesBC.pdf
TRANSPORTATION - 51
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 27
With the launch of Compass Card, Transit Police will assess opportunities to increase police presence on the regional transportation network. The organization will increase productivity and identify new models of deployment to manage the increase in service area expected with the development of the Evergreen Line.
Efficiencies
Independent audits in 2012 confirmed that TransLink is an efficient organization that provides the transportation services, programs and infrastructure that residents in this region depend on. Last year we faced some significant financial challenges. In the 2013 Base Plan, TransLink committed to a number of initiatives to reduce costs and boost revenues through efficiencies. These included finding scheduling and maintenance efficiencies, using the appropriate vehicle on each service route, and optimizing transit services to serve more riders across the region. Table 9 provides an overview of the efficiencies identified in the 2013 Base Plan and what is assumed in this plan.
Table 9: Efficiency Measures in the 2013 Base Plan and 2014 Base Plan* (millions) 2013 Base Plan 2014 Base Plan (annual average for (annual average for Plan Period, 2013–2015) Plan Period, 2014–2016) COST-SAVING EFFICIENCIES Scheduling Efficiencies $5.4 $3.9 Rightsizing the Transit Fleet $3.1 $1.3 Maintenance and Operations Efficiencies $8.8 $13.7 Reduced SkyTrain Frequency on Weekends $0.5 $0.5 Subtotal $17.8 $19.4 REVENUE-INCREASING EFFICIENCIES Additional Optimization of Bus Services $3.2 $6.2 Leveraging Real Estate Assets $18.3 $13.3 Park and Ride Pricing $2.2 $0.9 Subtotal $23.7 $20.4 Total Cost-Saving and Revenue-Increasing $41.5 $39.8 Efficiencies * As compared to the cost predicted in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan.
COST-SAVING EFFICIENCIES
We are on track to exceed our overall target for cost-saving efficiencies, largely because of further efficiencies committed to within Coast Mountain Bus Company’s maintenance and operations.
REVENUE-INCREASING EFFICIENCIES
We identified some risks associated with the efficiency measures assumed in last year’s plans, and the revenue-increasing efficiencies are proving harder to achieve. Some of these risks have materialized, resulting in delays in our ability to leverage real estate assets and challenges with implementing pricing across all of our park and ride facilities.
TRANSPORTATION - 52
28 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
3. PARTNER TO MAKE IT HAPPEN Partner to make it happen is the third of three core strategies in the RTS Strategic Framework.
To make our plans a reality, we have to work together with all levels of governments, businesses, residents and customers to increase the level of certainty around timing and scale of investments, land use changes and policy measures. Transportation is not an end in itself, but a means of getting where we want to go and a vital component of our economy.
The sections below outline how TransLink will work with municipalities to ensure transportation decisions support land use decisions, ensure that goods move efficiently through the region, ensure we leverage our real estate assets, and partner with senior levels of government to invest in the transportation network.
Getting Land Use Right
As outlined in Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), it is important to create a compact urban area and to get jobs, housing and major trip generators in the right locations to facilitate shorter trips and more trips by walking, cycling and transit. This is principally a matter for municipalities, who are responsible for local land use planning that is consistent with the RGS.
The Regional Transportation Strategy sets a target of 50 per cent of trips to be made by walking, cycling and transit by 2045. Investment in transportation services and infrastructure alone are not enough to achieve this goal. The region also needs land use policies that focus new development in areas where infrastructure for transit, bicycling and walking is already strong and that encourage community design to support future transit investment. When land use policies support higher-density, mixed-use walkable communities, the region can invest in services where they will be most effective and achieve better transportation performance. The Regional Transportation Strategy, the Regional Growth Strategy and municipal Official Community Plans all call for the integration of land use and transportation planning.
To achieve these goals, TransLink partners with municipalities, Metro Vancouver and other regional agencies to craft strong land use policies and plans that will support a sustainable transportation network for the future. TransLink participates in a variety of ways, including creating or supporting land use and design guidelines, and working with and providing guidance to partner agencies and municipalities on Official Community Plans, Regional Context Statements, major development proposals, transportation plans and other plan efforts.
The Goods Movement Strategy
As part of the Regional Transportation Strategy, TransLink has started to develop Metro Vancouver’s first Goods Movement Strategy. Goods movement in Metro Vancouver is complex, involving flows of freight and services associated with the region’s function as a gateway as well as serving local needs. Numerous private entities and public agencies have an interest in the goods movement sector. TransLink’s statutory mandate includes providing for the efficient movement of goods through the region. In this role, TransLink has undertaken various coordination and research activities in partnership
TRANSPORTATION - 53
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 29
with municipalities, senior government and stakeholders. However, TransLink presently has limited authority to provide regional-level planning, management and leadership for the goods movement system. The draft Goods Movement Strategy policy framework identifies potential ways for TransLink to foster greater regional collaboration and consistency with respect to goods movement policies, regulations and strategies. We expect to publish the draft Goods Movement Strategy in the fall of 2013 for consultation on policies and potential goods movement strategies. These will include investment, management and partnership activities. In 2014, TransLink will work with partners to develop a goods movement implementation plan to advance specific strategies for the goods movement sector.
Real Estate Program
The Real Estate Program manages leases, property rights, facilities and land to optimize its footprint and reduce real estate liabilities. TransLink Real Estate works with internal and external stakeholders to secure and invest in future real estate requirements in advance of transportation infrastructure projects and system growth. Acquiring the necessary real estate early allows TransLink to earn income on these assets and reduces the future capital cost. When property assets are no longer needed, TransLink will seek to maximize the sale value of those assets.
The Real Estate Program aims to pursue partnerships on projects that will provide integration with transportation infrastructure and promote transit-oriented development. Through the Adjacent and Integrated Development (AID) review process, TransLink works with the development community to mitigate the impact of development proposed for land near TransLink facilities and improve integration of transportation and land use activities. Between 1996 and 2011, there were only a handful of AID projects. However, due to the real estate market placing increased importance on proximity to transit, as well as the anticipated opening of the Evergreen Line in 2016, there are now 33 AID projects that are active or known to be starting soon.
Pass Programs
TransLink partners with the Province to deliver a number of pass programs, including the U-Pass and the BC Bus Pass.
The U-Pass BC Program is provided in partnership with the Province and participating post-secondary institutions and student societies. The purpose of the U-Pass is to encourage students to use transit while at university and college to establish lifelong travel behaviours. The U-Pass BC Program is funded by monthly pass fees charged to eligible students and contributions from the Province. TransLink will accommodate the demand generated by the program within the existing envelope of service hours.
The BC Bus Pass offers a reduced-cost annual bus pass for low-income seniors and individuals receiving disability assistance from the Province of British Columbia. Passes are valid in communities serviced by BC Transit or TransLink. The pass is only valid for the eligible rider and is non-transferable. HandyDART is not included in this program.
TRANSPORTATION - 54
30 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
4. FUNDING THE PLAN: REVENUE SOURCES As outlined in this section, TransLink will have sufficient revenues to maintain the services and programs committed to in the 2013 Base Plan, but we will not be able to invest in additional services or programs to meet the demands of our growing region. The SCBCTA Act defines the revenue sources that can be used in the annual Base Plans. Within that legislative framework, the 2014 Base Plan uses only “established funding sources” (as defined in the SCBCTA Act) to fund TransLink operations.
Revenue projections are based on the following assumptions for 2014 to 2016: • Transit fares: allowable increases (2 per cent per year) will resume in 2015 • Fuel tax rate: maintained at $0.17 per litre (statutory maximum) • Property tax revenues: will grow by 3 per cent per year • Parking rights tax rate: maintained at 21 per cent (statutory maximum) • Bridge toll rates: will increase at CPI index (assumed at 2 per cent per year) • Replacement tax revenues: maintained at $18 million per year (statutory maximum) • Hydro Levy: maintained at $1.90 per month per household account (fixed statutory amount)
Under this plan, total annual revenues are expected to be $1,439.9 million in 2014, rising to $1,608.4 million in 2016. The Outlook period of the financial strategy (2017 to 2023) captures the financial obligations and implications of the investments in services and infrastructure that have been committed to as of December 2016.
Table 10: Summary of Revenues (millions) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2023 Transit Revenues $ 463.5 $ 501.0 $ 518.2 $ 551.0 $ 572.0 $ 720.7 Toll Revenues $ 38.9 $ 40.1 $ 39.6 $ 41.1 $ 42.6 $ 52.5 User Fees $ 502.4 $ 541.1 $ 557.8 $ 592.1 $ 614.6 $ 773.1 Motor Fuel Tax $ 335.3 $ 335.1 $ 337.8 $ 335.7 $ 334.7 $ 328.5 Property Tax $ 288.7 $ 296.1 $ 304.9 $ 314.1 $ 323.5 $ 397.9 Parking Rights Tax $ 53.2 $ 52.9 $ 56.0 $ 56.9 $ 57.7 $ 64.1 Other Taxes $ 37.2 $ 37.5 $ 37.7 $ 38.0 $ 38.4 $ 40.6 Taxation Revenues $ 714.4 $ 721.6 $ 736.4 $ 744.7 $ 754.3 $ 831.1 Senior Government Contributions $ 84.3 $ 85.6 $ 88.1 $ 111.8 $ 132.2 $ 142.3 Canada Line Concessionaire credit $ 23.3 $ 23.1 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 Interest Revenue $ 31.7 $ 36.7 $ 34.2 $ 37.7 $ 43.9 $ 66.2 Gain on Disposal $ 41.6 $ 13.0 $ - $ - $ 40.0 $ - Total Revenues $ 1,397.7 $ 1,421.2 $ 1,439.9 $ 1,509.6 $ 1,608.4 $ 1,836.1 * Concessionaire’s Credit is the amortization of funding provided by the Concessionaire for the right to operate the Canada Line.
User Fees
While TransLink is committed to making the transportation system as affordable and accessible as possible, it is important for users to recognize that there is a cost associated with those services. User fees not only help TransLink pay for the services people use, but they also give people a clearer understanding of the true cost of their transportation choices. This section outlines the types of user fees TransLink currently employs.
TRANSPORTATION - 55
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 31
TRANSIT REVENUES
Transit revenues, consisting of both direct transit fare revenues, fare infraction revenues from the introduction of Bill 51, property rental, transit advertising and other revenues, account for more than one-third of total revenues.
Actual 2012 transit fare revenues were approximately $4 million more than budgeted in the 2013 Base Plan. Fare revenues in 2014 are expected to be less than forecasted in the 2013 Base Plan due to the delayed fare increase.
Table 11: Transit Revenue Projections (millions) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2023 Transit Fare Revenue $ 448.8 $ 486.4 $ 504.8 $ 536.1 $ 555.9 $ 702.1 Property Rentals, Advertising, Other $ 14.7 $ 14.6 $ 13.4 $ 15.0 $ 16.1 $ 18.6 Total: Transit Revenues $ 463.5 $ 501.0 $ 518.2 $ 551.0 $ 572.0 $ 720.7
TransLink’s short term fares are regulated by the SCBCTA Act and by the Regional Transportation Commissioner. For short-term fares (i.e. passes up to three days in duration, such as single rides and DayPasses), TransLink may set prices up to the “targeted fare” level within a base plan. The “targeted fare” for a revenue transit service is equal to the fare as of April 1, 2008, increased by 2 per cent per year. In order to exceed the “targeted fare” level, TransLink must include the short term fare in a supplemental plan, the plan must be approved by the Mayors’ Council, and the Commissioner must approve the fare. The prices for non-short term fare products (e.g. monthly passes) are not subject to regulation.
Transit fare revenue will continue to grow through the Plan Period as a result of increased ridership. As part of the Compass card implementation, TransLink will maintain current fare rates through to 2015, and will discontinue certain discount programs to make rates more equitable across the system. Once the Compass card has been fully implemented in 2015, TransLink plans to implement a fare increase. Under this Plan, TransLink will not be reapplying to the Commissioner for the fare increase that was turned down in 2012. A schedule of transit fares is presented on page 58.
In 2013, TransLink will be introducing an automated fare collection system called Compass. As a result of the introduction of Compass, TransLink has made some significant changes to our fare products. A Beta Test in fall 2013 may also result in further tariff changes, which will be reflected in our transit tariff.
TOLL REVENUES
TransLink’s only source of toll revenues at this time is from the Golden Ears Bridge. Toll revenues will continue to grow over the plan period, although at a slightly slower rate than previously expected, as demonstrated in Table 10. Revenue forecast have been revised to account for lower than expected demand in 2013, possibly due to the introductory toll rates on the new Port Mann Bridge. Travel volumes on the Golden Ears Bridge are expected to stabilize and to increase by 2.5 per cent in 2014 and at declining rates of growth thereafter.
TRANSPORTATION - 56
32 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Toll revenues contribute to the cost of building and operating bridges but do not cover the full costs. In 2014, the cost of the contract payments to the Concessionaire and other operating and maintenance costs will exceed revenues by $47 million. As contract payments are scheduled to increase, the revenue gap will increase to approximately $53 million by 2016.
Toll rates vary by vehicle type and type of account, as is shown Table 12. The toll rates are adjusted for changes in inflation annually on July 15, and are forecast to increase each year by a rate of inflation of 2 per cent. TransLink continues to work with the Transportation Investment Corporation on interoperability between the Golden Ears and Port Mann bridges. Customers who use the Port Mann Bridge’s toll decal may be eligible for Transponder Registered toll rates when crossing the Golden Ears Bridge. In the near future, it may be possible for these customers to receive a single bill and manage their tolls for both Bridges through one tolling agency.
Table 12: Golden Ears Bridge Toll Rates (July 2013–July 2014) Vehicle Classification Transponder Registered Video Registered Unregistered Car $3.00 $3.55 $4.25 Small Truck $6.00 $6.55 $7.15 Large Truck $8.95 $9.60 $10.15 Motorcycle n/a $1.50 $2.75
Taxation Sources
Taxation is used as a revenue source to help spread the cost of providing a safe and efficient transportation system across as many beneficiaries as possible. Fuel taxes are used as a proxy for road user fees to help pay for the cost of maintaining and upgrading roads. Property taxes are used because all residents benefit from the transportation system, even if they don’t drive or use transit; the efficient movement of people, goods and services is vital to our economy, our environment and our quality of life.
MOTOR FUEL TAX REVENUES
Under the SCBCTA Act, TransLink is allowed to collect a fuel tax of $0.17/L in the Metro Vancouver region. The forecast revenues over the Plan and Outlook periods are expected to grow slightly in 2014 to $337.8 million and then begin to decline to $334.7 million in 2016 and $328.5 million in 2023, as shown in Table 10.
Fuel tax is currently TransLink’s second-largest source of revenue, accounting for 24 per cent of total revenues in 2014. In 2011 and 2012, there was a sharp decline in fuel consumption in the Metro Vancouver region; the same trend occurred in other parts of North America, and this has caused TransLink to re-evaluate its assumptions used to predict future fuel volume sales. The causes of the change in fuel consumption are believed to be reduced driving, increased use of fuel-efficient vehicles, and cross-border fuel purchases. Growth in diesel consumption has helped to dampen this decline in 2013.
TRANSPORTATION - 57
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 33
The forecasted fuel tax revenues for the Plan Period are estimated to be very close to what was forecast in the 2013 Base Plan (approximately 1 per cent higher than expected in the 2013 Base Plan), indicating that our near-term forecasts are accurate. However, further downward revisions to long-term gasoline volumes sales predictions forecast a decrease of $35 million relative to previous estimates for the outlying seven years. Fuel tax revenues thus continue to pose a revenue risk in the long term. TransLink will continue to monitor fuel consumption in the region, but the decline in this revenue source means that we need to find a new, more sustainable revenue source.
PROPERTY TAX
Property tax revenue will increase by 3 per cent per year, the maximum annual increase permitted under legislation for a base plan. Tax rates for all property classes necessary to generate the targeted revenue increase will be calculated to generate no more than the amount permitted by law and will be “rebalanced” for growth in the region and assessed values of homes. For example, if regional growth was 2 per cent, there would only be a 1 per cent increase in owner property taxes.
Table 13: Property Tax Projections (millions) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2023 Property Tax $ 288.7 $ 296.1 $ 304.9 $ 314.1 $ 323.5 $ 397.9 Time-limited Property Tax $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
The 2013 Supplemental Plan removed the time-limited property tax increase (approximately $30 million per year in 2014 and 2015), and it is no longer included in TransLink’s expected revenues.
PARKING RIGHTS TAX REVENUE
Under the 2014 Base Plan, parking rights tax revenue is forecast to be $56 million in 2014 and is expected to increase to $57.7 million by 2016. The tax rate is set at 21 per cent, the maximum permitted under the SCBCTA Act.
The 2014–2016 forecasts assume a 1.5 per cent increase on the price of paid parking, based on various, and in some cases offsetting, factors such as declining office vacancy rates, vehicle use, and increasing tourism, inflation and population.
OTHER TAXES: REPLACEMENT TAX, HYDRO LEVY
The Replacement Tax forecast remains at its legislated maximum of $18 million per year for the Base Plan and Outlook period. The tax will continue to be collected from all allowable property tax classes. The Hydro Levy will be held at the statutory rate of $1.90 per month per residential account with no increases other than general population growth.
Senior Government Contributions
The Federal and Provincial governments contribute to TransLink’s capital projects through the Strategic Priorities (Federal Gas Tax) Fund, Building Canada Fund and the Provincial Transit Plan.
TRANSPORTATION - 58
34 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Restricted transfers from governments are deferred, and then recognized as revenue as the related stipulations in the agreement are met. A significant portion of funds received from the federal government programs requires TransLink to acquire specific transit assets with the funds, maintain the assets over a set holding period, and repay funds if the associated assets are sold before the end of the holding period. The revenue is recognized over the holding period of the asset rather than upon receiving the funds, which results in annual revenues as shown in Table 14 below. TransLink will recognize $88.1 million of revenues from senior government funding in 2014, increasing to $132.2 million in 2016.
Table 14: Senior Government Contribution Forecasts for Capital and Operations (millions) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2023 Capital $ 65.1 $ 66.3 $ 68.8 $ 92.5 $ 112.9 $ 123.0 Operations $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 Total Contributions $ 84.4 $ 85.6 $ 88.1 $ 111.8 $ 132.2 $ 142.3
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FUND (FEDERAL GAS TAX)
Under the terms of The Agreement on the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues under the New Deal for Cities and Communities 2005–2015, Metro Vancouver agreed to commit 100 per cent of the federal Gas Tax Fund revenues earmarked for the Greater Vancouver Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) to TransLink and transit initiatives. This SPF agreement with Metro Vancouver expires March 31, 2014, concurrent with the overarching federal agreements.
The Gas Tax Fund currently contributes roughly $122 million a year to transit projects across the region. Under current programs, senior government funding is applied to those projects meeting the funding program’s criteria up to the allowable limit. The funds are restricted and cannot be used for TransLink’s day-to-day business operations.
To date, TransLink has received $676.9 million in gas tax funds, which has been used to improve the accessibility of the fleet, replace older buses with new fuel-efficient vehicles and expand the transit fleet, including electric trolley, hybrid and CNG buses, a new SeaBus passenger ferry and 14 new SkyTrain cars. The Fund has also allowed us to make improvements to the Hamilton Transit Centre and SkyTrain Operations and Maintenance Centre and has supported the rehabilitation of TransLink’s vehicle fleet. This has helped us expand service by 28.4 per cent from 2005 to 2012 and given our customers one of the newest, most accessible and environmentally friendly bus fleets in North America.
The cumulative budget for anticipated new gas tax–eligible projects in the 2014–2016 three-year capital plan is $299 million, with $243 million in federal gas tax funding approved or planned to be proposed. These projects include several infrastructure improvements and replacements, but most are fleet replacement projects with the following anticipated vehicle volumes:
• Replacement of 289 conventional buses • Replacement of 57 Community Shuttles • Replacement of 129 HandyDART vehicles
TRANSPORTATION - 59
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 35
OTHER SENIOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING
To date, TransLink has received $20.1 million in Building Canada funding (BCF) on $39.8 million in capital costs as of December 31, 2012. In 2013 and onwards, we expect to receive $198.4 million on $287.0 in capital expenditures on BCF projects for SkyTrain station upgrades, fare gates, and West Coast Express facility and fleet expansion. All BCF projects are scheduled to be complete or substantially complete by the end of 2016.
TransLink receives an operating contribution of $19.3 million per year representing deferred provincial contributions for the Canada Line.
The 2013 federal budget, Economic Action Plan 2013, introduced over $53 billion in infrastructure investments, including over $47 billion in the new 10-year Building Canada Plan that renews and expands existing programs starting in 2014–2015. This new program includes a Community Improvement Fund (Gas Tax Fund and incremental GST rebate for municipalities), a new Building Canada Fund and the P3 Canada Fund as well as providing for funding through the end of current agreements. The implementation of the Building Canada Plan and its subsequent regional allocations through agreements such as a Strategic Priorities Fund require new agreements between all partners. Interest Income
Interest is earned on sinking funds, capital contributions, debt reserve funds and cash balances. Most of the interest income is restricted and cannot be used to fund operations, with the exception of interest from cash balances.
In previous years, interest income has been calculated on restricted cash, but as the interest earned on these restricted funds can only be applied to fund eligible capital projects and not toward general operations it has been excluded in the 2014 Base Plan. This change is a requirement of the recently adopted Public Sector Accounting standards.
Interest revenue in the plan increases mainly due to the accumulation of further contributions to the sinking fund. The funds accumulated in this sinking fund go towards funding maturing debt issues, which happens in the later part of the Outlook period.
TRANSPORTATION - 60
36 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
5. ACHIEVING OUR GOALS
Outcomes
This section evaluates regional performance toward goals adopted in the 2013 Regional Transportation Strategy through the plan and outlook period. Only modest progress will occur toward most of these goals through 2015; progress will come mostly from vehicle efficiency improvements and the upcoming Evergreen Line. In spite of significant rapid transit network expansion, these gains will not be sustained through the outlook period, making the long-term goals more difficult to accomplish. Land use changes are essential to meeting regional and provincial transportation targets. Without transit-oriented land use and increased transit capacity and cycling infrastructure to support it, there will be little shift away from trips in personal vehicles and not much reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Under this 2014 Base Plan, there will be little progress toward reduced reliance on personal vehicles, reduced traffic congestion, and efficient movement of people and goods. This limits our ability to do our part to fulfil the Regional Transportation Strategy’s aspirations for a sustainable region.
The following analysis uses quantitative methods when possible, supplemented by qualitative analysis. TransLink offers comment on the implications for 2023 if current resource levels are extrapolated into the future.
Goal 1: Provide Sustainable Transportation Choices TransLink supports alternatives to single-occupant vehicle trips by:
• Improving regional accessibility • Reducing the need to own a car Figure 2: Regional Weekday Mode Share from the 2011 Trip Diary1 • Reducing distances travelled by car • Increasing walking, cycling and transit use
Limited progress toward this goal is expected under this plan, in part due to decreasing transit service levels per capita (2.58 hours per capita in 2013, declining to 2.33 in 2023), which will occur if expansion investments beyond those identified in this plan are not made in the intervening years. As a reference for these forecast impacts, Figure 2 shows the breakdown of regional weekday mode share as revealed in the 2011 Trip Diary.3
The 2011 Trip Diary results show that transit mode share has increased substantially since 1999, from 10 per cent to 14 per cent and is expected to remain at this level through the plan and outlook periods. This is well below the Provincial Transit Plan’s 2020 target of 17 per cent of weekday trips.
3 The Trip Diary is a household-level survey TransLink carries out about every four to five years to understand travel behaviours in the region better. Participants are asked to provide details about all trips made within a 24- hour period, including mode, destination and trip purpose.
TRANSPORTATION - 61
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 37
Table 15: Ridership Forecasts (millions)
Figure 3: Transit Mode Share Trends and Forecasts
Results from the 2011 Trip Diary indicate that walking mode share has declined since the 1990s, remaining steady at the 2004 level of 11 per cent. This is not expected to increase under this plan. Greater gains have been achieved in cycling, with cycling mode share increasing to 1.8 per cent (from 1.5 per cent). Achieving greater shifts to walking, cycling and transit depends on investment in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, demand‐side management measures and supportive land use.
Goal 2: Support a Compact Urban Area TransLink supports the development of a compact urban area through:
Support for RGS Growth Targets
TRANSPORTATION - 62
38 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
The Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy (approved in 2011) set a goal to “create a compact urban area” by focusing growth in designated urban centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDAs). This goal is bolstered by employment and dwelling growth targets, which TransLink supports by ensuring that urban centres and FTDAs are connected to the Frequent Transit Network (FTN).
Based on data from the recently released 2011 Census of Canada and Pitney Bowes Canada Business Points, 54 per cent of the region’s dwellings and 66 per cent of regional jobs are located within walking distance4 of the FTN. This achievement results primarily from expansion of the FTN network, though employment growth has been slightly stronger along the FTN. Employment and residential projections provided by Metro Vancouver indicate that by 2023, growth within walking distance of the Frequent Transit Network will be offset by growth in areas that are less conducive to transit. It is expected that progress on this goal will erode over the Outlook period unless development in the region is concentrated in urban centres and FTDAs.
Goal 3: Enable a Sustainable Economy Projects that further this goal are grounded by the following objectives:
• Improve access to jobs • Ensure efficient and reliable goods movement • Ensure efficient and reliable movement of people • Increase resilience to fossil fuel shortages and price shocks
The opening of the Evergreen Line in 2016 will deliver progress on this goal by connecting Coquitlam Centre and Port Moody’s Inlet Centre to urban centres along the Expo and Millennium SkyTrain Lines. This will directly expand transit access to employment opportunities in Coquitlam, Port Moody, Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey and Vancouver.
TransLink will continue to work with Transport Canada and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure on the Applied Freight Research Initiative (AFRI). Through a series of detailed studies focusing on various freight market sectors, AFRI informs decision makers to help increase the efficiency and reliability of goods movement in the region.
TransLink will also continue to identify opportunities to improve network efficiency. Initiatives such as transit signal prioritization, the Major Road Network review and the Goods Movement Strategy have the potential to improve traffic flow and travel times. Additional congestion relief is expected as personal vehicle trips shift to transit due to the opening of the Evergreen Line and other transit improvements. Efforts to improve congestion must be carefully evaluated, as experience worldwide has shown that gains can be lost to induced travel over time.
Goal 4: Foster Safe, Healthy and Complete Communities Investments that contribute toward this goal support some or all of the following objectives:
• Improve access to communities, including access by walking, transit and cycling
4 “Within walking distance” is defined as within a 5-minute walk (400 m) of a frequent bus corridor or within a 10- minute walk (800 m) of a rapid transit station.
TRANSPORTATION - 63
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 39
• Ensure transport safety • Ensure transport security • Reduce contribution to respiratory illness • Improve cardiovascular health
The Compass card and fare gates initiative, which will be implemented in 2013, will increase the public’s sense of safety and security on the transit system.
On the road network, the incidence of traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries has been declining since 2007. TransLink is working with municipalities to improve safety and security through the designation of a Dangerous Goods Movement Network on the Major Road Network. In 2012, TransLink summarized baseline conditions for traffic safety on the MRN. In 2013, TransLink will work with the municipalities to consider various initiatives for improving traffic safety for motorists in the region.
Transportation negatively impacts respiratory health through the emission of Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs), which refer to a group of pollutants that include sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, Particulate Matter (PM), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide, and ammonia. In Metro Vancouver cars and trucks were the primary source for regional Criteria Air Contaminant (CAC) emissions in 2010, responsible for 22% of the total5.
CAC emissions from transport are a product of distance travelled and vehicle fuel efficiencies. As shown in Figure 4, personal vehicle kilometers travelled (VKT) is expected to grow at a slower rate than population. While this is a positive shift in trend, it still means that total VKT in the region will continue to grow. The 2014 Base Plan is expected to deliver moderate progress on CAC emission reductions between 2014 and 2017, with greater gains in the outlook period due to the opening of the Evergreen Line. More significant reductions are expected through continued technological advancements to make vehicles more efficient.
5 Metro Vancouver. Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan (IAQGGMP), Burnaby: Metro Vancouver, 2011, 34.
TRANSPORTATION - 64
40 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Figure 4: Percentage Change in Personal Vehicle Kilometers Travelled Through the Plan and Outlook Periods
Goal 5: Protect the Environment TransLink will contribute to protecting the environment through:
• Reduce contribution to climate change by lowering its greenhouse gas emissions • Support a compact urban form within the Urban Containment Boundary • Minimize encroachment on designated conservation, recreation, agricultural and rural lands
Transportation is a significant contributor to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs from transport are a product of distance (vehicle kilometers travelled, or VKT), fuel economy (determined by vehicle fuel efficiency and network operations, such as congestion) and the carbon intensity of fuels.
As with CAC emissions, the 2014 Base Plan is expected to deliver moderate progress on GHG emission reductions between 2014 and 2017, with greater gains in the outlook period due to the opening of the Evergreen Line. Additional reductions in emissions will result through continued technological advancements to make vehicles more efficient.
TransLink’s average transit fleet fuel efficiency and GHG emissions rates compare favourably to peer regions because of the electric-powered SkyTrain system and trolley buses, and the hybrid and alternative fuel conventional buses and community shuttles. Through the period of this plan and outlook, TransLink will continue to make improvements by replacing older-generation diesel buses.
TRANSPORTATION - 65
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 41
Key Performance Indicators
Key performance indicators for TransLink’s conventional and custom transit services are summarized in Table 16. These indicators show improvements in the conventional system over the plan period: operating costs per revenue passenger are lower, revenue per passenger is higher, boardings per service hour are higher, and cost recovery has improved. Operating cost per revenue passenger in the custom system will increase at inflation, while boardings per service hour remain stable.
TRANSPORTATION - 66
42 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook
Table 16: Key Performance Indicators
Key Performance Metric* Actual results Budget Forecasts 2010-2016 Avg Annual 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Growth Rate Conventional System Boarding per Service Hour 54.40 56.21 57.08 59.24 58.88 59.25 60.29 Annual change 3.3% 1.6% 3.8% -0.6% 0.6% 1.8% 1.7% Operating Cost per Revenue Passenger 1 $3.90 $3.64 $3.76 $4.03 $3.98 $3.98 $3.96 Annual change -6.9% 3.4% 7.2% -1.3% 0.0% -0.5% 0.2% Operating Cost per Revenue Passenger (without energy) 1 $3.64 $3.37 $3.47 $3.72 $3.66 $3.64 $3.60 Annual change -7.5% 3.0% 7.2% -1.5% -0.7% -1.0% -0.2% Average Fare per Revenue Passenger $1.89 $1.86 $1.88 $2.08 $2.09 $2.20 $2.24 Annual change -1.5% 1.0% 10.8% 0.7% 5.1% 1.8% 2.9% Cost Recovery (all Transit Revenue) 1 51.4% 52.6% 51.6% 53.0% 54.2% 57.0% 58.4% Annual change 2.3% -1.9% 2.7% 2.3% 5.2% 2.4% 2.1% Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km - All 1 $5.61 $5.60 $5.91 $6.29 $6.32 $6.38 $6.38 Annual change -0.2% 5.5% 6.4% 0.5% 0.9% 0.1% 2.2% Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km - All (without energy) 1 $5.24 $5.19 $5.45 $5.80 $5.82 $5.83 $5.80 Annual change -1.0% 5.1% 6.4% 0.4% 0.1% -0.5% 1.7%
Access Transit Boarding per Service Hour 2.47 2.53 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 Annual change 2.6% 0.9% -0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% Operating Cost per Revenue Passenger $34.03 $33.35 $34.53 $35.28 $35.16 $36.03 $36.60 Annual change -2.0% 3.6% 2.2% -0.3% 2.5% 1.6% 1.2% Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km $4.60 $4.59 $4.83 $4.90 $4.99 $5.12 $5.20 Annual change -0.2% 5.4% 1.3% 2.0% 2.5% 1.6% 2.1% Operating Cost per Service Hour $76.39 $77.22 $80.61 $82.33 $ 82.01 $ 84.05 $ 85.38 Annual change 1.1% 4.4% 2.1% -0.4% 2.5% 1.6% 1.9%
1 Operating cost excludes one-time costs of $16M for Compass card and $4M for relocation in 2013, and $11M for Compass card in 2014, and $7.8M for Evergreen Line in 2016.
TRANSPORTATION - 67
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 43
- - This page intentionally left blank. - -
TRANSPORTATION - 68
44 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 6. CONCLUSION TransLink continues to face financial challenges, but our commitment to efficiency and good management have allowed us to carry through with commitments made in last year’s plans and avoid cutting services or programs. These steps are still not enough to meet the current and future needs of the region. We continue to run an annual deficit, and our revenue sources are insufficient to make the investments we need.
TransLink will continue to support the dialogue between the Mayors’ Council and the Province on identifying new funding sources, with a referendum on transportation funding expected sometime in 2014.
Through 2014, TransLink will continue the dialogue with the region on the RTS Strategic Framework to identify an implementation plan for the next 15 years. This implementation plan will bring together strategies for investing in system expansion, managing demand and coordinating land use to ensure that the region achieves a transportation system that is affordable and supports healthy lives, in communities with prosperous businesses, safe streets, clean air and thriving natural environments.
TRANSPORTATION - 69
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 45
- - This page intentionally left blank. - -
TRANSPORTATION - 70
46 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook APPENDIX A: FINANCIAL INFORMATION This section provides information on debt service, funding adjustments and cumulative surplus, assets and liabilities, and key economic assumptions and risk assessment. Appendix B contains detailed financial tables.
Debt Service
Debt service is made up of interest paid and depreciation.
Interest expense is budgeted at $182.6 million in 2014 and forecast to reach $211.6 million in 2016 and $249.3 million in 2023. The increase in interest expenses is due to growing debt related to capital expenditures. Interest rates are also forecast to increase somewhat over the plan and outlook periods.
Depreciation expenses are budgeted at $165.1 million in 2014 and are forecast to increase to $205.3 million in 2016 and reach $237.7 million in 2023. This increase reflects the replacement of assets, with new assets being more expensive than the older replaced assets due to inflation, as well as the depreciation of new major projects coming into service (Compass, Hamilton Transit Centre, Evergreen Line).
Table 17: Debt Service Expense (millions) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2023 Interest Expense $ 177.7 $ 180.2 $ 182.6 $ 191.4 $ 211.6 $ 249.3 Depreciation Expense $ 164.0 $ 176.6 $ 165.1 $ 186.2 $ 205.3 $ 237.7 Funding Adjustment
TransLink is required by the SCBCTA Act to generate sufficient funds to pay for its expenditures and cannot budget for a funding deficit. The legislation specifies that TransLink must retain an accumulated funded surplus. TransLink has a policy of maintaining a minimum cumulative funded surplus of 12 per cent of annual operating expenditures for each of the plan period years, and a 10 per cent minimum cumulative funded surplus in each of the Outlook period years. The funded annual surplus/deficit and resulting cumulative fund balance are determined by adjusting the excess (deficiency) of revenue over expenditures (consistent with Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) for the following:
• Reversing depreciation and other non-cash expenditures • Reversing restricted capital contributions and capital payments to municipalities for the MRN • Adding payments to sinking funds and public-private partnerships (P3) for debt repayment
A combined negative funding adjustment means a reduction of the cumulative fund balance, while a combined positive funding adjustment means an increase to the cumulative fund balance.
TRANSPORTATION - 71
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 47 Table 18: Funding Adjustments (millions) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2023 Funding Adjustments $ 20.3 $ 24.4 $ 7.3 $ (37.4) $ (70.0) $ (60.2) As shown in Figure 5, the cumulative funded surplus is forecast to remain above TransLink’s stated policy levels for the plan and outlook period due to injection of revenues from the sale of real estate assets planned for in 2016 and 2017. Without the real estate revenues, the cumulative funded surplus would be below policy levels starting in 2017.
Figure 5: Cumulative Funded Surplus Level Forecasts for 2013 through 2023
$1,800 100.0%
$1,600 3 Year Plan Outlook 90.0%
80.0% $1,400 Operating Expenditure 70.0% $1,200 Revenue
Revenue without real estate sales 60.0% $1,000 Cumulative Funded Surplus % (Going 50.0% Forward) $800 Cumulative Surplus % without real estate sales (Going Forward) 40.0%
Revenue and Expenditures (Millions) Expenditures and Revenue $600 30.0% 23.0% 23.7% 20.7% $400 18.9% 19.8% 18.7% 17.0% 17.9% 17.3% 17.6% 20.0%
15.5% Expenditure Operating of % a as Surplus Cumulative
$200 10.0% 12.3% 8.8% 9.0% 6.4% 6.7% $0 5.1% 4.9% 5.4% 0.0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Note: The dotted green line is the Cumulative Funded Surplus, as a percentage of operating expenditures. Based on the Funded Statement of Operations
Cash Flow Statement
The cash flow statement (Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows) can be found in Appendix B: Financial Tables. The beginning cash balance in 2014 is forecast at $217.0 million decreasing to $180 million at the end of 2016, representing a decrease of $37 million over the plan period. During the outlook period, the cash balance is forecast to grow to $445 million in 2023. The increase in cash balance is primarily due to the sale of real estate assets, which assumes net proceeds of $40 million in 2016 and $110 million in 2017.
Balance Sheet
The detailed balance sheet (Consolidated Statement of Financial Position) is shown in Appendix G: Financial Tables. Total assets will increase by $857 million from the beginning of 2014 to the end of
TRANSPORTATION - 72
48 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 2016, bringing total assets to $6.2 billion, of which $5.3 billion are capital assets. By the end of 2023, total assets will amount to $6.4 billion, of which $4.7 billion are capital assets.
The gross direct debt level peaks at $3.49 billion at the end of 2017, which is below the borrowing limit of $3.5 billion. Thereafter it declines slightly to $3.45 billion by the end of 2023.
Figure 6: Debt Level
Key Assumptions
Economic assumptions have been developed through research from a variety of sources.
• Real GDP growth, employment and inflation are based on estimates from the BC Ministry of Finance Budget and Fiscal Plan (2013/2014 to 2015/16), which reflect consensus opinion of a blue-ribbon panel of economic advisors. • Interest rates are based on forecasts from major Canadian chartered banks, the BC Ministry of Finance’s Budget and Fiscal Plan and TransLink’s credit spread and issue costs. • The fuel volume forecast is based on the Provincial forecast modified for specific characteristics to Metro Vancouver, and fuel prices are estimated using US Energy Information Administration forecasts adjusted for Canadian prices, taxes and price differentials, which is the same method used for the 2013 Base Plan and Supplemental Plan. • Construction inflation growth rates are based on BTY Group Market Intelligence (mid-range of the estimates).
Other major assumptions in the 2014 Base Plan include:
• Operation and maintenance funding for roads is maintained at the 2011 rate, adjusted for a 2 per cent annual allowance for inflation.
TRANSPORTATION - 73
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 49 • Continuation of senior government funding is assumed in this plan. TransLink will continue to use senior government funding made available for eligible projects.
Table 19: Key Assumptions for the 2014 Base Plan Assumption Impact % Change/Rate per Year 2014 2015 2016 2017-2023 $ million / yr
Real GDP growth 2.2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.0%
Goods and Services Inflation 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% + / - 1.7
Construction (excluding road construction) Inflation 1.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% + / - 0.0
Road Construction Inflation 1.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% + / - 0.0
Hydro Cost 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% + / - 0.1
Gasoline Cost (per litre & net of HST rebate) $1.37 $1.44 $1.52 $1.6 to $1.8 Diesel Cost (per Litre & net of HST rebate) $1.39 $1.49 $1.61 $1.72 to $1.96 + / - 0.9
Interest Rates - Short Term 2.50% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% + / - 1.2 - Long Term 4.8% 5.3% 6.0% 6.8% + / - 1.3
Regional Fuel Consumption - Gasoline (million litres) 1,674 1,657 1,645 1633 to 1560 + / - 2.8 - Diesel (million litres) 313 317 324 330 to 372 + / - 0.6
Risk Assessment and Sensitivity Analyses
TransLink’s risk management strategies, policies and limits are designed to ensure TransLink’s risks and related exposures are aligned with corporate business objectives and risk tolerances. Using an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) process, annual assessments are conducted that focus on strategic, political, reputational, financial, human resources, business effectiveness, health and safety, environmental, reporting and regulatory risks.
All residual risks that are considered high or moderate are incorporated into a corporate risk action plan whereby risks are assigned to an executive who is accountable for reporting back on efforts to mitigate this risk. The Chief Executive Officer provides an update to the Board of Directors at each Board meeting.
TransLink’s governance structure requires that a three-year Base Plan with Outlook be adopted each year. This structure, along with the alignment of the Budget and the Plan, ensures that TransLink is able to continually monitor all revenues and expenditures and modify its strategy to respond to changes in conditions.
TRANSPORTATION - 74
50 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook ENERGY Fuel Tax Revenue – High risk. Fuel price and fuel consumption forecasts are based on a number of assumptions, and even small changes in those assumptions accumulate large financial impacts over the plan and outlook period. For example, a 0.5 per cent change in annual average growth results in an impact of $90–$100 million over 10 years, with an impact of $10 million in the first three years.
Transit Operations Fuel Cost – Medium risk. Coast Mountain Bus Company secures future fuel contract prices up to a year in advance on up to 75 per cent of the anticipated diesel volume consumption requirements. A 1 per cent change to the price of purchased fuel would change expenditures by $400,000. TransLink is investigating further fuel hedging opportunities. TransLink and CMBC are looking at replacing retiring diesel buses with new compressed natural gas vehicles that provide significant fuel cost savings.
BC Hydro – Medium risk. BC Hydro’s resource plan calls for rate increases at double and triple the rate of inflation over the next three years due to lagging capital investments. For every 1 per cent increase in hydro rates, operating expenses would increase by approximately $700,000.
TRANSIT FARE REVENUES Medium risk. Ridership assumptions are the inherent driver for fare revenue projections. A 1 per cent change in ridership will result in a fluctuation of approximately $5 million per year in revenues.
ECONOMIC FACTORS Low risk. Future interest rates, inflation and general economic growth are notable risk factors that increase over the planning horizon. As the economy emerges from the present downturn, general inflation may exceed the annual rate increases allowed under the SCBCTA Act. A 1 per cent increase in general inflation over the plan and outlook period would affect TransLink expenditures by $1.7 million per year.
SENIOR GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION Medium risk. Federal agreements remain outstanding; consequently, regional agreements remain to be secured. The terms of those agreements will be critical to providing adequate long-term surety for project planning, especially in cases where project duration extends beyond the three-year Base Plan period and into the following seven-year Outlook.
GAIN (LOSS) FROM THE SALE OF ASSETS Medium to high risk. TransLink will manage the financial risk of surplus assets not being sold at forecasted amounts. Strategies would include additional cost containment and a re-evaluation of the capital investment plan.
OPERATIONAL SAVINGS Medium risk. CMBC achieved significant cost efficiencies in 2013. This plan assumes further efficiencies in scheduling, recovery and vehicle deployment, and other operating costs. The rate of conversion of conventional buses to community shuttles and savings realized will be less than what was anticipated in the 2013 plan.
TRANSPORTATION - 75
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 51
APPENDIX B: FINANCIAL TABLES
Table 20: Consolidated Statement of Financial Position (thousands) For the years ending 31 Dec. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Financial Assets Cash 217,000 190,068 176,055 180,004 262,868 251,549 262,929 288,166 325,190 377,082 444,941 Accounts receivable 110,249 113,556 116,963 120,472 124,086 127,808 131,643 135,592 139,660 143,849 148,165 Restricted cash & investments 326,004 356,121 395,500 445,510 502,386 566,530 635,584 659,870 733,443 812,805 865,032 Investments 116,856 119,329 122,907 127,567 133,408 139,516 145,904 152,585 159,571 166,877 174,518 Debt reserve deposits 38,958 37,652 38,136 36,934 35,074 32,104 30,938 30,344 28,482 26,086 26,845 Financial Assets Total 809,068 816,726 849,561 910,487 1,057,822 1,117,507 1,206,998 1,266,557 1,386,346 1,526,700 1,659,500
Liabilities A/P & accrued liabilities 231,074 238,007 245,147 252,501 260,076 267,879 275,915 284,192 292,718 301,500 310,545 Debt 2,127,587 2,319,671 2,626,694 2,700,946 2,800,393 2,785,947 2,792,392 2,755,673 2,766,114 2,772,607 2,748,088 Deferred government transfer 1,211,930 1,405,225 1,484,681 1,494,570 1,470,351 1,435,388 1,367,840 1,308,062 1,246,616 1,167,019 1,149,203 Employee future benefits 86,076 94,684 104,152 114,567 126,024 138,626 152,489 167,738 184,512 202,963 223,259 Deferred Concessionaire credits 618,878 595,541 572,204 548,867 525,530 502,193 478,856 455,519 432,182 408,845 385,508 Golden Ears Bridge contractor liability 1,045,059 1,051,375 1,050,913 1,049,021 1,045,557 1,040,378 1,033,348 1,024,302 1,013,077 999,512 983,403 Liabilities Total 5,320,604 5,704,502 6,083,790 6,160,472 6,227,931 6,170,410 6,100,839 5,995,486 5,935,219 5,852,445 5,800,006
Net DEBT Total (4,511,536) (4,887,776) (5,234,229) (5,249,985) (5,170,109) (5,052,903) (4,893,842) (4,728,929) (4,548,873) (4,325,746) (4,140,505)
Non-Financial Assets Non-Financial Assets Tangible capital assets 4,520,777 4,843,806 5,207,973 5,281,405 5,332,824 5,246,933 5,130,208 5,019,747 4,906,794 4,768,877 4,693,040 Supplies inventory 38,978 40,147 41,352 42,592 43,870 45,186 46,542 47,938 49,376 50,857 52,383 Prepaid expenses 8,684 8,944 9,213 9,489 9,774 10,067 10,369 10,680 11,000 11,330 11,670 Non-Financial Assets Total 4,568,438 4,892,898 5,258,538 5,333,487 5,386,468 5,302,186 5,187,118 5,078,365 4,967,171 4,831,065 4,757,093 Non-Financial Assets Total 4,568,438 4,892,898 5,258,538 5,333,487 5,386,468 5,302,186 5,187,118 5,078,365 4,967,171 4,831,065 4,757,093 Accumulated Surplus 56,902 5,122 24,309 83,501 216,358 249,283 293,277 349,436 418,298 505,319 616,588
TRANSPORTATION - 76
52 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook Table 21: Statement of Operations (millions) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Transit Revenues $ 463.5 $ 501.0 $ 518.2 $ 551.0 $ 572.0 $ 596.8 $ 618.5 $ 640.6 $ 661.9 $ 681.2 $ 701.0 $ 720.7 Toll Revenues $ 38.9 $ 40.1 $ 39.6 $ 41.1 $ 42.6 $ 44.1 $ 45.5 $ 46.9 $ 48.4 $ 49.7 $ 51.1 $ 52.5 User Fees $ 502.4 $ 541.1 $ 557.8 $ 592.1 $ 614.6 $ 640.9 $ 664.0 $ 687.6 $ 710.2 $ 731.0 $ 752.1 $ 773.1 Motor Fuel Tax $ 335.3 $ 335.1 $ 337.8 $ 335.7 $ 334.7 $ 333.7 $ 332.7 $ 331.8 $ 330.9 $ 330.1 $ 329.3 $ 328.5 Property Tax $ 288.7 $ 296.1 $ 304.9 $ 314.1 $ 323.5 $ 333.2 $ 343.2 $ 353.5 $ 364.1 $ 375.0 $ 386.3 $ 397.9 Parking Rights Tax $ 53.2 $ 52.9 $ 56.0 $ 56.9 $ 57.7 $ 58.6 $ 59.5 $ 60.3 $ 61.3 $ 62.2 $ 63.1 $ 64.1 Other Taxes $ 37.2 $ 37.5 $ 37.7 $ 38.0 $ 38.4 $ 38.7 $ 39.1 $ 39.4 $ 39.7 $ 40.0 $ 40.3 $ 40.6 Taxation Revenues $ 714.4 $ 721.6 $ 736.4 $ 744.7 $ 754.3 $ 764.2 $ 774.5 $ 785.1 $ 796.0 $ 807.3 $ 819.0 $ 831.1 Senior Government Contributions $ 84.3 $ 85.6 $ 88.1 $ 111.8 $ 132.2 $ 138.3 $ 142.8 $ 141.5 $ 134.9 $ 134.4 $ 137.1 $ 142.3 Canada Line Concessionaire credit $ 23.3 $ 23.1 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 $ 23.3 Interest Revenue $ 31.7 $ 36.7 $ 34.2 $ 37.7 $ 43.9 $ 49.9 $ 51.7 $ 51.0 $ 54.6 $ 57.7 $ 61.9 $ 66.2 Gain on Disposal $ 41.6 $ 13.0 $ - $ - $ 40.0 $ 110.0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Revenues $ 1,397.7 $ 1,421.2 $ 1,439.9 $ 1,509.6 $ 1,608.4 $ 1,726.7 $ 1,656.2 $ 1,688.4 $ 1,719.1 $ 1,753.8 $ 1,793.5 $ 1,836.1 Roads, Bridges and Bicycles $ 115.3 $ 117.9 $ 111.5 $ 84.0 $ 65.8 $ 66.6 $ 67.1 $ 67.8 $ 68.4 $ 69.1 $ 69.9 $ 70.5 Transit Operations $ 861.4 $ 898.8 $ 896.4 $ 918.0 $ 953.4 $ 960.6 $ 973.7 $ 985.3 $ 1,000.4 $ 1,014.5 $ 1,030.0 $ 1,042.3 TransLink Corporate & Police $ 92.7 $ 122.0 $ 118.6 $ 110.9 $ 113.0 $ 114.2 $ 115.7 $ 119.3 $ 118.9 $ 122.0 $ 123.3 $ 125.0 Operating Expenditures $ 1,069.3 $ 1,138.7 $ 1,126.5 $ 1,112.9 $ 1,132.3 $ 1,141.5 $ 1,156.6 $ 1,172.3 $ 1,187.7 $ 1,205.7 $ 1,223.1 $ 1,237.8 Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation $ 328.4 $ 282.4 $ 313.4 $ 396.7 $ 476.1 $ 585.3 $ 499.7 $ 516.2 $ 531.4 $ 548.2 $ 570.3 $ 598.3 Interest Expense $ 177.7 $ 180.2 $ 182.6 $ 191.4 $ 211.6 $ 233.6 $ 239.3 $ 239.9 $ 243.0 $ 248.4 $ 248.1 $ 249.3 Depreciation Expense $ 164.0 $ 176.6 $ 165.1 $ 186.2 $ 205.3 $ 218.8 $ 227.4 $ 232.2 $ 232.2 $ 230.9 $ 235.2 $ 237.7 Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items $ (13.3) $ (74.4) $ (34.3) $ 19.2 $ 59.2 $ 132.9 $ 32.9 $ 44.0 $ 56.2 $ 68.9 $ 87.0 $ 111.3 Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment $ - $ (9.9) $ (13.5) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Surplus/(Deficit) before Funding Adjustments $ (13.3) $ (84.3) $ (47.8) $ 19.2 $ 59.2 $ 132.9 $ 32.9 $ 44.0 $ 56.2 $ 68.9 $ 87.0 $ 111.3 Funding Adjustments $ 20.3 $ 24.4 $ 6.6 $ (37.6) $ (70.0) $ (65.1) $ (57.6) $ (50.7) $ (47.4) $ (48.1) $ (51.6) $ (60.2) Funded Surplus/(Deficit) $ 7.1 $ (59.9) $ (41.2) $ (18.4) $ (10.8) $ 67.7 $ (24.6) $ (6.7) $ 8.7 $ 20.7 $ 35.4 $ 51.1 Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus $ 287.7 $ 294.8 $ 294.9 $ 253.7 $ 235.3 $ 224.6 $ 292.3 $ 267.6 $ 261.0 $ 269.7 $ 290.4 $ 325.8
Adjustment for 2013 forecast deficit $ 60.0 Cumulative Funded Surplus $ 294.8 $ 294.9 $ 253.7 $ 235.3 $ 224.6 $ 292.3 $ 267.6 $ 261.0 $ 269.7 $ 290.4 $ 325.8 $ 376.9 The Statement of Operations does not include the results of AirCare and Transportation Property and Casualty Company Inc. ("TPCC") The 2013 budgeted cumulative surplus was based on the 2012 year end cumulative surplus forecast in August of 2012 The 2014-2016 forecast reflects the current 2013 year end cumulative surplus forecast
TRANSPORTATION - 77
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 53 Table 22: Funded Statement of Operations (millions) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Transit Revenues $ 463.5 $ 501.0 $ 518.2 $ 551.0 $ 572.0 $ 596.8 $ 618.5 $ 640.6 $ 661.9 $ 681.2 $ 701.0 $ 720.7 Toll Revenues $ 38.9 $ 40.1 $ 39.6 $ 41.1 $ 42.6 $ 44.1 $ 45.5 $ 46.9 $ 48.4 $ 49.7 $ 51.1 $ 52.5 User Fees $ 502.4 $ 541.1 $ 557.8 $ 592.1 $ 614.6 $ 640.9 $ 664.0 $ 687.6 $ 710.2 $ 731.0 $ 752.1 $ 773.1 Motor Fuel Tax $ 335.3 $ 335.1 $ 337.8 $ 335.7 $ 334.7 $ 333.7 $ 332.7 $ 331.8 $ 330.9 $ 330.1 $ 329.3 $ 328.5 Property Tax $ 288.7 $ 296.1 $ 304.9 $ 314.1 $ 323.5 $ 333.2 $ 343.2 $ 353.5 $ 364.1 $ 375.0 $ 386.3 $ 397.9 Parking Rights Tax $ 53.2 $ 52.9 $ 56.0 $ 56.9 $ 57.7 $ 58.6 $ 59.5 $ 60.3 $ 61.3 $ 62.2 $ 63.1 $ 64.1 Other Taxes $ 37.2 $ 37.5 $ 37.7 $ 38.0 $ 38.4 $ 38.7 $ 39.1 $ 39.4 $ 39.7 $ 40.0 $ 40.3 $ 40.6 Taxation Revenues $ 714.4 $ 721.6 $ 736.4 $ 744.7 $ 754.3 $ 764.2 $ 774.5 $ 785.1 $ 796.0 $ 807.3 $ 819.0 $ 831.1 Senior Government Contributions $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 $ 19.3 Interest Revenue $ 4.3 $ 7.3 $ 4.1 $ 5.8 $ 7.4 $ 11.0 $ 12.5 $ 12.5 $ 13.3 $ 14.6 $ 16.6 $ 19.2 Gain on Disposal $ 40.7 $ 13.0 $ - $ - $ 40.0 $ 110.0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Revenues $ 1,281.0 $ 1,302.4 $ 1,317.6 $ 1,361.9 $ 1,435.6 $ 1,545.5 $ 1,470.3 $ 1,504.4 $ 1,538.8 $ 1,572.2 $ 1,607.0 $ 1,642.8 Roads, Bridges and Bicycles $ 49.0 $ 53.6 $ 46.9 $ 46.8 $ 45.2 $ 46.0 $ 46.5 $ 47.2 $ 47.8 $ 48.5 $ 49.3 $ 49.9 Transit Operations $ 861.4 $ 890.3 $ 896.4 $ 918.0 $ 953.4 $ 960.6 $ 973.7 $ 985.3 $ 1,000.4 $ 1,014.5 $ 1,030.0 $ 1,042.3 TranLink Corporate & Police $ 92.7 $ 122.0 $ 118.6 $ 110.9 $ 113.0 $ 114.2 $ 115.7 $ 119.3 $ 118.9 $ 122.0 $ 123.3 $ 125.0 Operating Expenditures $ 1,003.0 $ 1,065.9 $ 1,061.9 $ 1,075.8 $ 1,111.6 $ 1,120.9 $ 1,135.9 $ 1,151.7 $ 1,167.1 $ 1,185.1 $ 1,202.5 $ 1,217.2 Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation $ 278.0 $ 236.5 $ 255.7 $ 286.1 $ 324.0 $ 424.6 $ 334.3 $ 352.8 $ 371.7 $ 387.2 $ 404.5 $ 425.6 Interest Expense $ 110.8 $ 112.6 $ 114.4 $ 123.0 $ 143.3 $ 165.5 $ 171.5 $ 172.5 $ 176.1 $ 182.1 $ 182.6 $ 184.8 Capital Repayments $ 160.2 $ 173.8 $ 169.0 $ 181.5 $ 191.4 $ 191.4 $ 187.5 $ 187.0 $ 186.9 $ 184.4 $ 186.4 $ 189.7 Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items $ 7.1 $ (50.0) $ (27.7) $ (18.4) $ (10.8) $ 67.7 $ (24.6) $ (6.7) $ 8.7 $ 20.7 $ 35.4 $ 51.1 Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment $ - $ (9.9) $ (13.5) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Funded Surplus/(Deficit) $ 7.1 $ (59.9) $ (41.2) $ (18.4) $ (10.8) $ 67.7 $ (24.6) $ (6.7) $ 8.7 $ 20.7 $ 35.4 $ 51.1 Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus $ 287.7 $ 294.8 $ 294.9 $ 253.7 $ 235.3 $ 224.6 $ 292.3 $ 267.6 $ 261.0 $ 269.7 $ 290.4 $ 325.8
Adjustment for 2013 forecast deficit $ 60.0 Cumulative Funded Surplus $ 294.8 $ 294.9 $ 253.7 $ 235.3 $ 224.6 $ 292.3 $ 267.6 $ 261.0 $ 269.7 $ 290.4 $ 325.8 $ 376.9 The Statement of Operations does not include the results of AirCare and Transportation Property and Casualty Company Inc. ("TPCC") The 2013 budgeted cumulative surplus was based on the 2012 year end cumulative surplus forecast in August of 2012 The 2014-2016 forecast reflects the current 2013 year end cumulative surplus forecast
TRANSPORTATION - 78
54 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook Table 23: Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows (thousands) FORECASTS OUTLOOK 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 TOTAL Gro Projects Approved or Underway 368,906 457,924 337,498 35,395 ------1,199,723 ------Bus Equipment - 2,636 2,395 1,835 2,539 1,867 1,498 1,000 803 - - 14,574 Facilities - 3,985 6,780 3,695 3,650 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 2,082 2,083 29,275 Infrastructure Exchanges/Bus loops - 525 325 775 620 620 500 500 500 564 564 5,492 Other - 250 - 925 5,150 33,150 50,750 58,750 62,550 52,448 50,198 314,171 TOH - 8,428 7,371 4,357 5,399 2,900 6,500 4,000 5,500 7,500 2,500 54,455 Vehicles Community Shuttle Replace - - 4,841 2,617 3,218 6,600 8,500 13,900 10,100 1,300 - 51,075 Conventional 40 ft Replace - - 64,117 90,303 91,080 59,700 12,300 - - - 76,300 393,800 Custom Replace - 23 9,432 6,512 5,283 7,900 6,300 11,700 10,300 7,400 6,800 71,650 Non-Revenue - 1,212 1,367 1,881 1,055 2,407 1,909 2,112 1,911 1,070 - 14,924 Non-Revenue - - - - 90 ------90 Bus Total - 17,060 96,627 112,899 118,084 116,894 90,007 93,712 93,414 72,364 138,444 949,505 Rail Equipment - 3,088 11,761 15,213 9,359 1,872 2,590 1,404 656 2,300 - 48,243 Facilities - - 710 1,250 1,250 ------3,210 Infrastructure Other - 2,906 3,662 5,335 2,000 5,483 2,828 7,784 5,000 4,000 745 39,743 Stations & surroundings - 3,117 1,218 2,230 1,180 1,505 1,180 1,505 1,180 1,881 1,180 16,176 Wayside Power Propulsion - - - 690 - 2,186 3,279 - - 699 - 6,854 Vehicles Non-Revenue - 250 725 175 90 135 - - - - - 1,375 SkyTrain Refurbish ------2,500 2,500 - 6,200 11,200 Non-Revenue ------190 405 285 218 - 1,098 Other - - 18,000 9,000 ------27,000 Rail Total - 9,362 36,076 33,893 13,879 11,181 10,067 13,598 9,621 9,097 8,125 154,898 Roads MRNB and BICCS - 19,950 20,350 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 205,132 Roads Total - 19,950 20,350 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 205,132 Bridges Infrastructure Knight Street - 500 1 ------501 Pattullo - 24,924 81,076 77,000 120,000 ------303,000 Bridges Total - 25,424 81,078 77,000 120,000 ------303,501 Corporate Technology Applications Applications - 3,137 8,170 10,189 5,500 6,000 8,000 7,000 7,500 8,318 8,000 71,814 Infrastructure - 4,319 3,922 2,367 2,250 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 24,858 Other - 353 726 1,021 ------2,100 Other - 14,450 2,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 61,450 Corporate Total - 22,260 14,818 18,577 17,750 13,000 15,000 14,000 14,500 15,318 15,000 160,222 TL-Owned Bicycle TransLink Infrastructure - 750 1,000 1,000 480 450 450 450 450 523 303 5,856 TransLink Total - 750 1,000 1,000 480 450 450 450 450 523 303 5,856 Gross Cost Total 368,906 552,728 587,446 299,367 290,797 162,129 136,128 142,364 138,589 117,907 182,476 2,978,838 CoFed (107,777) (224,386) (156,535) (112,862) (89,622) (83,280) (49,390) (50,540) (48,360) (32,830) (99,790) (1,055,372) Prov (24,438) (34,836) (11,658) (5,420) ------(76,353) Other (457) (513) (502) (500) (500) (500) (500) (500) (500) (500) (500) (5,472) Contribution Total (132,672) (259,735) (168,695) (118,783) (90,122) (83,780) (49,890) (51,040) (48,860) (33,330) (100,290) (1,137,197) Total Net Cost 236,234 292,993 418,751 180,585 200,675 78,349 86,238 91,324 89,729 84,577 82,186 1,841,641
TRANSPORTATION - 79
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 55 Table 24: Projected Borrowing Compared to Borrowing Limit and Select Financial Ratios (millions) FORECASTS OUTLOOK 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Opening Gross Direct Borrowing 2,547 2,751 2,968 3,345 3,433 3,489 3,413 3,433 3,424 3,433 3,420 Retirements/Other (121) (76) (32) (93) (145) (155) (66) (100) (81) (97) (49) Short term borrowings 90 ------Borrowing in Yr - Capital 235 293 409 181 201 78 86 91 90 85 82 Closing Gross Direct Borrowing 2,751 2,968 3,345 3,433 3,489 3,413 3,433 3,424 3,433 3,420 3,454 Less: Sinking funds (679) (732) (841) (902) (912) (911) (991) (1,039) (1,108) (1,165) (1,271) Less: Debt Reserve Funds (39) (38) (38) (37) (35) (32) (31) (30) (28) (26) (27) Closing Net Direct Borrowing 2,033 2,198 2,467 2,494 2,542 2,470 2,412 2,354 2,297 2,229 2,155
Established Borrowing Limit 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Reconciliation of Borrowing During Year to Annual Capital Expenditures:
Captial Expenditures (including MRN) 368 552 578 299 291 162 136 142 139 118 182 Less: Sr Gov't Contributions (132) (259) (168) (118) (90) (83) (49) (51) (48) (33) (100) Less: Other Contributions (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1 ) (1) (1) (1) (1) Net Expenditures 235 293 409 181 201 78 86 91 90 85 82
Add: Gross-up for Debt Reserve Fund ------Net Borrowing amount for capital 235 293 409 181 201 78 86 91 90 85 82
TRANSPORTATION - 80
56 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook Table 25: Capital Cash Flows – Projects Approved and Proposed (thousands) FORECASTS OUTLOOK $ Thousands 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 TOTAL Gro Projects Approved or Underway 368,906 457,924 337,498 35,395 ------1,199,723 ------Bus Equipment - 2,636 2,395 1,835 2,539 1,867 1,498 1,000 803 - - 14,574 Facilities - 3,985 6,780 3,695 3,650 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 2,082 2,083 29,275 Infrastructure Exchanges/Bus loops - 525 325 775 620 620 500 500 500 564 564 5,492 Other - 250 - 925 5,150 33,150 50,750 58,750 62,550 52,448 50,198 314,171 TOH - 8,428 7,371 4,357 5,399 2,900 6,500 4,000 5,500 7,500 2,500 54,455 Vehicles Community Shuttle Replace - - 4,841 2,617 3,218 6,600 8,500 13,900 10,100 1,300 - 51,075 Conventional 40 ft Replace - - 64,117 90,303 91,080 59,700 12,300 - - - 76,300 393,800 Custom Replace - 23 9,432 6,512 5,283 7,900 6,300 11,700 10,300 7,400 6,800 71,650 Non-Revenue - 1,212 1,367 1,881 1,055 2,407 1,909 2,112 1,911 1,070 - 14,924 Non-Revenue - - - - 90 ------90 Bus Total - 17,060 96,627 112,899 118,084 116,894 90,007 93,712 93,414 72,364 138,444 949,505 Rail Equipment - 3,088 11,761 15,213 9,359 1,872 2,590 1,404 656 2,300 - 48,243 Facilities - - 710 1,250 1,250 ------3,210 Infrastructure Other - 2,906 3,662 5,335 2,000 5,483 2,828 7,784 5,000 4,000 745 39,743 Stations & surroundings - 3,117 1,218 2,230 1,180 1,505 1,180 1,505 1,180 1,881 1,180 16,176 Wayside Power Propulsion - - - 690 - 2,186 3,279 - - 699 - 6,854 Vehicles Non-Revenue - 250 725 175 90 135 - - - - - 1,375 SkyTrain Refurbish ------2,500 2,500 - 6,200 11,200 Non-Revenue ------190 405 285 218 - 1,098 Other - - 18,000 9,000 ------27,000 Rail Total - 9,362 36,076 33,893 13,879 11,181 10,067 13,598 9,621 9,097 8,125 154,898 Roads MRNB and BICCS - 19,950 20,350 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 205,132 Roads Total - 19,950 20,350 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 20,604 205,132 Bridges Infrastructure Knight Street - 500 1 ------501 Pattullo - 24,924 81,076 77,000 120,000 ------303,000 Bridges Total - 25,424 81,078 77,000 120,000 ------303,501 Corporate Technology Applications Applications - 3,137 8,170 10,189 5,500 6,000 8,000 7,000 7,500 8,318 8,000 71,814 Infrastructure - 4,319 3,922 2,367 2,250 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 24,858 Other - 353 726 1,021 ------2,100 Other - 14,450 2,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 61,450 Corporate Total - 22,260 14,818 18,577 17,750 13,000 15,000 14,000 14,500 15,318 15,000 160,222 TransLink TL-Owned Bicycle Infrastructure - 750 1,000 1,000 480 450 450 450 450 523 303 5,856 TransLink Total - 750 1,000 1,000 480 450 450 450 450 523 303 5,856 Gross Cost Total 368,906 552,728 587,446 299,367 290,797 162,129 136,128 142,364 138,589 117,907 182,476 2,978,838 CoFed (107,777) (224,386) (156,535) (112,862) (89,622) (83,280) (49,390) (50,540) (48,360) (32,830) (99,790) (1,055,372) Prov (24,438) (34,836) (11,658) (5,420) ------(76,353) Other (457) (513) (502) (500) (500) (500) (500) (500) (500) (500) (500) (5,472) Contribution Total (132,672) (259,735) (168,695) (118,783) (90,122) (83,780) (49,890) (51,040) (48,860) (33,330) (100,290) (1,137,197) Total Net Cost 236,234 292,993 418,751 180,585 200,675 78,349 86,238 91,324 89,729 84,577 82,186 1,841,641
TRANSPORTATION - 81
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 57 Table 26: Transit Service Hours (thousands) Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook Service Hours in Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Conventional Bus 4,239 4,233 4,165 4,163 4,163 4,165 4,161 4,151 4,151 4,144 4,139 4,134 Community Shuttle 565 567 600 628 632 637 641 646 650 655 660 665 West Vancouver Conventional Bus 134 135 139 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 SkyTrain Expo and Millennium Lines 1,149 1,126 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096 1,096 SkyTrain Canada Line 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 SkyTrain Evergreen Line 0 0 0 0 47 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 Rapid Transit Total 1,345 1,322 1,292 1,292 1,339 1,428 1,428 1,428 1,428 1,428 1,428 1,428 SeaBus 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 West Coast Express 141 42 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 Total Conventional Transit 6,435 6,310 6,248 6,275 6,326 6,422 6,422 6,417 6,421 6,419 6,419 6,419 Custom Transit (HandyDART) 592 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 Total Service Hours 7,027 6,908 6,846 6,873 6,924 7,020 7,020 7,015 7,019 7,017 7,017 7,017
TRANSPORTATION - 82
58 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook Table 27: Schedule of Golden Ears Bridge Toll Rates
Vehicle Classification July 2013 July 2014 July 2015 July 2016
Car 1.02 1.02 1.02
Transponder registered $3.00 3.05 3.10 3.15 Video registered $3.55 3.60 3.65 3.70 Unregistered $4.25 4.35 4.45 4.55 Small Truck
Transponder registered $6.00 6.10 6.20 6.30 Video registered $6.55 6.70 6.85 7.00 Unregistered $7.15 7.30 7.45 7.60 Large Truck
Transponder registered $8.95 9.15 9.35 9.55 Video registered $9.60 9.80 10.00 10.20 Unregistered $10.15 10.35 10.55 10.75 Motorcycle
Transponder registered n/a n/a n/a n/a Video registered $1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 Unregistered $2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90
TRANSPORTATION - 83
Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook 59 Table 28: Schedule of Transit Fares
Note: Canada Line YVR Add Fare is applicable only to outbound travel from YVR.
TRANSPORTATION - 84
60 Draft 2014 Base Plan and Outlook APPENDIX C: CONSULTATION
To be completed following consultation to summarize input.
TRANSPORTATION - 85 5.2
To: Transportation Committee and Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee
From: Ray Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department
Date: September 25, 2013 Meeting Date: October 9, 2013
Subject: 2013 TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application
RECOMMENDATION That the Board: a) endorse the 2013 list of TransLink projects to be forwarded to the Gas Tax Management Committee for consideration as Approved Eligible Projects under the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement; and b) request that TransLink submit to the Metro Vancouver Board for consideration proposed amendments to prior year projects that require scope changes before submitted to review by the Gas Tax Management Committee.
PURPOSE This report provides comments and a recommendation on the list of TransLink projects to be submitted for funding under the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement in 2013.
BACKGROUND Every year, TransLink submits a list of projects to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) for funding under the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement (i.e. federal gas tax revenues allocated to the region). UBCM staff reviews the application and makes recommendations to the Gas Tax Management Committee. Beginning in 2012, the Metro Vancouver Board endorsed the list of projects for funding in the current year prior to it being forwarded for final approval (Attachment). Under the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement, TransLink can use the funds only for eligible regional transportation projects. Local roads, bridges, tunnels, bike lanes, walking paths, and sidewalks are not eligible transportation projects.
The current fiscal year 2013/2014 (year 9 of the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement) is the final year for all current agreements in the province. Dialogue at Metro Vancouver about the renewal of this agreement and provisions for the allocation of Federal Gas Tax funds to the region is being led by the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee.
For years 1 to 8, TransLink received $676 million in committed funding from the Strategic Priorities Fund, of which $349 million has been transferred to date from the committed Gas Tax restricted account toward approved Gas Tax projects. The total cost of all the approved projects to date is approximately $1 billion.
7897908 TRANSPORTATION - 86 2013 TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION The Year 9 (2013) Application TransLink is proposing to submit projects with a total cost of $158.5 million, of which $122.6 million is being sought from the Strategic Priorities Fund. TransLink’s contribution is $35.9 million. Generally, these investments are consistent with the “Manage the System” principle in TransLink’s recently adopted Regional Transportation Strategy Framework.
Year 9 (FY 2013) Project # of Vehicles In-Service or Total Cost SFP Funding TransLink Completion ($ millions) Request Contribution Year ($ millions) ($ millions) Conventional 26 60-ft Hybrids 2016 $31.7 $25.4 $6.3 Bus Fleet 54 40-ft CNG 2017 $101.2 $75.9 $25.3 Replacement 60 60-ft Hybrids West Coast 28 2014 $12.8 $12.6 $0.2 Express Buyout Part 3 Trolley N/A 2017 $6.3 $4.7 $1.6 Overhead Metrotown Group Rectifier Replacement Automated N/A 2016 $6.5 $4.0 $2.5 Train Control – Existing Equipment Replacement – Phase 2 Total -- -- $158.5 $122.6 $35.9
TransLink provided additional information about the definition, scope, and urgency of these projects: · Conventional Bus Fleet Replacement: These buses are intended to replace aging diesel buses. · West Coast Express Buyout: TransLink is exercising a contract option to buy out the 28 West Coast Express cars. The end of the operating lease is approaching and cannot be extended. The buyout (including a decision on how to replace the cars in 2030) must be exercised before December 28, 2013 for 13 cars and before March 28, 2014 for the remaining 15 cars. The “Part 3” represents the portion of the buyout that is allocated to Year 9. Parts 1 and 2 are to be claimed with reallocated funds in Years 5 and 6 as proposed in the amendments. · Trolley Overhead Replacement: The Metrotown transit exchange has three rectifier stations that are approaching the end of their useful lives. They were first installed in 1987. About one rectifier station will be replaced per year starting in 2015. · Automated Train Control Equipment Replacement: This equipment is nearing the end of its useful life after nearly 28 years of service. Implementation will begin in June 2014 and the in- service date is June 2016.
TRANSPORTATION - 87 2013 TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 3 of 4
Also included in the memorandum from TransLink is a “Plan B” list of projects. TransLink’s intention is to bring forward the “Plan B” list of projects only in the event that changes are required to the “Plan A” list of projects.
Proposed Amendments to Years 5 to 8 As part of this application, TransLink is proposing amendments to previously approved projects for years 5 to 8. TransLink has the ability to submit amendments, if required, to approved projects from prior years, and they have done so before through an application to UBCM concurrent with the application for that current year. Generally, according to TransLink, these amendments reflect budget changes as projects progress, and reallocation of funds remaining from completed projects to other projects. It is the role of the Gas Tax Management Committee, with recommendations from UBCM staff, to adjudicate all applications, including requests for amendments to prior year approved projects.
Comments on the Current Process to Endorse TransLink’s Applications As the current agreement is nearing completion, it is worthwhile reflecting on some of the practical challenges to date. This discussion could benefit the preparation of a new agreement for the allocation of Federal gas tax dollars to the region.
One of the challenges is that the information provided to Metro Vancouver from TransLink is non- standardized and comes in different forms and levels of detail from year to year. There are no measures of incremental performance, such as reductions in fuel consumption or air emissions. It is challenging for staff to provide a consistent level of review of the merits of these projects.
A second challenge is TransLink’s ability to modify current year projects and amend prior year approved projects without Metro Vancouver involvement after the Board has reviewed and endorsed them. The ability to modify current year projects or amend approved projects based on completions, changing scopes, priorities, and costs is generally a supportable feature. The issue is that there is no feedback loop in place for UBCM staff to either advise Metro Vancouver of these modifications/amendments, and their merits, or seek review and endorsement of the proposed changes before recommendations and decisions are made.
Looking forward, future processes should consider building in a feedback loop for Metro Vancouver to review and take action on any modifications to current year projects and amendments to prior year approved projects, notwithstanding the content and merit for these changes.
ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board: a) endorse the 2013 list of TransLink projects to be forwarded to the Gas Tax Management Committee for consideration as Approved Eligible Projects under the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement; and b) request that TransLink submit to the Metro Vancouver Board for consideration proposed amendments to prior year projects that require scope changes before submitted to review by the Gas Tax Management.
2. That the Board provide alternative direction to staff.
TRANSPORTATION - 88 2013 TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 4 of 4
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2013 projects support the Regional Growth Strategy and Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan because they contribute to the continual modernization of transit fleet and assets, and help to preserve the reliability of transit services for customers. If the Board chooses Alternative 1, TransLink can proceed with its formal submission for funding of $122.6 million under the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement. If the Board chooses Alternative 2, the Board may wish to provide additional comments on the 2013 list of TransLink projects.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver received a list of projects that TransLink intends to submit for funding under the Strategic Priorities Fund agreement. Staff recommends Alternative 1 as the list of projects for 2013 is endorsable and the projects are supportive of the transit objectives in the Regional Growth Strategy.
Attachment: Memorandum from Bob Paddon and Cathy McLay, TransLink, dated September 25, 2013, “TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application” (Orbit #7885974)
TRANSPORTATION - 89 To: Metro Vancouver Transportation Committee
From: Bob Paddon, Executive Vice-President Strategic Planning and Public Affairs, TransLink Cathy McLay, CFO and Executive Vice-President of Finance and Corporate Services, TransLink
Subject: TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application
Date: October 1, 2013
______
1. Purpose
This report outlines the projects TransLink proposes to forward to the Strategic Priorities Fund Management Committee for approval as Approved Eligible Projects under the Strategic Priorities Fund agreement.
2. Context
The federal Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) initiative was started in 2005/06 fiscal year and provides predictability and long-term funding for municipalities. The fund is tied to the following environmental improvements: • Reduced GHGs • Clean air • Clean water
In Metro Vancouver, 100% of the SPF is dedicated to transit investment, which has been agreed upon by Metro Vancouver, TransLink and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM). The Fund is administered by UBCM through the Gas Tax Fund Management Committee and use of the funds is limited to development or improvement of public transit system.
Projects are approved by application to the UBCM Management Committee and changes must be approved by the Management Committee. Funds are held in a restricted account and interest earned is also restricted to approved projects; funds are received by TransLink after successful application. Funds are audited annually by external auditors and TransLink reports on proposed projects annually to UBCM and Metro Vancouver.
The Federal Government has indicated that current agreements will end after Year 9 (2013/2014).
3. Gas Tax Funding Outcomes
The SPF is an essential element of TransLink’s funding resources, enabling TransLink to replace and upgrade vehicles and infrastructure as they near their end of life. Without the SPF, these investments would either not happen or would require funding to be redirected from other areas of the organization, likely leading to service reductions across the region.
TRANSPORTATION - 90
TransLink uses the funds for the following projects to achieve key goals and objectives: :
• Replace older diesel buses with 680 fuel-efficient vehicles (Hybrid and CNG) (453 received to date) o Achieves air quality improvements including reductions in GHG’s • Expand the transit fleet with 284 new buses o Provides better coverage o Improves frequency • Acquire 287 new HandyDART vehicles (157 rec’d to date) o Improves service for customers with mobility impairments • Improve Fleet o Establishes a 100% accessible fleet o Expands service by 22.9% o Provides the most modern fleet in North America • Acquire two new replacement SeaBus passenger ferries (1 rec’d to date) • Expand by 14 new SkyTrain vehicles o Increases capacity • Upgrade Infrastructure o Hamilton Transit Centre o Expo Line Propulsion power upgrades o SkyTrain Operating and Maintenance Facility Expansion
For years 1 to 8, TransLink received $676 million in committed funding from the Strategic Priorities Fund, of which $349 million has been transferred to date from the committed Gas Tax restricted account toward approved Gas Tax projects. The total cost of all the approved projects is approximately $1 billion.
As of December 2012, TransLink has received/committed the following amount of funds:
Received/Committed Remaining Funds Spent
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$- Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8
TRANSPORTATION - 91 Below is a summary of approved projects:
Conventional Community Supporting Year HandyDART SkyTrain SeaBus Bus Shuttle Infrastructure
1 119
2 139
3 178
SkyTrain Maintenance 4 108 19 55 1 Facility Expansion SkyTrain Yard Expansion Expo Line 5 32 81 14 Propulsion Power System Upgrade Compass card 6 39 68 114* 1 equipment for
buses Hamilton 7 52 69 Transit Centre 8 117 24 133
Total 784 180 269 128 2
* Refurbishment of 114 Mark 1 cars to extend the life of the vehicles by 15 years
4. Year 9 Proposed Gas Tax Projects
For Year 9 (2013/2014), TransLink has identified the following projects to be considered for funding under the SPF. The total cost is $158.5 million, of which $122.6 million is being sought from the SPF. TransLink’s contribution is $35.9 million.
No. of Gas Tax Expected Year 9 (2013/2014) Vehicles Total Costs Purpose Funding Completion Proposed Projects (if ($ millions) ($ millions) Date applicable) Fleet 2016 Conventional Bus Replacement (Part 2) (40ft) Fleet 26 $ 31.7 $ 25.4
TRANSPORTATION - 92 No. of Gas Tax Expected Year 9 (2013/2014) Vehicles Total Costs Purpose Funding Completion Proposed Projects (if ($ millions) ($ millions) Date applicable) Replacement (60' Hybrid) Trolley Overhead (TOH) Metrotown Group Rectifier $ 6.3 $ 4.7 2017 Replacement WCE Buyout Part 3 28 $ 12.8 $ 12.6 2014 Automated Train Control- Existing Equipment $ 6.5 $ 4.0 2016 Replacement - Phase 2 Fleet Replacement 54 (40' CNG) 2017 Conventional Bus $ 101.2 $ 75.9 Fleet Replacement 52 (60' Hybrid) Total Year 9 $ 158.5 $ 122.6
These are practical investments that are consistent with TransLink’s Manage the System principle. Further detail on the projects is listed below:
• Conventional Bus Fleet Replacement: These buses are intended to replace aging diesel buses.
• West Coast Express Buyout: TransLink is exercising a contract option to buy out the 28 West Coast Express cars. The end of the operating lease is approaching and cannot be extended. The buyout (including a decision on how to replace the cars) must be exercised before December 28, 2013 for 13 cars and before March 28, 2014 for the remaining 15 cars. The “Part 3” represents the portion of the buyout that is allocated to Year 9. Parts 1 and 2 are to be claimed with reallocated funds in Years 5 and 6 as proposed in the amendments.
• Trolley Overhead Replacement: The Metrotown transit exchange has three rectifier stations that are approaching the end of their useful lives. They were first installed in 1987. About one rectifier station will be replaced per year starting in 2015.
• Automated Train Control Equipment Replacement: This equipment is nearing the end of its useful life after nearly 28 years of service. Implementation will begin in June 2014 and the in-service date is June 2016.
TransLink has also prepared a list of alternate projects, below, if any of the above proposed projects are not approved.
TRANSPORTATION - 93
Gas Tax Year 9 (2013/2014) No. of Total Costs Purpose Funding Alternate Projects Vehicles ($millions) ($millions) 2016 Community Shuttles Fleet Replacement 13 $ 2.25 $ 1.80 2016 HandyDart Fleet Replacement 39 $ 6.40 $ 5.12 2017 Community Shuttle Fleet Replacement 20 $ 3.58 $ 3.22 Vehicle Replacement (20) 2017 HandyDART Vehicle Fleet Replacement 35 $ 5.87 $ 5.28 Replacement (35) Total- Plan B Projects $ 18.10 $ 15.42
5. Amendments to Previous Years
TransLink will also be bringing forward amendments to previously approved projects from Gas Tax years 5 to 8. Budget changes are sometimes made as projects progress, and require additional internal approval. The proposed amendments are intended to better match committed funding for each gas tax project to their respective updated budgets. Re-allocations will also be requested to move funds remaining from completed projects to other Gas Tax projects. This will ensure that funds are in place for the projects that most require funding
A list of proposed amendments are included in Appendix A.
TRANSPORTATION - 94 Appendix A: Proposed Amendments to Projects in Years 5-8
Below is a list of previously approved projects and proposed amendments for each year from 2009-2013. The highlighted fields indicate areas that would change under the proposed amendments.
1. Year 5 Projects for 2009/10 – Previously Approved
Gas Tax Year 5 (2009/2010) No. of Vehicles Total Costs Purpose Funding Previously Approved (if applicable) ($ Millions) ($ Millions)
Conventional Bus- Hybrid Fleet Expansion/ Expansion and Replacement 32 21.2 20.0 Replacement Option 1 Skytrain Mark II Vehicle Fleet Expansion 14 42.2 41.0 Expansion- Option 1 Expo Line Propulsion Power Infrastructure N/A 58.3 43.0 Upgrade Upgrade Skytrain Operating and Infrastructure N/A 47.2 9.4 Maintenance Centre-Phase 2 Upgrade HandyDART Vehicle Fleet Replacement 81 12.0 10.9 Replacement 2011-2012 Total Year 5 180.9 124.3
Projects for 2009/10 – Requested Change
Gas Tax Year 5 (2009/2010) No. of Vehicles Total Costs Purpose Funding Requested Change (if applicable) ($ Millions) ($ Millions)
Conventional Bus- Hybrid Fleet Expansion/ Expansion and Replacement 32 21.2 20.0 Replacement Option 1 Skytrain Mark II Vehicle Fleet Expansion 14 42.2 41.0 Expansion- Option 1 Expo Line Propulsion Power Infrastructure N/A 51.7 43.0 Upgrade Upgrade Skytrain Operating and Infrastructure N/A 47.2 9.4 Maintenance Centre-Phase 2 Upgrade HandyDART Vehicle Fleet Replacement 81 9.3 9.0 Replacement 2011-2012 WCE 28 car buyout (Part 1) 28 7.6 1.9 Total Year 5 179.3 124.3
TRANSPORTATION - 95
2. Year 6
Projects for 2010/11 – Previously Approved
Gas Tax Year 6 (2010/2011) No. of Vehicles Total Costs Purpose Funding Previously Approved (if applicable) ($ Millions) ($ millions) 2nd SeaBus Replacement Fleet Replacement 1 25.1 23.2 2011 Community Shuttle Fleet Replacement 13 3.0 2.7 2012 Conventional Bus (60ft.) Fleet Replacement 39 38.7 31.9 SkyTrain Mark 1 Vehicles Fleet Refurbishment 114 37.9 28.5 2014 Community Shuttles Fleet Replacement 55 14.9 13.4 Infrastructure Smart Card Bus Upgrades N/A 171.3 22.8 Upgrade Total Year 6 290.9 122.6
Projects for 2010/11 – Requested Change
Gas Tax Year 6 (2010/2011) No. of Vehicles Total Costs Purpose Funding Requested Change (if applicable) ($ Millions) ($ millions)
2nd SeaBus Replacement Fleet Replacement 1 24.2 21.1 2011 Community Shuttle Fleet Replacement 13 2.0 1.9 2012 Conventional Bus (60ft.) Fleet Replacement 42 29.7 28.6 SkyTrain Mark 1 Vehicles Fleet Refurbishment 114 37.9 28.5 2014 Community Shuttles Fleet Replacement 53 9.9 8.9 Infrastructure Smart Card Bus Upgrades N/A 47.4 30.3 Upgrade WCE 28 car buyout (Part 2) 28 3.4 3.2 Total Year 6 154.4 122.6
TRANSPORTATION - 96
3. Year 7
Projects for 2011/12 – Previously Approved
Gas Tax Year 7 (2011/2012) No. of Vehicles Total Costs Purpose Funding Previously Approved (if applicable) ($ millions) ($ millions)
2012 Community Shuttle Fleet Replacement 25 6.2 5.5 2013 Community Shuttle Fleet Replacement 44 8.7 8.3 2014 Conventional Bus Fleet Replacement 52 34.0 30.6 Hamilton Transit Centre Facilities Upgrade N/A 125.4 78.2 Total Year 7 174.3 122.6
Projects for 2011/12 – Requested Change
Gas Tax Year 7 (2011/2012) No. of Vehicles Total Costs Purpose Funding Requested Change (if applicable) ($ millions) ($ millions)
2012 Community Shuttle Fleet Replacement 25 3.9 3.7 2013 Community Shuttle Fleet Replacement 57 8.8 7.9 2014 Conventional Bus Fleet Replacement 45 30.6 25.8 Hamilton Transit Centre Facilities Upgrade N/A 122.6 85.2 Total Year 7 174.3 122.6
TRANSPORTATION - 97
4. Year 8
Projects for 2012/13 – Previously Approved Gas Tax Year 8 (2012/2013) No. of Vehicles Total Costs Purpose Funding Previously Approved (if applicable) ($ millions) ($ millions) 2013 HandyDART Vehicles Fleet Replacement 35 4.5 4.0 2014 HandyDART Vehicles Fleet Replacement 65 11.3 10.1 2015 HandyDART Vehicles Fleet Replacement 33 6.0 5.4 2015 Community Shuttle Bus Fleet Replacement 24 7.2 6.3 Fleet Replacement 51 36.7 33.0 2015 Conventional (40ft) Bus Fleet Replacement 21 28.8 25.8 (60ft) Fleet Replacement 45 43.7 38.0 2016 Conventional (40ft) Bus Fleet Replacement 0 0.0 0.0 (60ft) Total Year 8 137.3 122.6
Projects for 2012/13 – Requested Change
Gas Tax Year 8 (2012/2013) No. of Vehicles Total Costs Purpose Funding Requested Change (if applicable) ($ millions) ($ Millions)
2013 HandyDART Vehicles Fleet Replacement 31 4.5 4.0 2014 HandyDART Vehicles Fleet Replacement 65 10.3 9.0 2015 HandyDART Vehicles Fleet Replacement 55 9.0 7.8 2015 Community Shuttle Bus Fleet Replacement 24 4.9 4.2 Fleet Replacement 51 32.8 28.5 2015 Conventional (40ft) Bus Fleet Replacement 21 25.3 22.0 (60ft) Fleet Replacement 85 54.6 47.1 2016 Conventional (40ft) Bus Fleet Replacement 0 0.0 0.0 (60ft) Total Year 8 141.2 122.6
TRANSPORTATION - 98 5.3
To: Transportation Committee
From: Ray Kan, Senior Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment Department
Date: October 2, 2013 Meeting Date: October 9, 2013
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel
RECOMMENDATION That the Board: a) advise the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure that the project scope, design, and performance of the proposed bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel should take into careful consideration of the effects on the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and Regional Transportation Strategy, and that measures be included to support, and not detract from, regional objectives. b) request the TransLink Board provide Metro Vancouver with technical analysis and commentary on the potential transportation and emissions implications of expanding transportation capacity on the George Massey Tunnel corridor and effects with proximate Fraser River watercrossings, including tolling and non-tolling scenarios, and the degree of consistency and support the proposed bridge would have on the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, the Regional Transportation Strategy, and Regional Goods Movement Strategy.
PURPOSE On September 20, 2013, the Premier of British Columbia announced a preferred alternative for the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel. A new bridge will replace the tunnel on approximately the same alignment. This report provides comments based on published information from the Province, and the consultation that was undertaken over the past year.
BACKGROUND In fall 2012, the Province undertook Phase 1 consultation on the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel to solicit feedback from stakeholders on issues around the current tunnel. In spring 2013, the Province undertook Phase 2 consultation to solicit feedback on five scenarios for replacing the tunnel. Metro Vancouver staff participated in stakeholder sessions and attended public meetings in both phases. Two staff letters were sent to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (see Attachments 1 and 2).
There was a general understanding that the process to select a preferred alternative would take place after the provincial election, and after additional analysis have been completed and the results shared with stakeholders. The announcement by the Premier on September 20, 2013 was unexpected in light of the absence of technical information provided during consultation about the performance and other attributes of the alternatives.
DISCUSSION
7883817 TRANSPORTATION - 99 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 2 of 7
Current Facility The George Massey Tunnel is an important regional facility being one of five Fraser River crossings in the region. According to the Province, the George Massey Tunnel carried over 80,000 vehicles each day in 2011.
Source: Phase 1 Consultation Discussion Guide, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
The existing capacity of the tunnel is close to or over capacity for most of the day, leading to long queues and travel times. The lack of capacity was identified by the Province as a key issue as both sides of the river is expected to experience growth in population, jobs, and travel. The Province also identified other issues with the tunnel such as not meeting modern seismic standards, aging operating systems, narrow lanes, the general lack of redundancy when traffic incidents occur, and no capacity for cyclists.
According to the Province, the modal share of vehicles traversing the tunnel in 2011 was: · Single-occupant vehicles: 77% · Multiple-occupant vehicles: 10% · Heavy commercial trucks: 9% · Light commercial trucks: 3% · Buses: 1% (accounts for 26% of person throughput)
TRANSPORTATION - 100 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 3 of 7
Proposed Bridge Concept Only limited information has been provided by the Province about the proposed bridge. An animated flyover prepared by the Province depicts a facility with 5 lanes in each direction (4 general purpose lanes, plus one high-occupancy vehicle lane) and protected cycling/pedestrian lanes in each direction. In comparison, the current tunnel provides 3 lanes of travel in the peak direction (comprising a counterflow lane). The bridge concept represents an increase in vehicle travel capacity over the existing tunnel. Construction on the new bridge would start in 2017.
Table 1. Capacity of Proximate Fraser River Crossings
Lanes per George Proposed Alex Fraser Queens- Pattullo Port Mann Golden Direction Massey Bridge Bridge borough Bridge Bridge Ears Tunnel Concept Bridge Bridge General 3 in peak 4 3 2 2 4 3 Purpose direction; (reduced to (3 in service) 1 in off-peak 1 at night) direction High- 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Occupancy Vehicles Total 3 in peak 5 3 2 2 5 3 direction; (reduced to (4 in service) 1 in off-peak 1 at night) direction
The geographic scope of the project remains unclear. In earlier consultation materials, the scope was stated to include consideration of “all interchanges within the Highway 99 corridor from Bridgeport Road in Richmond to the Canada/US border in Surrey, as well as connections to other provincial highways, and regional and local routes”. From inspection of the animated flyover and a schematic provided by the Province, the portion of the bridge on Deas Island appears to be located on land owned by the Province. This land divides the east and west portions of Deas Island Regional Park. The Province has owned this land since before the Park was established in the early 1980’s. It is likely that the Province will release a more complete description of the project in the near future, and staff’s analysis will be updated as appropriate.
Considerations for a Regional Dialogue The George Massey Tunnel was identified by the Province as a longer-term gateway priority. With the Gateway Program nearing completion, the Province has elevated the watercrossing to be the next roadway expansion priority in the region. And much like the Gateway Program, the proposed bridge will engender debate and discussion about the way transportation projects are prioritized and the impacts of expanding road capacity on land use, air quality, transportation, and economic objectives.
A new bridge with expanded capacity provides opportunities to incorporate new measures that cannot be accommodated in the existing tunnel. These measures could include (subject to the release of detail project information by the Province): · direct access for pedestrians and cyclists; · a structure that meets modern seismic standards; · lane widths that meet current guidelines;
TRANSPORTATION - 101 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 4 of 7
· better lane allocation for trucks and high-occupancy vehicles; · better lane allocation for longer-distance through trips and shorter-distance trips; and · a better match between capacity and current and future travel demands by commercial trucks, buses, and general purpose traffic.
Staff sees no objections to these measures. From a transportation performance and economic perspective, ensuring traffic runs safely and efficiently benefits commuters in passenger vehicles and buses, transit service providers, and trucks carrying goods to market. From an environmental perspective, reducing extensive periods of idling vehicles is beneficial for air quality, fuel consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. These interests are aligned with the Regional Growth Strategy:
RGS Action 1.2.9(c): That TransLink and the province, as appropriate, work with municipalities to support the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and service vehicles, to, from, and within Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas (e.g., by enhancing the design and operation of the road network), where appropriate.
RGS Action 2.1.5: That TransLink, the federal government and the province and their agencies develop and operate transportation infrastructure to support economic activity in Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas, Industrial, Mixed Employment areas and ports and airports.
The major objections are the missing perspective on the relationship between this corridor and the wider transportation network, and the absence of appropriate capacity and transportation demand management measures required to carefully align this facility with broader regional land use, environmental, and transportation objectives. There are some potential near-term and long-term consequences.
1. Potential for Induced Vehicle Travel and Emissions in the Near-Term A new facility having expanded vehicle capacity could induce more vehicle trips. Inducing more vehicle trips runs counter to established regional objectives. TransLink’s newly adopted Regional Transportation Strategy Framework establishes two regional targets: · To make half of all trips by walking, cycling, and transit; and · To reduce the distances people drive by one-third.
Metro Vancouver has established ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets and air quality objectives.
An expanded facility might: · unleash pent up travel demand (travelers who may be adverse to sitting in traffic may decide to take more trips in the future as a result of the improved travel times and safety), · shift travelers from transit or carpooling to single-occupant vehicles, or · change travel patterns (travelers who were used to taking an alternate route, such as the Alex Fraser Bridge, may switch over to the new facility via the South Fraser Perimeter Road).
TRANSPORTATION - 102 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 5 of 7
An expanded facility without additional complementary measures to discourage single- occupant vehicles and to encourage carpooling, transit, and cycling would indeed be deficient and short-sighted.1 Unfettered access could easily result in a congested facility. Further, an expanded facility may simply move the “bottleneck” further downstream or upstream.
The Regional Growth Strategy anticipated that the current spate of road expansion projects would not be the last one. During consultation, Metro Vancouver advised the Ministry of the following actions in the Regional Growth Strategy:
RGS Action 5.2.6: That TransLink and the province, as appropriate, in collaboration with municipalities seek to minimize impacts from within-and-through passenger, goods, and service vehicle movement on the environment and public health affecting the region and areas within the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed.
RGS Action 5.2.7: That the TransLink and the Province, as appropriate, evaluate the following elements when contemplating future expansion of private vehicle capacity on major roads, highways, and bridges: a) Transportation demand management strategies as alternatives to, or as integral with, such capacity expansion; b) Impacts on the achievement of the Regional Growth Strategy and the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, including potential cumulative impacts.
2. Potential for Unanticipated Land Use Changes in the Long-Term Reducing travel time expands the catchment area for a given travel time budget. Improvements to accessibility are capitalized in land markets. The improved access to lands, be it residential, commercial, industrial, or agricultural, could have a distributional effect on shifting growth from one area to another. This is an uncertainty that the Regional Growth Strategy never explicitly considered in the population and employment forecasts. It is unclear what basic demographic assumptions the Ministry has been using to justify the proposed capacity on the bridge. It is also unclear what assumptions have been made about plans by Port Metro Vancouver to expand container throughput capacity at Roberts Bank, and to better utilize available marine terminal capacity at Fraser Surrey Docks.
3. Unclear Impacts on the Development of the Regional Transportation Strategy and Regional Goods Movement Strategy The uncertainty around the new bridge puts into doubt the validity of the technical work being undertaken by TransLink for the Regional Transportation Strategy, the Regional Goods Movement Strategy, and the Pattullo Bridge Strategic Review Study. The development of the Implementation Plan is crucial – priorities for new medium-term transportation investments will be deliberated and established. The uncertainty around the capacity of the new bridge and interactions with other components of the regional transportation system must be understood (i.e., whether the new bridge will be tolled). The effect on truck movement is unclear.
1 In recent years, the Province has implemented transit-supportive measures along Highway 99, such as the expansion of the South Surrey Park and Ride, highway shoulder bus lanes, and queue jumpers.
TRANSPORTATION - 103 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 6 of 7
ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board: a) advise the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure that the project scope, design, and performance of the proposed bridge to replace the George Massey Tunnel should take into careful consideration of the effects on the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and Regional Transportation Strategy, and that measures be included to support, and not detract from, regional objectives. b) request the TransLink Board provide Metro Vancouver with technical analysis and commentary on the potential transportation and emissions implications of expanding transportation capacity on the George Massey Tunnel corridor and effects with proximate Fraser River watercrossings, including tolling and non-tolling scenarios, and the degree of consistency and support the proposed bridge would have on the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, the Regional Transportation Strategy, and Regional Goods Movement Strategy.
2. That the Board receive for information the report titled, “Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel”, dated September 25, 2013.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Information about the project scope, design, performance, cost, procurement method, and tolling policy has yet to be released by the Province. The availability of provincial funding for other transportation priorities in the region may be affected by this decision. There may be potential impacts imposed by the bridge on Deas Island Regional Park and proximate ecologically sensitive areas – these impacts may have financial bearing on Metro Vancouver, and will be further analyzed and deliberated by the Environment and Parks Committee.
If the Board approves Alternative 1, then staff will continue to work with the Province to ensure that the land use and air quality/GHG implications of the new bridge be considered and integrated into the project scope, design, and performance.
If the Board chooses Alternative 2, then no further action will be taken at this time. Given the lack of information about the proposed bridge, it may be prudent for the Board to simply monitor and respond once the project definition report, or equivalent document, is released by the Province. At that point, staff would be able to clarify some or all issues identified in this report, and a more fulsome discussion could take place.
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION On September 20, 2013, the Premier of British Columbia announced a preferred alternative for the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel. A new bridge will replace the tunnel on approximately the same alignment. This report provides comments based on published information from the Province, and the consultation that was undertaken over the past year. Providing for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods is one of many regional objectives. Staff recommends Alternative 1 to ensure that the project takes into careful consideration of the effects on the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
TRANSPORTATION - 104 Comments on the Proposed Bridge to Replace the George Massey Tunnel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 7 of 7
Management Plan, and Regional Transportation Strategy, and that measures are included to support, and not detract, from these regional objectives.
Further, the regional transportation authority has an important role to play in this process. In the newly adopted Regional Transportation Strategy Framework, TransLink commits to “work with the Province to ensure a replacement to the Massey Tunnel is integrated with the regional network in a way that is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and the Regional Transportation Strategy.” Therefore, staff recommends Alternative 1 requesting that TransLink advise Metro Vancouver on the potential transportation implications of this bridge. This information will be useful to advance the regional dialogue, not only on the merit of the bridge itself, but also implications for investment priorities in the Regional Transportation Strategy.
Issues related to potential impacts that a new bridge may impose on Deas Island Regional Park and ecologically sensitive areas, and the appropriate mitigation and compensation, will be addressed by the Environment and Parks Committee.
Attachments: 1. Province of British Columbia News Release, “B.C. moves forward with bridge to replace Massey Tunnel”, dated September 20, 2013. (Orbit doc # 7884824) 2. Letter to Geoff Freer, Executive Project Director, dated April 3, 2013, “Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, Phase 2” (Orbit doc # 7882676) 3. Letter to Geoff Freer, Executive Project Director, dated December 19, 2012, “Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project” (Orbit doc # 7885026)
TRANSPORTATION - 105
NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release Office of the Premier 2013PREM0095-001430 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Sept. 20, 2013
B.C. moves forward with bridge to replace Massey Tunnel
VANCOUVER – Today, Premier Christy Clark announced that the Government of British Columbia will move ahead on the project to replace the George Massey Tunnel, with construction of a new bridge on the existing Highway 99 corridor to begin in 2017.
“We are keeping our promise to replace the George Massey Tunnel and improve the Highway 99 corridor, starting in 2017,” said Premier Christy Clark. “Congestion at the tunnel is frustrating for families and stalling the economy. A new bridge will improve travel times for transit, commuters and commercial users, and open the corridor up to future rapid transit options.”
The first step in the project was to consult with the public and stakeholders about support for a new crossing and on crossing options. The findings were summarized in two reports, the second of which was released today. In addition to indicating public support for a new bridge on the existing Highway 99 corridor, other key findings include: Strong support for resolving the problem of congestion, safety and reliability at the Massey Tunnel. Strong desire for transit, cycling and pedestrian improvements, including protecting the Highway 99 corridor for future rapid transit. Doing nothing is not an option; strong opposition to only improving the existing tunnel.
With a consensus that people want a new bridge on the existing Highway 99 corridor, the next step in the project is the preparation of a more detailed project scope and business case.
“With the Port Mann Bridge open to traffic and the South Fraser Perimeter Road nearing completion, we’re moving to fix the next of B.C.’s worst traffic bottlenecks,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Todd Stone. “Today, we’re getting to work to develop a solution that will improve the movement of people and goods on a highway that is important to commuters, and vital to our Asia Pacific Gateway.”
Engineering and technical work is now underway to develop a project scope and business case for the new bridge and associated Highway 99 corridor improvements. This work will be presented for public discussion next spring, ensuring that the project remains on track for construction to begin in 2017.
TRANSPORTATION - 106 In the interim, the ministry will proceed immediately to lengthen the Steveston off-ramp on Highway 99 at the north end of the George Massey Tunnel. This will improve safety and reduce Highway 99 congestion for motorists at this location. The project will go to tender by the end of September.
“Traffic congestion at the George Massey Tunnel has been the number one concern for residents and businesses in Delta for well over a decade,” said Corporation of Delta Mayor Lois Jackson. “Premier Christy Clark and the B.C. Government are to be commended for making the tunnel replacement a priority issue and for its timely commencement of public consultation to gauge community support. The tunnel replacement will form a critical part of the transportation infrastructure supporting the movement of people and goods; strengthening the local and regional economy as well as trade through the Asia-Pacific Gateway.”
“Congestion at the George Massey Tunnel negatively impacts the safe and efficient movement of goods by truck, effectively slowing our economy,” added BC Trucking Association President and CEO Louise Yako. “We support an improved crossing and I look forward to providing input from our association and membership as the project develops.”
“The Province’s continued commitment to improve and expand our highway infrastructure, like the replacement of the George Massey Tunnel, supports our economy,” B.C. Road Builders & Heavy Construction Association President Jack Davidson said. “In addition to the good-paying construction jobs these projects create, there are long-term benefits to communities and for all road users.”
The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure intends to open an office for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project on Steveston Highway near the tunnel, where the public can learn more about the project. The office will be open later this fall.
Consultations for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project were held in two phases between November 2012 and April 2013. There were more than 2,000 participants in the on- line engagement and at open houses in Delta, Richmond and Surrey.
Learn More: Learn more about the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project at www.masseytunnel.ca The report on the second phase of consultations is available at: http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/information-centre/document-library/ A rendering of a bridge on the Highway 99 corridor is available at: http://ow.ly/p2aS3 An animated video flyover is available at: http://ow.ly/p2bix
A backgrounder follows. Contacts: Sam Oliphant Office of the Premier 250 952-7252
TRANSPORTATION - 107 Kate Trotter Government Communications and Public Engagement Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 250 356-8241
TRANSPORTATION - 108 BACKGROUNDER
Progress on Highway 1 improvements and other major projects
The B.C. government’s commitment to invest $650 million over 10 years into Highway 1 between Kamloops and the Alberta border was announced by Premier Christy Clark at the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting in 2012.
This year, the government of British Columbia moved ahead with work to widen sections of the Trans-Canada Highway between Kamloops and the Alberta border, to improve safety and support goods movement, trade and tourism.
The ten-year Highway 1 Kamloops to Alberta Four-Laning Program will create an estimated 3,300 direct jobs.
Highway 1 projects underway in 2013: Phase 2 of the Monte Creek to Pritchard project, which will widen seven kilometres of Highway 1 to four lanes and construct an interchange at the community of Pritchard. Phase 1 of the Pritchard to Hoffman’s Bluff project, which will widen three kilometres of Highway 1 to four lanes. Five other Highway 1 projects are in various stages of development.
Cariboo Connector Phase 2: The $200-million second phase to widen sections of Highway 97 to four lanes between Prince George and Cache Creek is well underway. Two of the nine projects have been completed. Construction is nearing completion on another two projects. All nine will be completed or underway by 2017. This builds on 18 projects valued at $240-million in Phase 1, completed in 2011. At the completion of Phase 2, almost 50 per cent of the 440 km highway between Cache Creek and Prince George will be either three or four lanes wide.
Other major four-lane improvement projects in B.C.: Highway 2: 8th Street to Rolla Road under construction. Value $36.5 million. Highway 2: Tupper Creek to 192nd Road under construction. Value $39.2 million. Highway 3: Friday Creek to Laidlaw under construction. Value $10.9 million. Highway 97: Winfield to Oyama completed August 2013. Value $77.9 million.
Contact: Kate Trotter Government Communications and Public Engagement Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 250 356-8241
Connect with the Province of B.C. at www.gov.bc.ca/connect
TRANSPORTATION - 109 7
- Pbinn,nq, Policy irnil Env,ronrr’ent (3epo,t,nent IL’!.6044 326350 Fux 604 432-6296
File: CP-15-02
Mr. Geoff Freer Executive Project Director George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure c/o 7351 Vantage Way Delta, BC V4G 3C9
Dear Mr. Freer:
Re: Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, Phase 2
Metro Vancouver is pleased to provide the attached comments on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. As part of the Phase 2 consultation, Metro Vancouver staff attended one of your community open houses, and the stakeholder meeting. In lieu of completing the feedback form, we are providing this letter.
In Phase 1, Metro Vancouver provided comments from a broad perspective based on its plans: Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air quality and Greenhouse Gas Management, Regional Parks Plan, and Regional Food System Strategy. The attached comments identify which items have been addressed and which items remain outstanding. As the Phase 2 technical analysis proceeds through the summer, the Ministry should make every opportunity to consult with Metro Vancouver on the issues identified in this letter.
For further information, please contact Heather McNeil, Regional Planning Division Manager, at 604.436.6813, or myself at 604.451.6615. Thank you.
Yours truly, & Delia Laglagaron, MPA Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment
DL/RK/mit cc: Bob Paddon, Executive VicePresident, Strategic Planning and Public Affairs, TransLink
End: Attachment 1: Detailed Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on Phase 2 Attachment 2: Letter dated December 19, 2012, “Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on George Massey tunnel Replacement Project”
lt/3278 TRANSPORTATION - 110 ATTACHMENT1 George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, Phase 2 Detailed Metro Vancouver Staff Comments
Multi-Modal Perspective The draft project goals and evaluation criteria support a multi-modal perspective to a certain extent. One of the draft project goals is to support objectives for regional people movement, including increasing transit ridership and protecting the Highway 99 corridor for future rapid transit, and providing cyclist and pedestrian access. One of the evaluation criteria is pedestrian and cycling accessibility.
In our first letter, dated December 19, 2012, we suggested that the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project should be recast as a multi-modal mobility project, where in transportation demand management and features to support walking, cycling, buses, rapid transit, and multiple-occupancy vehicles are built into the project definition rather added afterwards.
It is desirable for the project to respond to Action 5.2.7 in the Regional Growth Strategy requesting TransLink and the Province to evaluate the following elements when contemplating future expansion of private vehicle capacity on major roads, highways, and bridges: a) Transportation demand management strategies as alternatives to, or as integral with, such capacity expansion; b) lrnpacts on the achievement of the Regional Growth Strategy and the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, including potential cumulative impacts.
Forecasting Considerations We remain concerned about the absence of information about the basic assumptions being made about future population and employment projections and spatial allocations in the travel demand modeling work. We understand that there may two versions of the Regional Transportation Model being calibrated and deployed right now on two major infrastructure planning projects — the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project and the Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project. Both are truck corridors.
It is urgent that a meeting of provincial, TransLink, and Metro Vancouver staff be convened to set out the parameters for travel demand forecasting. Ministry staff committed to this at the stakeholder meeting. And we reiterate that if alternative land use scenarios or adjustments to land use assumptions are made that depart from current assumptions, the Ministry should coordinate with Metro Vancouver staff to ensure transparency and traceability of such work. Metro Vancouver will be happy to assist in such efforts.
Performance-Based Perspective In our first letter we suggested clear outcomes should be identified so that alternative can be evaluated. We also offered some performance measures, which are consistent with regional objectives, to be included. The following tables shows to what degree our initial comments have been incorporated into the project definition. We respectively request that the Ministry incorporate the remaining elements of our comments.
TRANSPORTATION - 111
on
As Consideration
Environmental
be
investment would
piecemeal
part
the
the
Related general
Network
What
measures.
interchanges
highways, We
Bridgeport crossing
Corridor
In
noted
Deas
requested
our
growth Change
Change
vehicles)
Change
project Change
transit Travel
(net
and
Change
Change
transportation
Change
occupant cycling,
Change
appreciate
of
remains
benefit
first
the
road
to
Island
reduction
urban
above,
may
and
Perspective
time
vehicles;
process.
the
and
in
Regional in
in
in
in
in
walking,
in
targets letter,
scope
in
priorities
Road
ut(net dust
vehicles
environmental
industrial
parks agricultural
from
Whole
greenhouse
common
vehicle
or
Mode
have
should
the
Regional
corridor
lands.
reliability
and to
regional
the
the
new
in
in
be
of
intensity
we
region,
same
acreage
senior
set
Parks
upstream
goods/service
draft
Share
travel
Richmond
Such
Transportation
impacts
work
articulated kilometers
Systems
required)
and
interchanges
be
reduction
These
encouraged
air
lands
out
perspective
Park for
and
or
Performance
lands
made
gas
scope
Considerations contaminants,
a
to
for
time
governments
and
is
and
(no
increased
in
transit,
comprehensive
and
acreage
confirm
an local
matters
emissions
on
transit,
and
the
Perspective or
acreage
the
net
for
emissions
to
to
travelled
required)
natural
awareness
now
parks
is
downstream
vehicles
the
Regional
the
prepare
multiple-occupant
routes.”
loss)
and
province,
consideration
a
will
(no
is
Strategy
multiple-occupant
travel
broader
“considers
the
must
Measure
immediate
Canada/US
(no
acreage the
goods
(net
assets
including
have
net
to
as
(net
funds
(net
net
network
specific time
a
Growth
pay
reduction
be
of
loss)
process
measure
and
if
TRANSPORTATION reduction
materials
(no
loss)
outlook
process
reduction
other
carefully
implications
major
must
for
for
that
all
diesel
service
net
marine
of
border
single-occupant
these
plans
Strategy,
interchanges
and
vehicles
will
the
the potential
loss)
required)
be
of
transportation
for
vehicles,
on
particulates
required)
impacts
of
quantified
included
vehicles
whole
impacts
help
region
to
environment
investments.
the
in
evaluation
single-
reduce,
along
and
Surrey,
and
ultimate
to regional
-
systems can
112
on
establish
on
in within
other
the
and
adjacent
generate
the
as
mitigate,
adjacent
and
investments
Draft
Highway
Included
well
role
and
transportation
evaluated
evaluation
established
perspective.
the
Yes
Goal
Yes
Yes
debate, Yes
No Yes
No
the No
No
Project
of
as
associated
Highway
agricultural,
locally lands.
and
the
medium-term
connections
in
99
as
corridor,
compensate
for
are
corridor
framework.
regional
and
opposed
Evaluation
Modifications
What
potential
Included
99
brought
investment
habitats.
the
corridor
parks,
Yes
to
and
Yes
and
No Yes
Yes
No
is
No
No
No
and
funds
objectives.
other
missing
to
in
forward
for
Criteria
mitigation
adjacent
how
industrial,
having Draft
For
long-term
from
impacts priorities,
that
to
provincial
a
from
existing
new
as
a
must
lands.
It or example, it is unknown whether under Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 the construction will block public access to the west end of the park along the right of way, and what the construction and operations impacts will be. In addition, the project should ensure solid east-west recreational connectivity supportive of Experience the Fraser.
Agricultural Considerations We reiterate from our first letter that agricultural impact assessments should be undertaken for each scenario alternative. We note that minimizing adverse agricultural impacts and access to/from agricultural areas are included as evaluation criteria.
Congestion We note that the summary of the Phase 1 consultation identifies “congestion reduction” as the most important factor to consider in developing replacement options. We request that analysis be provided to indicate to what degree weekday and weekend congestion are caused by recurring or non-recurring congestion. Non-recurring congestion, whether caused by a stalled vehicle or collision, points to different types of solutions, such as ramp metering.
The region has adopted regional greenhouse gas reduction targets of 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. These are the same targets adopted by the Province. To make incremental steps towards these targets, the region (and Province) must recognize managing the growth, and even reversing, in vehicle kilometres travelled is crucial to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
We recognize reducing idling and improving the overall flow of traffic will reduce emissions. But we also recognize that the region cannot build itself out of congestion solely through expanding roadways. Road pricing should be tested, not simply as a revenue source to pay off the construction and operating expenses, but to also manage existing and incremental private vehicle demand.
Regional Economy Considerations The current discourse over expansion of highways and watercrossing capacities is missing a broader perspective on the regional economy. What assumptions are being made about the growth in containers and commodities as they relate to increased truck and rail traffic, and origins and destinations, for this region versus Prince Rupert? What is the correlation with specific road investments? Why are transportation demand management and system management measures, such as the deployment of technology and pricing, and smarter port logistics, not contemplated as part of these infrastructure proposals? What policy assumptions are being made about servicing goods movement as a priority over other economic, environmental, and social objectives? What policy assumptions are being made about prioritizing the reduction of delay for private vehicles versus the reduction of delay for transit customers? These questions need to be answered in a more holistic fashion long before investment decisions are made on capital-intensive and irreversible infrastructure. The assumptions must be made transparent and deliberated for their validity.
Conclusion As Phase 2 progresses, we will remain engaged to better understand the performance benefits, costs, interactions with other parts of the regional transportation system, and implications to agricultural, industrial, and park lands.
TRANSPORTATION - 113
6850767
cc:
GR/RICj’mlt
Metropolitan
Gaëtan
Yours
;r
Raymond
and
Our
remains Vancouver
comments
“Understanding
Metro
Plan,
Regional
Metro
occupant
plans,
land
services
Replacement
Metro
Re:
Dear
Delta, c/n
Ministry George
Attachment
Executive
Mr.
Bob
expansion
l)ecmher
staff
truly,
Royer,
and
use
1
Vancouver
Paddon, Geoff
Vancouver Mr.
a
when
S
comments
Vancouver
lCan,
AC
ti
replacement
Growth
in
Metro
and
Regional
I
vehicles,
will Massey on
Planning,
of
Freer:
Vanit
the
Manager
Project
V.16
Freer
Senior
as
key
identifying
Transportation
traffic 19,
remain
Executive
Project.
region.
the
new
age
Vancouver
Strategy,
2012 items
staff
It!)
is
Tunnel
Food
in
is
improving
Need”.
Regional
Way
Director
providing
Environment
patterns
information
pleased
the
engaged
crossing
attended
The
VicePresldent, for
Projects
System
the
enclosed
Replacement
Inte
your
In George
Staff
project’s
and
Planner,
locally.
to
air
lieu
these
should
grated
and
Strategy.
consideration.
two
provide
like
Comments emerges. quality
Infrastructure
and
of
attachment
comment
Massey
the preliminary
of
completing
If
Strategic
Air
problem
at
also
Parks
your
Project it
Massey
604.436.6991,
the
and
Quality
is
have
carefully
For Tunnel
TRANSPORTATION
stakeholder attached
on
enhancIng
as
Planning
should statement
As further
a
appropriate the
comments
Tunnel
the
and
significant
the
Is
George
feedback Integrated
an
Greenhouse
comments
be
Phase
and
information,
or
sustainablllty
Replacement
important
meetings
treated
and
myself
Public
from
Massey
impact to 2
-
appropriate
form,
consultation Metropoisron
114
ensure
with
Affairs,
a
as
at regarding
Gas
as
broad
connection
604.816.5399.
on preliminary
please
we
Tunnel
regional
part
always In
Management
that
reducing
TransUnk
are
the
perspective
S’lnns,is,q
of
solutions.
do
a the
proceeds
providing
entire
Replacement
the
broad
hold
land
not
between
George
Fe?
and
the
Phase
the
Fnwv,nma•ns
hesitate
use
region.
Thank
•04
regional
subject
ri’ümber
Plan,
in
based
this
potential
and
.0326
Massey
1
2013,
people,
consultation
you.
Regional
letter
Project
transportation
to
File:
to on
MO
perspective
of
and
contact
Metro
revision
Its Tunnel
single-
to
with
low
jobs
CP-O7-0I
Pork
plans:
transform
Parks
‘*fl
s
our
and
flrportnhvnt
titled
4126)95 016
considered
future
transportation
Additional
region
competitiveness
expanding
The
local, decisions
The
outset
best
make Vancouver,
decisions
relative environment
vitality,
‘d3yf
Metro
1.
project
proposed
way
regional,
decisions
expansion
has
which
TransLink’s
evaluation
recognized
of
provide
Clear Sl,
goal
the walking,
should Taking
public
Performance-Based
ei.onoiilic
to
to
project
may
to
made
road
travel
cov’r’;
the
future.
using
may
was
reach
frinsl
cuniiilutiveiy
outcomes
contains
within
plans
George
a
attain. leave
infrastructure
more
provincial,
assistance
capacity
which
or
cue
to
also
of
in
the
choices,
of
conception
tflLP±11LMLiL0iMPi
framework
early
a
transportation
prosper
ink,
cycling
simply
The
shifting
the
and port
win-win
.iistrblit’
from
in
the
comprehensive
following
result
numerous
For
Massey
lptirniLe
the
should
region.
actions
hi’
in
investments
region.
may
facilities.
TransLink’s
improving
to
rIlnVi
example, arid
reduce
by
the
region Province,
1/,
to
in
Perspective
Ministry
solution
to
2040”.
needs
attract
and
more
more
social
planning
Tunnel
national
be
“whole
required
only
account (
tills
Peta
ieorge
Mi 1 or
performance
initiatives
identified
travel
associated
for
For
of
vehicular
in
efficient
ut”i’t
justice
access Ii’!JiOrl
one
‘(VP,
values
more
In
should
generations.
of
is
Transport
led
Replacement
Transport the
system
these
interests.
other
process.
in1rstructure
to
time
Transportation
to
for
particular
lassey
r’Jletro
Port
ensure
region.
single
achieve
to
forward,
so
and
and
lilti
and
follow
reasons,
transportation
desired for
TRANSPORTATION
words,
traffic
jobs
planning”
measures.
that
Metro
,\
is
compassion.
2040,
objectives
through
to
2040,
single-occupant I
Vancouver
Metro
occupancy
ITA(1
to
that
It
The
nitel
evaluate
and
alternatives
the objective,
this
Project also
,
acheve
it
trips
outcomes
harmful
Vancouver,
it
decisions
the
the
one
is
George
ifvlFN
rule
recreation,
outcome
Vancouver
and
is
Rt’pl
approach.
has
the
necessary
necessary
by
long-term
appropriate
established
of
will
of
Infrastructure
modes.
the
vehicles
Staff
implications
the
preparation
private r
ill
cement
the willie
air
identifying Massey
-
be
so
can
are nurtured
115 costs,
hiihest
vehicles
would
emissions
goals
Comments
irul
that
a
staff
and
that
made
weakening
be
significant
to
vehicles
transportation
It
and
private
Prolect
benefits,
may
evaluated. Tunnel
scope in
established
consider
enhancing
is
necessarily
has
these
quality
of
for
detract
the by
only,
the
to
by
staff
also
and
the
been
have
a
shaping
municipalities,
ought
is
outcomes region.
entities.
rlecrsions
beautiful
Replacement
for
capital
other
established
in
Regional
and
loss
of
have
this
from
involved
“most
the
the
example.
Metro life
regional
be
to
strategy
of
legacy
project
travel
important
implications
It
preparation
economic
erribraciiig
be
different undertaking
achievements
agricultural
In
is
and
that
be
trips
Growth
Vancouver
in
orrier
far
in
contemplated
that
demand,
at
objectives
the
within
healthy
Metro
Project
for
the
depth
too
by
the
for
minority
than these
the
goals.
transit,
region
Strategy,
easy
very
of for
lands.
the
these
serving
ilturil
in
was
region,
can
an
if
the
the
to
are
the
total
The in
.vir)
Regional
Metro
The
2.
region’s
subsequently
George
We
broader
perspective,
benefits
that
Vancouver,
further
transportation
A
the
role
to
corridor
The Corridor
merits
•
• •
network •
V.r’”r
acknowledge
•
•
•
having
•
Vancouver’s
the
In
Highway
iIr.ri.uuv’;
of
bjutuvu”;,
George
Change
Change
Massey
Change
Chane
Transportation
next
occupant
travel
)uirticuldtes
Chmne
have)
(i
regional Change
into
velmiules
ilmupn
and
the George
of
(ditini
met
is
and
a
perspective
h George the
number
there
public
‘,i,ut
corridor,
removed
part Surrey
mdi
costs
performance-based
time
Massey
time 99
in
Tunnel in
in
in
Network
needs
in
wee!)
in
ii)
Massey objectives.
that ictiun
(net
environmental vehicles)
ii
industrial of
corridor
parks
existing agricultural
,IuuoiItI
are
greenhouse
compare
vehicle
for medal
investment
reliability
and
an
in,i’.
one
imni
doing
reduction
and
pressing due
Strategy
Replacement Tunnel
multi in
i’Idj:
integrated
requirme
acreage
Massey
is
Langley,
iiynie road
Tunnel
lie
priority
the
Perspective
and
shire
and
also how
kikumeters
to
lands
nothing
cv
to
nccupant
region.
re-prioritization,
‘ur
for
lands
dust
is
planned
adjacent
the
important
gas
needs
decisions
a I)
process.
Tunnel
(no one of
Replacement (or
and
cited,
cii for
or new
transit,
acreage
perspective,
network
other
(net emissions
acreage
transit, extending
net f5’’’y
is
Project
ngle-nccimpint transportation
element
natural
Whether that
TRANSPORTATION
crossing travefled
not
and
transportation
Replacement
reduction
cuune
lands.
loss)
and
known
may
for
(no
Ie’,
a
have
transit
iunn’I of
multiple
was viable
(no
assets
a
goods
of and
actually net
highways
simple
Project
does
rapid
may
that there
different
as
tue
yet
a
net
needs
once
I
loss) common
regionally-significant
vehicles
required)
a
option
vehicles
is
p(tnrnim(e
to
have investment.
not
measure )I,r’ni mnuvemnent
loss
transit (no
ought
Project
)c
expanding
is included
uutrics,
infrastructure
end
be around
-
necessarily
expected and
net
set
through
116 ipant
upstream
funded.
over
/ up
along to
air
of
loss required)
major same
i)p’ should
of
being
be
contaminants,
vehicles reasons, wluu
the the
in
and
transportation
through
the
a compensation) outputS
the
the
to
or
I
Given
region?
long-term. roads
broader
or
(A
qualify
Ii
service
sub-optimal
be
Frequent address
as
increased
Broadway Gateway
urn
downstream
i
evaluated
part
corridor.
cycling,
There
the
compensation) serving
‘ier’i1
s
mm)
this
Without
outlook vehicles
of
prospective
Inuniuud
(and
including
Transit
Knowing
are
TransLink’s
Program,
project
i
travel
corridor
walking,
and
the
teumsity
And
relative
solve),
numerous
implications
on
(net with
this
[miii
region.
detract
time Network
the
as
the
diesel
that
network
and
but
in
problems reduction goods/service
how
u’(900ul
the
to
Highway
new
Ion
ultimate for
the
was
from
emissions
Related
do
single-
along
the
99 in
rvi,’iri
V,r
Ministry
Metro
b)
a)
vehicle
Province The
travel
travel definition
walking,
modal
Further,
should
statement This
to
Experience example,
of
envisions collaborative
and
in
Ensuring
facility occupant
capacity
locii’,eil
lioth Multi-Modal
transit,
md
,rnJ’r
potential
reinforce
arid
Management
the
capacity Transportation
Impacts
Regional
amenities
multi-modal
tramisit
Vancouver
patterns
patterns
the
mobility
capacity Fraser
around
be
to
(eg.,
cycling,
to
the
multiple
iif
viable
of
0
rather
based
/?eponof
ensure
a
integrated
vehicles.
arid
evaluate
the
on
fIr
seamless,
vehicles
expansion;
nonveliicular
George
the
cumulative
Growth
access
River
concept
bin
Perspective
the
based
(i.e.,
Dmrs rrrir’rit’,
using
desired
Fraser
project,
on
recreational
on
integration
buses,
than
staff
Plan
a
perspective
occupancy
Centres
achievement
demand
major
whole-systems
from
&rvuvih
input
77%
Any
Massey to
the
lshurrd
to
Strategy
non-vehicular
on
at
stands
added
as
(Integrated contiguous,
ri,
led
employment
performance
move
rapid
wherein
the
a
following
impacts. of
new
Hope
a
from
roads,
rn,,r
performance
by
project
innues
arid
Regional
vehicles
outset
Ornh’qy
management
of
Tunnel
afterwards.
ready
connections
vehicles,
transit,
the
safely, crossing
needs
contains
to
pedestrian
Metro
,rrea’,
M.isi’y
of
transportation
highways,
Province,
the
of
Air
objective
and
planning
elements
during
to
the
modes
traversing Replacement
Park).
to
lands
efficiently,
and
transport
and outcomes.
near
Salish
provide
Vancouver, Quality
TRANSPORTATION
cycling,
should irrrrr,rl
publicly-accessible
a
be
Regional
and
key
multiple-occupancy
Irinisport
This
to
the
strategies
and
spelled
in
tIm
is
Fraser
and
Sea.
approach
outcomes-based
for
i’,r,ri,rurt
the
when action
also Richmond
contemplate
appropriate
and
project
is
Ereq
arid
cycling
the
are
the
demand
bridges:
The
the
mud
Experience
Growth
Watercrossings
paramount.
Project
Valley
out
fransLink
Greenhouse
tunnel
expmded.
walking
contemplating
2010
(Action
Pattullo
true
s&’amlessly
need
as
mt
definition
and
as
conrmections
alternatives and
-
i’rrjiri
franit
management
part
Regional
difference
Strategy coritrmpIite
117
should
being
for
coordinated
network
technical
all
opportunities
5.2.7)
the
Delta,
has
Bridge
approach.
of
vehicles
pedestrian
rank
(Ati.kIirrrrrt)
Experience
Gas
to
Fraser
cars)
Network,
phase.
the
incorporated
in
are
requested
District,
connections
and
future
and
into
as
essence of
Replacement
Management
between
planning
and
to,
critical
versus
multi-use
higher
are
a
network
and
the
to
planning
new
or
future
policy
arid
expansion
for
recreational
built
the
and md
as
Air
features
be
purposefully
connectors.
Fraser
of
priorities
pedestrians,
responding
cycling
process,
integral
connections
Fraser
that
Quality
Metro
recast
assistance
on where
TransLink
into
of
trails
dialogue.
Project
waterfront
Plan),
either
the
River
the
to
connections
of
is
on
as
Vancouver.
with,
growth
problem
opportunities
than
support
a
reich
private
project
a
both
crossings.
including
and
crud
to
shaping
and
For
to
multi- cyclists,
to
such
current
single
the
and
plans
of
the
trails
is
sides
the It
grounds
construction
visits
Replacement
Deas
Environment
and
work
currently
the
“bottleneck”
Docks
container
replacement
current
Beyond
Interdependence
work.
Ministry
adjustments
coordination
proposed States
Tsawwassen existing
forecasting
Massey
Metro preparation sponsored
in lo assumptions
Vanti
‘‘iniployin’nnr
Ii these
their business
each
Island
the
together
maintain
un’,ult,it
to
and
nrmver
Metro
border,
crossing
UltC
Vancouver
the lorec,msts
handle
in
year. arid
nntjor
contact
Funnel
vessels
Regional
developments
a
and the
project
and
immediate
case
group
is by
team Line
crossing,
has
use
to
to i,’,
the ot Vancouver
First with
on
removed,
critical
project
Care
qiiiwth in
assumptions
the
trip
container
Parks
bring
also
and Replacement
ilternitive
worked to
to
and
implications.
silt
Rpid
‘,i.,it
coilsistuncy
with operation.
support
to
Nation,
campground
stakeholders,
that to Park
Province
create generators,
Fraser
should
It
plays
use
ensure
coordinate
greater
identify whether to
Considerations
nnuhiiril)aI definition
Po
fori,ist’,
role
transit
the
is
then
travel
u,lS assnmptions
staff closely
it
related
movements
a lire
a
a Surrey
Surrey
be
Metro of
appropriate
l,iiiil
popular
direct new
the aol
about
Deas
of
clarity
it
will
the
timsel
Project.
the
taken
dein,mnd
Study
a
such
may
,1
in
assumptions
with most phase.
p,H
use
deeper
such
with
Roberts
roil
to trinsLink.
and Docks.
opportunities be
George
Vancouver the
role
Island
population
port tners,
Metro
about
when demomnI
unlock
as
scenarios
geogriplic
happy
and
r,’
IruisLmnik
the
Metro current
as
are
central
is
We
in
the
forecasting.
iongterm
We
i51.,-j
underutilized tunnel
Port
logistics
Regional
It
Bank
the
the
region
mmdc
Massey
Metro
designing
the
Vancouver
also
has
BC
the
to
Further, recommend
TRANSPORTATION
Vancouver modeling
Surrey facilitation
Metro arid
Initiatives
“grassy regional
assist and
Ferries to
Terminal interdependent
been
or iu’’!
to
potential trust
and
that
distribution
as
and
V.
test methods,
coordinate Tunnel
a Park’s
land
employment
a
bridge,
Vancouver. impacts
Rapid
in
alternatives depart
suggested
Metro
that
Fins
whole cou’ier
iipI
industrial
meadow”
the
terminal,
by
regional
transportation
such
work
use
staff
2,
of
recreational
that
at the
protocol
to
robustness Ministry
‘i’i
a
Transit
goods
could
assumptions Vancouver,
we Fraser
need
efforts. from
facilitate
proposed
is on
of
current
to
is
a the
-
park 118 relationship
would that consistent
development
put espoiisible
ensure
otterminals, port
area IrunsLmnk. the
growth
If
for
current
to Province
facilitate
movement
r’’
Alternatives
Surrey has
staff
alternative
integrity
which
the
be
of
the
of .t
channel
of
facilities
trips
model
request
been
new
its
transparency
carefully
(Mi
Deas
is
upon
anticipated
rapid
ultimate
George
are assumptions,
coordinating
Docks
regional
protocol
accommodates across and
the
In
for
marine
between
,ii’ni)
put
being
of
is
Island.
along
depth will
request tIm
transit
include land
prepar
Ministry
movement
being
Study,
Port
and
the
and
into
Massey
accounted
capacity
past
the also growth
container used
use
park,
h Fraser the
for the
Metro at in
concurrently
practice
alternatives. and
these
applied.
iie Fraser
by group
both
require
four
Richmond,
the
with
preparing
scenarios
we
Canada/United staff
for
Tunnel
the
both
Fr;tnstink,
tra:eability
of of
tunnel.
nearly
management
Vancouver
request
years,
two
of
for.
the
River,
fransLink’s
picnic
Fraser to
pn much
terminal
to
which careful
River. during
In
ii)ill,IliOil
confirm
initiatives
George
great
New
addition
or
300,000
the Metro
influence
Delta,
the
If
larger
that
Surrey
led
are
this
A
of
land
success
the
with
such
the
co
role.
md
to use
entire
reducing
regional
always
use,
Metro Conclusion
George
Committees,
consult
Avoid—
In
is
growing
be
infrastructure
consider
traffic
lost
Ehe
alternative,
and Alternative
Fhe Wetland
proposed
Further,
associated and As
wildlife
Peas
Program
P0,1
tiot
Nw
considered
addition
detrimental
transportation
part
cumulative
and
agricultural
the
compensate
region.
fl
perimeter
Vancouver
hold
bland.
corridors
of
Vin,
Massey
with
land
Mitigate
the
metropolitan
of
viability
describe
habitat.
the
the
the
of
(FRE
alternative.
to
the
the
number
habitats.
,,v
locations
the
International
use particularly
and
impact
only
integrity
l)ei;
consulting
Most
projects
MP)
design potential
Tunnel
to
n
impacts
City
and
5oif
and
impact
sid if
—
of
the
staff,
other
Metro
the
for
when
Compensate
DOaS
and
lough
indicating
era
agriculture.
of
of
of
compatibility/incompatibility
of
LflflhlnflhltS
transportation
Tsawwassen
any
of
future
process,
of
population.
the
Replacement
t
Committees
single-occupant
economic
being
Richmond, a
Burns
ions
assessments
potential
lSFiiid
of
with negative
any
a
Vancouver
to
the
new
impacts
Importance’.
(south)
new
north
the
transform
bridge
viability
Burns
contemplated
the
Bog high
crossing
Cli
ConSistS
Massey
crossing
consideration
approach,
It
side
(re
Agricultural
development
impacts
impacts
side
First
and
on
will
the
productivity
For
Bog
and
options.
plans,
will
Project.
of
should
of
Peas
land
Corporation
be
the
on
of
this
Nation
funnel
of
vehicles,
Miocy
Ecological
the
may
the
l)eis
share
Deas
important
the
coastal
cannot
related
whereby
a
Fraser
use
Island
reason,
agricultural
in
Board
replacement
define
have
Island
should
Land future
TRANSPORTATION
ecological
directly
the
Replacement
Iiinnl
Island
and
in
habitat.
improving
River
Regional
be
1100(1
the
to
serious
Conservancy
south
are
with
Commission,
of
any
traffic
what
avoidance
is
to
avoided. economic
farmland
R’pliiiment
be
i
region.
Delta,
coded
keenly
regarding
estuary
provide
agriculture
coded plain
adjacent
industry
made
of
The
sensitivity
parcels
crossing
patterns
implications
Park
the
air
their
project,
yellow, red
forest
interested
Projects
red
to
fragmentation,
quality
is
growth
Fraser have
an
Area
- and
ir
we
potential
and
the coding
119 nonfarm of
prepare
respective
should
by
agricultural
impact
locally.
agricultural and
mopping
highly ct
the
now
which priority
in
local
the
mist
and
such
like
of for (‘ti.enil
addition
in.irSliOS
wraps
in
mnmedia
I
also the
been
specific
uses.
enhancing
assessment
the
food
impacts
riser
the
recommend
the he
If
as
indicates
Agricultural
course
it for
agri-food
upheld
Roberts
drainage
have
regional
impact
Massey
careful
around
is
recognized
production
land
River
to
the
01
carefully It
te
plans
on
the
is
a
(COI()gin1I
marine
of
Park
may
moderate
also
sustainability significant
with
Estuary
agriculture
assessment
integration
Bank
action
should
Tunnel
the
other
supply
industry.
that and
to
Advisory
with be
important
integrated
reduce,
respect
western
as
needed
environment
Terminal
irrigation,
the
permanently
major
and
a
consider
Mineniont
Replacement
of
Ministry
inportince
“Ramsar
prudi
impact
Ministry
farmland
from
mitigation
of
for
to
mitigate,
in
for
tip
to
land
ictivity
any
with
2,
the
each
farm
of
a
the
an
on
staff.
may and
6850767
41
cc:
GR/RK/mft
Metropolitan
Gaëtan
Yours
Raymond
and
Our
remains
Vancouver
comments
“Understanding
Metro
Plan,
Regional
Metro
occupant
plans,
land
services
Replacement
Metro
Re:
Dear
Delta,
do
Ministry George
Executive
Mr.
December
expansion
Attachment
staff
Bob
truly,
and
use 7351
Royer,
Geoff
Vancouver
Mr.
a
Vancouver
Paddon,
when
Vancouver
BC
comments
Kan,
replacement
p
Metro
Growth in
and
Regional
Massey
vehicles,
will on
of
Freer:
Vantage
Planning,
the
Project
V4G
Freer
Manager
Transportation
19,
Senior
key
as traffic
identifying
remain
Project.
Executive
region.
the
Vancouver
new
2012
Strategy,
1C9
items
staff
Tunnel
is
Food
is
in improving
Way Director
Need”.
providing patterns
Regional
pleased
Environment information
the
crossing
engaged
attended
The
Projects for
System
Vice-President,
the
Replacement
enclosed
Integrated
your
George Staff
In
and
project’s
to locally.
Planner,
air
these
lieu
should
and
Strategy.
provide
consideration. like
two
Comments
Infrastructure quality
emerges.
of
and
attachment
comment
Massey
the
preliminary
of
completing
If
Air also
problem
at
Strategic
Parks Project
your it
Massey
the
and
604.436.6991,
is Quality
have
carefully
TRANSPORTATION Tunnel
For
attached
on stakeholder
enhancing
as
Planning should statement
As
a the
further
Tunnel
appropriate
comments
the
and
significant
the
is
George
integrated
feedback
an
Greenhouse
comments
be
Phase
and
information,
sustainability
or Replacement
important
meetings
treated
and
myself
Public
from
Massey impact
-
to 2
120
Metropo
appropriate
form,
consultation
ensure
with
regarding
a
Affairs,
as
at
Gas
as
broad
connection
on
Tunnel
604.816.5399. preliminary
we
please regional
titan
always
part
in
Management
that
reducing
the
are
TransLink
Plonninq,
perspective
of
solutions.
the
a do
Replacement
entire
proceeds
providing
the
hold
broad land
between
not
re/s George
the
and
Phase
Environment
the
use
region.
604
hesitate
Thank
regional
number
Plan,
subject
based
in
potential
this
4326
and
Massey
1
people, 2013,
consultation
Project
Regional
letter
you.
transportation
350
File:
to
on
and
to
perspective
of
contact
Metro
Tunnel
its revision
single-
to Fox:
CP-07-01-016
Parks
jobs
with
plans: transform
60443262% Parks
and
Department
our titled ATTACHMENT George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project Detailed Metro Vancouver Staff Comments onsiderations Metro Vancouver’s sustainability commitment is to achieve the highest quality of life embracing cultural vitality, economic prosperity, social justice and compassion, all nurtured by a beautiful and healthy environment within the region. Major infrastructure decisions are made by municipalities, Metro Vancouver, TransLink, the Province, YVR,Port Metro Vancouver, and private entities. In order for these decisions to cumulatively move this region forward, it is necessary that these decisions be contemplated relative to the more comprehensive values and objectives established in the region, It is far too easy to make decisions which optimize only one particular objective, while weakening other important goals. The best way to reach a win—winsolution is to ensure that the appropriate scope is established at the very outset of project conception to account for and to evaluate the costs, benefits, and legacy that these decisions may leave in the region for generations.
The proposed George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project will be a significant capital undertaking serving local, regional, provincial, and national interests, It also has implications for shaping travel demand, expanding travel choices, improving access to jobs and recreation, and enhancing the economic competitiveness of the region.
The project may also result in more vehicular traffic, harmful air emissions and loss of agricultural lands. Additional road capacity may attract more single occupancy vehicles and detract from achievements the region has made in shifting to more efficient transportation modes. It may also have implications for the future expansion of port facilities. For these reasons, it is necessary to consider this project within the total transportation infrastructure needs of the region. The George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project was considered using the following “whole system planning” approach.
1. Performance-Based Perspective Taking a cue from TransLink’s Transport 2040, the long-term transportation strategy for the region, public plans and investments should follow the rule of identifying the outcomes that the region should attain. For example, in Transport 2040, one of the goals is to have “most trips by transit, walking, or cycling by 2040”. In other words, trips by private vehicles ought to be in the minority in the future. The actions required to achieve this outcome would necessarily be different than if the goal was to simply reduce travel time for single-occupant vehicles only, for example.
Clear outcomes should be identified so that alternatives can be evaluated. Metro Vancouver can provide assistance to Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure staff in the preparation of an evaluation framework and associated desired outcomes so that established regional objectives are recognized early in the planning process. Metro Vancouver staff has been involved in depth in TransLink’s transportation initiatives and through the preparation of the Regional Growth Strategy, which contains numerous performance measures.
TRANSPORTATION - 121
l’:gn
Metro
Minitr’j
2.
Regional
Metro The
region’s
subsequently
George
We
broader
perspective,
benefits
that
Vancouver,
further
transportation
A
the 2
role
to
corridor
The
Corridor
•
•
Vancouver
cmf
•
•
network merits
•
acknowledge •
•
•
it
objectives,
having
alternatives
In
the
Highway
Vancouver’s
of
George
Change
Change
[r
Change
Change
occupant
addition
travel
Travel
Massey
particulates
Change
next (net
Transportation Change
vehicles
Change
into
regional
the
George and
t 1 ,iLitnn
of
is
and
a
perspective
Stiff
there
reduction
corridor, the
part
number
public Surrey
removed costs
performance-based
time
time
Massey
99
in
in
in
in
Tunnel
Network
in
would
in
to needs
in
George Comments
(net
vehicles)
environmental
Massey
should
industrial
objectives.
that parks of
agricultural
corridor
greenhouse
vehicle
existing
are
modal for
identifying
compare
reliability
investment
md
an and
and
one
reduction
and
doing
Tunnel multi-occupant
pressing
include:
in
due
irmlrmsuctmimn
required>
Replacement
integrated
Strategy
acreage
is road
be
Massey Langley,
Tunnel the
Perspective
priority
share
kilometers
on
and
how
also
and
to
lands
evaluated.
nothing
to
George
region.
for
lands
dust
is re-prioritization,
clear
adjacent
gas
planned
important
the
a
needs
decisions
of
(no for
one
process.
and
Tunnel
Replacement
transit,
new
acreage
or
for
perspective,
network
single-occupant
emissions (net
other
transit,
acreage
Massey
outcomes,
net
extending
element
is
natural
Project
transportation
Whether travelled
TRANSPORTATION
crossing that
and
not
Some
reduction
transportation
loss)
lands.
Replacement
and
known
may
(no
for
riinnel
have transit
a
of multiple-occupant
(no
was viable
assets
goods
and
a
of
net sample
highways
actually
Project
rapid there
may
that
as
the does
different
net
yet
a
needs Replacement
once
common
loss)
a
vehicles required)
regionally-significant
vehicles
performance
option
measure
have
movement
is
to
loss
(no
investment.
not transit
ought
metrics,
expanding
Project
is
included
be end
-
infrastructure around
122 and
net
through
expected
necessarily set
upstream
funded.
over
/
air
up
to
along
required>
loss
same
of
major
Project
of
should
be
which
vehicles,
contaminants,
being
reasons.
the
and
the
transportation
in
through
the outputs
compensation)
a
the
or
the to
Given
(Attachment)
roads
broader
region?
or
long-term.
service
qualify
sub-optimal
Frequent increased
address are
be
as
Broadway
downstream
Gateway
corridor.
cycling,
evaluated
part
There
consistent
compensation)
the serving
stemming
vehicles
this
outlook
Without
of prospective
(and
including
Transit
are
intensity
travel
Knowing
TransLink’s
Program, walking,
project
corridor
the
and
And
solve),
numerous
relative
implications
with
on from
(net
this
region.
detract
time
the
Network
the
diesel
as
and
that
goods/service
reduction
regional
network
in
the
problems
but
how
Highway
the
for
to
ultimate
new
emissions
Related
the
project
from
was
single
do
along
the
in 99 MI1H7 Ifl,pO[t.iOr1 md IriIi,tructum Metro Vancouver Staff Comments on George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project (Attachment) d
3. Multi-Modal Perspective
Both the Regional Growth Strategy and Transport 2040 contemplate a future where growth is focused in Urban Centres and areas near the Frequent Transit Network, and that the reach and capacity of non-vehicular modes of transport are expanded.
Transit, multiple-occupancy vehicles, cycling, and walking all rank as higher priorities than single occupant vehicles. Any new crossing should contemplate opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit vehicles to move safely, efficiently, and seamlessly to connections on either end of the facility (e.g., access to employment lands in Richmond and Delta, and to recreational opportunities in and around Deas Island Regional Park).
Ensuring viable recreational connections to the Experience the Fraser network of waterfront trails and amenities using non-vehicular modes is also paramount. Experience the Fraser is a collaborative concept led by the Province, Fraser Valley Regional District, and Metro Vancouver. It envisions a seamless, contiguous, and publicly-accessible network of multi-use trails on both sides of the Fraser River from Hope to the Salish Sea. Watercrossings are critical connectors. For example, based on input from Metro Vancouver, TransLink has incorporated connections to Experience the Fraser as a project objective for the Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project and plans to reinforce the integration of pedestrian and cycling connections into new Fraser River crossings.
This multi-modal perspective needs to be spelled out as part of the planning process, problem statement and desired performance outcomes. The need for pedestrian and cycling connections should be integrated at the outset during the project definition phase.
Further, the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project should in essence be recast as a multi- modal mobility project, wherein transportation demand management and features to support walking, cycling, buses, rapid transit, and multiple-occupancy vehicles are built into the project definition rather than added afterwards. This is the true difference between responding to current travel patterns (i.e., 77% of vehicles traversing the tunnel being cars) versus purposefully shaping travel patterns based on a performance and outcomes-based approach.
The Regional Growth Strategy contains a key action (Action 5.2.7) requested of TransLink and the Province to evaluate the following elements when contemplating future expansion of private vehicle capacity on major roads, highways, and bridges: a) Transportation demand management strategies as alternatives to, or as integral with, such capacity expansion; b) Impacts on the achievement of the Regional Growth Strategy and the Air Quality Management Plan (Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan), including potential cumulative impacts.
Metro Vancouver staff stands ready to provide appropriate technical and policy assistance to the Ministry to ensure a whole-systems planning approach and coordinated planning dialogue.
TRANSPORTATION - 123
grounds
construction
Replacement visits
Deas
Environment
and
work
currently
the “bottleneck”
container Docks
replacement
current
Beyond
Interdependence
work,
Ministry
adjustments
coordination
proposed Tsawwassen
States
existing forecasting
Massey
To Metro
preparation
sponsored
in assumptions
Vancouver These
employment
In
Forecasting Metro
business their
the
each Island
maintain
consultation
together
to
I
and
Metro
border,
crossing
UBC
Vancouver Vancouver
the oF
forecasts
land
handle in
Tunnel
major contact
year.
vessels
Regional developments
the
a
and
Fl. immediate
project and
case by
team
is Line
crossing, group
has
to
use
the
Vancouver of
First with
to
Considerations
critical
removed,
growth project
Care assumptions the
trip
poFtaFlon
in
container
land
loplays also alternative
Parks bring
Replacement worked
and
to
to
Staff Rapid with
consistency implications.
with
support
operation.
to
Nation,
stakeholders,
that
campground
Province
generators,
Park
to
create
Fraser
should
use
ensure
coordinate
Comments
to
greater whether
municipal Considerations
identify
definition
Port
forecasts
role
Transit
the
is travel
ui!
then assumptions
staff closely
related
movements
the Surrey
a Surrey a
a
Metro
of
appropriate be
land
direct popular
the and
new
about
Fiostructuo’
Deas of
will
clarity it
travel
the Project.
the
taken
Study demand
on a
such
may
assumptions
with
most
and in
use partners,
such TransLink. with
phase.
deeper
to
Roberts
and
Docks.
George
be
George
Vancouver
opportunities
role
the
population
Island
port
demand scenarios
as
Metro about geographic
unlock when
and happy
TransLink the
current
as Metro
are
is
central
We
in
the
forecasting.
long-term Massey
We
tunnel
underutilized Port
logistics
It the
Regional
the
Bank region
made
Massey Metro
also
designing
the has
BC Vancouver
to the
TRANSPORTATION
Further,
recommend
Vancouver
modeling Surrey
and
facilitation Metro
Initiatives
regional “grassy
and assist
to
Ferries
Terminal
interdependent
tunnel
been to
trust
or
potential
that
distribution
and
as
and Vancouver
test
methods,
coordinate
Tunnel
a
Park’s land
employment
a
bridge, Vancouver.
Rapid
in This
depart Metro
impacts
that
suggested
whole
alternatives
Replacement
industrial
the
terminal,
meadow”
by
transportation
regional
such
work
use
staff
2,
of that
protocol recreational the
at
to
Ministry robustness
Transit
a goods
Vancouver,
assumptions
could
we
need
from
Fraser efforts.
facilitate is
as
proposed of
-
to
on current
a
124 the
responsible consistent
would TransLink.
relationship development part
park that
ensure
port
growth
the
area
If
Project
to
current for
facilitate
Province
movement
Alternatives
has staff
alternative
Surrey
of
the be
integrity
which terminals,
the
channel of
of
trips
model
facilities
request
been
new
its
transparency
carefully
(Attachment)
is upon
rapid
anticipated
Deas ultimate
are George
assumptions,
coordinating
regional
Docks
protocol
across
for
In
the
accommodates
and
marine
between put
being
is
the of
along will request
Island. transit
depth
land
preparing
Ministry
include
Study,
being
movement
and
Port
the
into
and
accounted
Massey
capacity past
also
the
growth
used
use
container
for
the the
park, in
at
Metro
concurrently practice
alternatives.
and applied.
these
Fraser
by
both
four
require
Richmond,
group
the
with
preparing
scenarios we
staff
Canada/United
Fraser
for
TransLink,
the
Tunnel
traceability
both
of
management
of
tunnel.
years, request
nearly of
Vancouver
two
for.
the TransLink’s
River,
to
population
Fraser
picnic much
to
terminal
which
careful
In
River.
during
confirm
George
great
initiatives
New
addition
or
the
Metro
Delta,
300,000
influence
the
If
that larger
led
Surrey
are
this A
of land
success
the
with
such
the
Co
and
role.
to use
entire
reducing
regional
always
use,
Conclusion
Metro
George
Committees,
consult
Avoid
In
is growing
be The
infrastructure
traffic consider
The
lost
alternative,
and
Alternative AriculturaI
Wetland
proposed
Further,
associated
and As
wildlife
Deas
Program Most
Metro
Mtnstry
The
considered
addition
detrimental
transportation
part
cumulative
and
agricultural
the
compensate
region. perimeter
—
Vancouver
hold
Island.
corridors
of
Vancouver
ct
with
Massey
Mitigate
land
the
ut
metropolitan
of
viability
describe
habitat.
the
the
the
of
(FREMP)
alternative.
to frrisportation
the
the
habitats.
number
locations
the
International
particularly
use
Considerations
and
impact
only
integrity
Deas
consulting
Most
projects
design
Tunnel
potential to
impacts
of
City
and
Staff
impact and
—
of
the
staff,
other
Metro
the
for
when
Compensate
Deas
Slough
and
indicating
agriculture.
of
of
of of
compatibility/incompatibility
Comments
transportation
Tsawwassen
any
of
future
process,
population. of
the
Replacement
Committees
being
single-occupant
economic a
Richmond,
Burns
md
potential assessments
Island
any
of
a
negative
with
Vancouver
to
the
new
impacts
Importance”.
new (south)
north
the
Infrtrudure
transform
bridge
viability
Burns
contemplated
the
crossing
Bog
high
on
consists
Massey
crossing
consideration
approach,
It
side
George
Agricultural
development
impacts
impacts
side
First
and
on
will
the
productivity
For
Bog
options.
and
plans,
will
Project.
of
should
of
Deas
land
Corporation be
the
on
of
this
Tunnel
Nation
of
vehicles,
Massey
the Ecological
may
the
Deas
share
Deas
important
the
coastal
cannot
related
whereby
Fraser
a
Island
reason,
use
agricultural
in
Board
replacement
define
TRANSPORTATION have
should
Island
future
Land
ecological
the
directly
Tunnel
Replacement
Island
and
in
habitat.
improving
River
Regional
be flood
to
the
serious
Conservancy
south
with
are
Commission,
any
of
what
traffic
avoidance
is
to
farmland
economic
avoided.
Replacement
be
is
Delta,
region.
coded
keenly
regarding
estuary
provide
agriculture
coded
plain
adjacent
industry
made
of
The
sensitivity
parcels
crossing
implications
patterns
Park
the
air
their
project,
yellow,
red
forest interested
-
Projects
to
fragmentation,
red
quality is growth
125
Fraser have
an
Area
and
Project
we
and
the
potential coding
nonfarm
of
prepare
respective
by
agricultural
should
impact
locally.
and
agricultural
mapping
the
highly
now
which
priority
in
must
local
the
such
and
for
like of
(Attachment)
addition
marshes
wraps
immediate
in
Fraser
the
specific
been
also
uses.
the
food
assessment
impacts
enhancing
be
the
recommend
the
as
indicates
If
course
Agricultural
for
it
agri-food
upheld
Roberts
drainage
regional
have
impact
around
Massey
careful
recognized
is
production
land
River
to
the
of
It
carefully
plans
the
on
is
ecological
marine
a
of
Park
may
moderate
also
with
sustainability
significant
Estuary
assessment
agriculture
Bank
integration
should
action the
other
Tunnel
supply
industry.
and
to
that
Advisory
with
be
important
reduce,
respect
western
integrated
as
needed
environment
Terminal
irrigation,
the
permanently
major
and
a
consider
Management
of
importance.
Replacement
Ministry
“Ramsar
productivity
Ministry
impact
farmland
from
mitigation
for
of
to
mitigate,
tip
for
in
to
land
any
2,
each
with
the
farm
of
a
the
an
staff.
may
on and 5.4
To: Transportation Committee and Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee
From: Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment
Date: September 25, 2013 Meeting Date: October 9, 2013
Subject: Manager’s Report
RECOMMENDATION That the Transportation Committee receive for information the Manager’s Report dated September 25, 2013.
Proposed 2014 Regional Planning Budget Addressing the integration of transportation and land use is contemplated within the context of Metro Vancouver’s role in developing and implementing the Regional Growth Strategy. As such, the proposed 2014 budget addresses support for the Transportation Committee through the Regional Planning function.
The Regional Planning operating budget is proposed to increase by $298,508 (17.6%) in 2014 for a total operating budget of $1,998,696. This increase is due to new costs associated with supporting the Transportation Committee ($200,000), and the reallocation of the GM’s salary and other administrative salaries ($90,000) from other departmental budgets which funded these positions in 2013. With the exception of a proposed new transportation planner position, administrative salaries are reallocated from the previous Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks division and CAO Office departments.
Work is ongoing associated with the implementation of the RGS. This will involve enhancing the evidence-based research and policy development that can be used at the regional and/or municipal level to support the goals of the RGS and to more effectively communicate the multiple values of the RGS to different audiences. The key actions for 2014 include: · Board acceptance of 21 Regional Context Statements · Thorough but timely assessment of proposed amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy for Board consideration · Completion of sub-regional profiles and visualization of sub-regions in the year 2040 · Advance implementation of Frequent Transit Development Areas through the development of case studies, updated web profile and workshops. · Improved information and stronger policy analysis will focus on topics including industrial lands development, the integration of land use and transportation planning, increasing the agricultural use of agricultural lands and the protection of valuable ecosystems and other natural assets.
7861595 TRANSPORTATION - 126 Manager’s Report Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 2 of 4
Highlights of professional fees and contracts anticipated to be undertaken in 2014 include: · Work related to the integration of land use and transportation planning including scenario analysis for port land use. · Work related to industrial land protection and intensification including: refining the industrial land inventory with the inclusion of market readiness characteristics, highlighting locations with the most potential for intensification, and the completion of guidelines to address constraints. · Identification of local government policies that could improve farmers’ access to land and compensate farmers for the multiple values of their land.
The total staffing for Regional Planning is 15.32 full-time equivalent positions. One new transportation position is proposed to support the new activities related to transportation within Metro Vancouver. The Regional Planning budget was forwarded to the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee on October 4, 2013 to endorse and forward to the October 18, 2013 Special Joint Finance Committee for information and to the October 30, 2013 Metro Vancouver Board Budget Workshop for consideration.
Update on the Regional Transportation Strategy The Regional Transportation Strategy Framework was adopted by the TransLink Board in July 2013. The Strategic Framework incorporates many of the comments conveyed by the Metro Vancouver Board. TransLink is now focusing on the preparation of the Implementation Plan, or 15-30 year program for implementing the goals and strategies laid out in the Strategic Framework. One of the key recommendations from Metro Vancouver was that TransLink should include in the Strategic Framework the milestones and consultation process for preparing the Implementation Plan, and the approach for collaborating with local governments and the Province. This information was not included in the adopted Strategic Framework.
TransLink remains committed to continuing to work with local governments through a steering committee and partner advisory committee on the Implementation Plan. However, the lack of definition around specific milestones risks deferring important decisions for new transportation investments and could materially affect the preparation for any regional dialogue or referendum on sustainable transportation funding. Metro Vancouver staff will continue to participate and monitor the Regional Transportation Strategy process.
Metro Vancouver staff involvement in the Regional Transportation Strategy technical work Over the past several years, staff has spent significant time providing policy input into the RTS Strategic Framework to ensure consistency and support for the Regional Growth Strategy and Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan. Staff also supported TransLink’s renovation of the regional travel demand forecasting model by providing detail household demographic information.
Turning now to the Implementation Plan process, TransLink has sought the input of Metro Vancouver and other partners on the technical analysis of alternative transportation investment levels and transportation demand management measures. One of the activities is to undertake a market-based analysis and forecast of how urban development (population and employment) may be affected by the type, location, and timing of different rapid transit investments in the region. Metro Vancouver staff has participated in this process with an aim to ensuring the work remains
TRANSPORTATION - 127 Manager’s Report Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 3 of 4
consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and accepted Regional Context Statements. This work will also help inform and refine Metro Vancouver’s methodology for preparing growth forecasts in collaboration with municipal partners.
Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Definition On September 12, 2013, Port Metro Vancouver submitted the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Definition to provincial and federal regulators as per the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will decide whether a federal environmental assessment is required for this project. The Agency is seeking comments from the public by October 15, 2013 on the project and its potential effects on the environment. According to the Agency’s website: “if it is determined that a federal environmental assessment is required, the public will have three more opportunities to comment on this project, consistent with the transparency and public engagement elements of CEAA 2012. Projects subject to CEAA 2012 are assessed using a science-based approach. If the project is permitted to proceed to the next phase, it will continue to be subject to Canada's strong environmental laws, rigorous enforcement and follow-up, and increased fines.”
Metro Vancouver was notified of this public comment process via e-mail from Port Metro Vancouver on September 24, 2013. Staff is preparing written comments to be submitted to the Agency by October 15, 2013. These comments will come from multiple perspectives within Metro Vancouver (i.e., environmental, air quality, climate change, parks, utilities, transportation, agriculture, etc.) and will be attached to the November Transportation Committee agenda for information.
SFU Centre for Dialogue’s Mobility Pricing Dialogues At its June 28, 2013 meeting, the Metro Vancouver Board approved a $15,000 funding request from SFU Carbon Talks to support community engagement on the topic of road pricing (the other funders are TransLink, Vancouver Foundation, North Growth Management, and the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia). Since that time, this initiative has been rebranded as an initiative of the SFU Centre for Dialogue, and independent from the Moving in a Livable Region initiative (see below). The goal of the Mobility Pricing Dialogues is to gauge the public’s understanding of and interest in road pricing options for expanding the region’s transportation system within the context of the Regional Growth Strategy. Four subregional dialogues have been scheduled: · October 22 (Surrey) · October 24 (Burnaby) · October 28 (Vancouver) · October 29 (Langley)
A regional summit is scheduled for November 30 (time and location to be determined). The results of the dialogues will be prepared and made available to the public in early 2014.
Metro Vancouver’s staff role to date has been to review a draft discussion guide prepared by the SFU Centre for Dialogue and to provide guidance on the design of the dialogue process. Staff will attend one or more of the subregional dialogues, including the regional summit.
TRANSPORTATION - 128 Manager’s Report Transportation Committee Meeting Date: October 9, 2013 Page 4 of 4
SFU Carbon Talks’ Moving in a Livable Region Initiative The Moving in a Livable Region initiative is a project of SFU Carbon Talks to help facilitate and support a consortium of partners in a dialogue with residents around sustainable transportation funding and the proposed transportation funding referendum as pledged by Premier Clark. This initiative is supported financially by the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia, North Growth Management, SFU, and the Vancouver Foundation. Metro Vancouver has not provided funding for this initiative. Metro Vancouver’s staff role to date has been to participate on a steering committee to ensure the Regional Growth Strategy and other regional objectives are brought to bear when discussing funding for transportation.
A website has been prepared that contains research and information on transportation funding in the region, basic information on referenda, and lessons learned from voter-approved transportation funding initiatives in other jurisdictions (www.movinginalivableregion.ca).
Transportation Forum Staff is continuing to prepare the scope for a multi-stakeholder Transportation Forum to discuss key transportation and related infrastructure issues related to goods movement in and through the region. The proposal was to host this Forum in fall 2013 but given limited staff resources and a dynamic environment surrounding transportation issues, the forum will have to be scheduled during the spring of 2014.
TRANSPORTATION - 129
Coquitlam,
That
Co
Please
RE:
Dear
4330
Burnaby, Greater
Greg
July
Our
Doc#:
6.
7. 5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
File:
30,
Council:
Mr.
Moore,
Kingsway
service
as
As
Request
Study,
implement comments
be
Transportation
Request
$6 Plan
alternative
Advise
Request
transit Strategic
1508094
the
Receive road
necessary
Call
Study
Regional
2013
Vancouver
01-0410-20/034/2013-1
to
Moore:
part
advised BC
Million wwwc
L)f11(C
provision
uatlam
the
on
shape
to
system
Chair
V5H
Coquitlam-Surrey
to
and
service
TransLink
of
$20
for
the
the
Office TransLink
b
following
TransLink TransLink
qutari
newly
Framework;
the
Transportation
for
to
as
that
transit
._.;,,
and
4G8
Northeast
to
discussion Province
92
Million
Mayor
projects
Regional
implement
of
outlined
Northeast
the
travel
in
of
Plan;
encourage
at
developing
transit
the
that
Regional
to
in
related
to
the resolution
J for
Fa
by
to
place
northeast
concert
reinstate
in
Area
TransLink’s
July District
in any the
bi
exercise
expansion
vehicle;
a
Area
Alternative
regional
this
timely
initiatives Strategy,
E:
92/ future
a
Major
transit
8,
Bike
Transit neigh
TRANSPORTATION
high
with
report
3
2013,
was
Transit
funding
Board
sector
leadership
Program;
manner;
bourhoods
plans
priority
Road
road
related the
(i.e. Regional
adopted:
Plan
Regular
pertaining
2014
as
as
Plan
is
Province
new
pricing
part
levels
Network
outlined
including
necessary
on
travel
TransLink
request
by
andfrequent
Transportation
of
Meeting
the with
-
as ensuring
130
initiatives
the
address
to
per
in
behavior.
and
early
transit,
transit-supporting
the
to
TransLink
next
the
2011
Base
provide
Bike
of
short-listed
implementation
City’s
TransLink
the
stage
Council
will
goods
bus
AUG06
levels Program
CAO
Plan,
Doc.No
RNO,..&O(
City’s
Strategy,
to
Strategic
a
service)
need
Tracker
of
viable
incorporate
in
Pattullo
movement
the
for
questions
has
2013
Pattullo
the
No..
to
and
the
work;
densities,
as (Draft)
realistic
be
the
2014
of
to
increasing
City
linked
Bridge
tools
transit
Bridge
QL—
and
and
and
Base
of
so
to / ......
c
Attachment:
Mayor
Richard
with
Engineering Study.
Clerk’s
The provided
-
Manager,
General
City
City
Deputy
City
City
City
Carol
Transit
Dianne Strategy,
Staff
resolutions
respect
office.
Manager
of
of
Should
of
of
Stewart
Report
Mason,
for
Port
Port Surrey
New
City
Watts, Plan
Manager,
and
2014
Transportation
to
information
As
Moody
Coquitlam
you,
Manager
Westminster
this
to
have
CÁO, Public
—
outlined
Chair
TransLink
Council
Mayor
or
matter,
Engineering
been your
—
Metro Works,
—
Mayor
as Metro
—
and
in
entitled
forwarded
staff,
Mayor
please
well
Base
Planning
- the
Vancouver
Mayor
Council
and
at
Vancouver
staff
as
have
604-927-3501,
Plan, and
TRANSPORTATION
and
contact
Regional
Council
the
and
othe to
report,
any
Public
Council
Pattullo
City’s
Council
questions
myself
Transportation
Transportation-Regional
Province
Works
copies
interests
Bridge
or or
- at
131
of
or
Bill
and
Study
the
pertaining
require
Susak,
the
relevant
Committee
and
TransLink
any
General
Northeast
to
further
resolutions
the
Transportation
Manager,
Board
Pattullo
information
July
Area
by
are
30,
Bridge
the
Page
2013 2
Recommendation:
For:
Subject:
To:
From:
CoQuitlam
July
Our
Doc
#:
File: 2,
2013
That
Council
Base
Regional
General
City
16-8690-30/TLRTS
1483
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Manager
Council
Plan,
746.vi
the
As
incorporate
part short-listed
questions
the
Request
Program
Request
necessary Advise
bus
be
Strategic
the
goods
Endorse
Call
Manager,
part
Transportation
linked
City’s
2014
Pattullo
service)
tools
of
on
the
movement
of TransLink
the
TransLink
TransLink
TransLink’s
and
Strategic
Base
to
the
necessary
and
to
Framework;
next
and
Pattullo
Province
Engineering
the
as
Bridge
(2045)/i
provide
to
Northeast
comments
Plan
increasingtransit
stage
$6
implement provision
TRANSPORTATION that
—
and
in
to
Transportation
Million
to
Study
to
Regional
Bridge
to
concert
a Regional
reinstate
of
$20
any
viable
implement
road
exercise
Area
the
and
as
and
of
Million
for
future
Study,
transit
system
work;
outlined
transit
with
Public
Transportation
realistic
Transit
the
Transportation
Northeast
funding leadership
- service
132
road
for
Coquitlam-Surrey
the
Regional
regional
Plan;
related
Works
projects
expansion
Plan
in
Major
alternative
Province
pricing
levels
this
and
in
Area
request
initiatives
the
plans Bike
by
Road
report
in
For
Strategy,
as
Strategy,
Transit
ensuring
initiatives
a
(i.e.
northeast
address
Program;
timely
per
to
including
Network
TransLink
new
pertaining
travel
2011
Alternative
as
Council
Plan
2014
manner;
the
(Draft)
TransLink
and
outlined
will
sector
levels
by
and
transit,
City’s
frequent
to
TransLink
need
vehicle;
to
Bike
in
as
is
the
in
has to Report
Strategic
Executive
Background:
Purpose:
Goal:
Summary:
To
a transportation This regarding Base
TransLink The regional the system
Province Adequate provided
sectors. and
regional
These
meeting
course
update
7.
•
region. • •
•
update
report environmental
Plan,
items
Appendix
regional Forward
and
TransLink’s Regional (TransLink’s
Pattullo Northeast
of
issues.
to
and
in held
This the
is
Council transportation
Pattullo
action
supports
ensure
a proposes
partnerto
in
were
sub-regional
manner
6 the Regional
report
system
agencies
recommendations
June
Bridge
Transportation
A.
that
on
process discussed
Sector Bridge
that
2014
sustainability
long
the
2013. to a
provides
that
make and reflects TRANSPORTATION
number
Study
Transportation
transportation
invest
objectives
and
Base range
Area
infrastructure Study
of initiatives
will
optimizing
it by
updating
provincial/federal
and
context, Plan
Transit strategically, the
happen.
sLipport
plan/vision of Council
and
Strategy
Fi’e
of Goods
significant
City’s
and
associated
Northeast
the
#:
of
Plan
resources
16-869O3O/TLRTS
- the
investments status Strategy comments and
interest
at 133
This
is
Metro
interests.
Movement —
a critical
Regional
due
Draft
promote
recent manage
will
regional
and
with
Area
region
August
to
agencies
Framework,
to
require
Strategic
to
updates
to Coquitlam:
joint
effectively
enhancing
Transportation
are Transit
the
Routing;
the
the
other
transportation (2045)/i and
15t);
not
Tn-City
economic,
transportation leadership
economic
as
its
Framework
for
municipalities,
Plan
delayed
noted
2014
and
sub-regional
Dcc
the respond
the
Council
and
:
following
TransLink
City’s
in
social, vitality
bythe
Strategy.
1483746.vi
but
outline
issues
Page
to
are
of
2
Discussion/Analysis:
“optimizing”
because
demand
Earlier
The
context
regarding in primary
August
completion
There
(i.e. Vancouver
Transportation
TransLink
Regional
attached
The
potential
leadership
each The
Transportation
updates
concert
3.
2.
1.
RTS
30-year
first
following
item.
draft are
focused;
Partner Manage
system;
Invest
1,
under
due
purpose
(e.g. proposes
as
recommendation
Transportation
transit
letter
two
2013;
with in
is
and
Board
versions
in
well
to
plan)
in
contributing
the
through
strategically
what
2014,
parts
the
on-going to
provides
the
to
the
Strategy Leadership:
Provincial
and
the
system of
as
services
three
make
and
is
the
Regional process
the
a
transportation
conditions
the
second
to
identifies
of
potential
shifting
approved
Premier
the RTS
TRANSPORTATION
the
key
it
document
an
rather
funding
Strategy
(RTS)
and
to
happen
support
to
plan,
is of
overview
RTS
to
strategies:
part,
Growth
the
to
street
maintain
preparing
this
land
which
investments
TransLink
emphasizes
than
set
plan
provide
File
the
economy
by
the
issues,
report
of
in
that
use,
#:
system the
related
Strategy
first
on
placed
of
RTS
order
Council
i6-869O30/TLRTS
must
TransLink and
-
a
TDM
each
will
providing
an this
134
will
part
set
Implementation
emphasizes
and
to
initiatives.
be
for
updated
the
expand
more over
need
is
of
make
&
initiative but
resolutions be
-
endorsed
well
the
seen
Strategic
updated
point.
road
the
more
more
to
emphasis
Board
“supply”
future
region
being
the
by
be
plan
pricing)
next
(2045)/i
the
(Attachment
efficient
with
importantly
TransLink
approved
transportation
goals
by
by
Framework
for
entitled
investments
of
to
10
need
Plan,
the
August
solutions,
on
recent
the
achieve
consideration
to
and
Doc
and
Metro
reducing
for
15
planned
and
Province.
#:
on
(staff)
Regional
strategies
years.
ongoing
1, relevant
1483746vl set
i)
user-
its
2013.
the
as
Page
for
The
The
on 3 the targets
those Attachment
developing However
goods Section road For
the
Centres “Find the “Increase In Coquitlam Regional “Make
and In demand” increase Also “Where
Section includes actions strengthens
addition
addition
example most
north
bridge
reasonable
network.
on
and
areas,
movement
infrastructure
1.3 and
demand
also page
3.4
the cost-effective
the ridership
Priorities road shore
implement
through
(i.e. parts Invest there
under
Support FTDA’s’
as 2)
under
provide latest the
Burke
15
connectivity
is
well
along
of
level
is more is of
link
is
there
in
the
Section
there
predicted illustrating
a
version
Proposed
the a
Mountain
as the
the
Regional map and
of
changes a additional Map
to the
Fraser
policies
TRANSPORTATION of
long-term
approach
surety,
region
east
are
the
road
are
a
United
that
1.4
of
in of balanced
seven
Regional
River’ seven
side
to
the
Transportation
support network
the
Make that
Land
area
that the provide and
includes
grow
links
Major Blvd
of
solution to
File Draft
actions
Pattullo improve
actions the
in
Use support
New
achieving Investments
plan #:
in to
Growth
of northeast extension
to
higher -
16869O3o/TLRTS need
the
Roads
‘Newly RTS,
Objectives 135
RGS
local
Westminster
improve
including in
to
including: future,
Bridge
road
investment
that
for dated
policies. address
Strategies
service access,
Strategy
(p
regional
Developing
additional
Coquitlam.
area). safety”
7)
in
it
with
safety,
based
10 -
that
recognizes
the
the
the
goods
levels
especially
June
to (2045)/i
(RGS)
a plan transit
following: and
identifies expansion
preamble
on
connection
southwest
local
in transit Areas”
movement 2013
committed
Actions
goals
and
advance
newly Doc access
network in
(see
the
Urban
which
Confirmed
service
#: and
in —
i483746.vi
from five
the
and
of
along Page
plans
to
in
4
follows:
time
capital
stages
capital to
in
leverage
Major
Since
that
Attachment
TransLink’s
demonstrate
In available that
and
taken
(e.g.
City
addressed
From goals
forward
the
notes
implemented for
access). transportation
areas
While
the
the
addition
expansion
•
•
in
Provincial
to transportation
interests.
both
road
its
previous
a
Road
and
municipalities
of
regarding
that
and
the
projects
street
the
request
staff
Major
Regional
inception
approximately
preparing
pricing
It
to
pricing
new
objectives
northeast
street
focus
and
2014
a
is
it
Network
city
1).
coordinated
perspective,
and
is noted
leadership
Road
as
Government
ten
bus
is
However
the
was
TransLink
recommended
there
residents
Base
the
measures
some is
Bike
works
major
should
cycling
in
years.
routes
still
for
plan
in
eliminated,
investments
Network
implementation
(MRN),
1997
both
sector
is
Plan
from
has
the the
TRANSPORTATION
parts
on
required.
investment
25%
along
can
and
it
be
projects.
the
to
approach
However
been
and and
Draft
in
the
TransLink
is
will
2014
$1.55
so
accompanied
and
reinstate
be
but
of supporting recommended
enable
of
and
issues
goods
employees.
lowest
that
more
that
need
funding
endorsed
the
some
File
Framework
that
TransLink
also
Base
can
Million
Bike
#:
the
in Prior a region
to
decisions
that
TransLink
frequent
to
has
movement
as
16-8690-30/TLRTS occur viable
the
movement of
-
Plan,
funding
2012
from
invest, cost
-
City
be
a from
136
regional
operations
to
were
been
to
pricing
as
funding
by
approved
(i.e.
has
so
in
funding
2011
and
alternate
call
$6 that
the
zero
however
an
TransLink
a
manage
are
there
bus
a with
levels transit
raised
advised
Million.
timely
on
policies
increase
lowest
significant
routes
measures
to a
the
that
road
made.
services)
contributor
coordinated
the
the
$20
and
is
for
via
per
(2045)/i
City
previously that
form
to
an
acknowledges
pricing
manner
and
they Province
-
and
MRN
necessary
on
Million;
legislative
take
maintenance
2011
newly
impact
Overall
in
opportunity
was
in
projects
partner
are
across
of
transit
funding
to
are
order
Dcc
and into
travel
initiatives,
able
on
levels
improve
intended
(see
developing
approach
in
to
and
forms
have
4:
the
many
cycling
account
tools
the
the
to
services
changes
to
to
1483746.vi
complete
partner
is
as
plan
the
move
achieve
been
at
city
of
initial
of
local
so
Page
this
to
the
need
in
be
be
by 5 The various Pattullo A further efficient, in new Bridge) landing bridge the would Pattullo replace Ridge/Pitt
goods and If What And system? Vancouver, What the component Implementation impact Sap improvements
the network connection TransLink opportunities,
critical
a
the
perton new
region
Port
Province, North four
would
it
early
are
is
includes
is
movement
a
in evaluation the
roads much
west Bridge
Bridge
needed Coquitlam-Surrey
Mann new also
with
project continuous With lane
the
confirm New
Meadows. Fraser
and
option
a
1990’s
bridge.
to
Transport
of
new
of recommended
conduct
bridge
along
impacts
more bridge
and
Brunette
and
Study the respect
and
that Westminster retaining
which replacement.
King
is
that
strategy.
Perimeter
goods
and
route
the
an without
and
major
by costs.
Pattullo
One
of
if
the
affect
Edward.
between
and
route
effectively
is
TransLink it
system
directly
need
assess
Canada, the of
to TRANSPORTATION
comprises
Avenue
interdependent is
north
with
of
movement
existing
a
the Goods
road
needed
Metro
new the the
a Bridge for
between
Road
that
bridges
Highway
the and
level
NFPR a
The
Surrey In
shore
impact
seven
network.
a
road
CN
new
in Coquitlam-Surrey
Movement
over
2008
impacts north coordinated
the
Pattullo Vancouver
Highway (NFPR)
Fle
incorporate
of
short-listed is
New
analysis
Rail, —
it system Coquitlam
route located
of
the a
City short-listed #: and
what
the
three TransLink
raises
1 set
16-8690-30/TLRTS
of
the -
Westminster
and
137 connection
and
was
Highway
Therefore
request
of next Coquitlam
Fraser
as
of
be
is of 7 Fraser
Routing
the
the travel
municipalities
a near
the
supportive
region proposed
(Golden
the
identified
relocated
vision
project the
three-lane few
alternatives -
option
trucking
goods
announced
following
alternatives
Surrey
impact
TransLink,
short-listed
Sapperton
River,
91
Bridge
patterns
months.
it
as and
and
over
and
is
initiatives
Ears (Queensborough
movement well
(2045)/i
on
recommended improvements
to
as
to
bridge?
of
United
plan. on
advise
5apperton
bridge
industry
on
the
this
Bridge)
a
the
questions: provide
and will
as
in
north
this
regional
a
the
Island
to
Pattullo
City’s
These concert
Port project
new
Doc
NFPR
undergo
indirectly BLvd. into
impacts, replace
plus
planned
City’s
route of
is
in
#:
Metro an
between
street
bridge?
Island
the
a
adding
Maple Fraser is
1483746vi
priority
to
that
key
with
to
How
the
street
Page
for
the
RTS
6
Conclusion:
Financial
Implications:
system
initiatives There
and
alternative
should
While
policies
There
coming
Council
Transportation
process.
provides for
(Attachment
TransLink
municipalities
Committee.
Transit
NESectorArea
all
large
•
•
is
the are
northeast
be
level
should
also
Ridge)
session
Lougheed),
Introduction
representative Heights,
including
lncreasedfrequencies
Plan
Therefore
an
scale
are
no
linked draft
has
to
opportunity
planning,
a
financial
forming
2
As
identified
vehicle
need
advised
transportation
an
road
provides
RTS
Committee
with
Transit
with
outlined
Fraser
sector
the
opportunity
and
for
it
Framework
pricing
or
TransLink.
travel
is
northeast
an
a
implications
leadership
they
coordinated
for
Mills, Plan
points
improved suggested
TRANSPORTATION
Public
politicians
and
the
to
expansion
in
that
utilize
as will
is
initiatives
the
—TransLink
implemented
NEATP
as
available
and
east Advisory
improvements
a
to
committee
well
Strategy
File and
be
STP
means
service
and
provide
service
the
that
on
(i.e.
conducting
#:
for
Process).
of
efforts
to
Part/n key
16-869030!TLRTS
coordination
September
recently
transit
be
this
support
Port
to
to
Council Group
-
recently
requests with
138 provides
implemented
to
input
those
gton
provide
in
City
at
in
Co
growing
a
Surrey
in this
managing services
This
quit/am,
timely as
an
the discussed
Creek,
as
appoint
into
the
that
initiated
well
from
12,
a
time
Elected
this
input
elected
Evergreen
to
more
the
region.
City
(2045)/i
areas
will
2013,
manner.
ensure
Maillardville,
as
so
time.
Pitt
Coquitlam
in
in
an
NEATP
into
goods
a
Centre
that
Tn-Cities
be
balanced
the
advance
Officials
the
Technical
officials
of
Meadows,
appropriate
to
This
affected.
Translink’s
0CC
corridor;
Co
projects
a
give NE
region
movement
process.
viable
quit/am
area
#:
involves
Sector
include:
the
of
1483746.vl meeting
meeting
Austin
set
Advisory
they (via
this
Maple
and
of
Area
Page
up 7 Attachments:
this
While
shared significant
1
2 This
3 Planning — — —
TransLink’s
Letter
for
Northeast Governance
provides
report
Coquitlam
objectives.
Consultation,
and
to
regional
was
Premier
Council
reviewed
Area
Regional
prepared
of
staff
Metro
Transit
initiatives
dated
an
June
are TRANSPORTATION
by
opportunity
Transportation
Vancouver
by
participating
10,
Carl
Plan June
Catherine
2013 and
Johanssen,
process
18,
File
to
2013
#:
reflect
Transportation
share
16-8690-3OITLRTS
Mohoruk, -
in 139 Strategy,
Regarding
the
Manager
perspectives
the
various
City’s
Manager
Draft
Community
“Leadership
System
position
technical
(2045)/i
Strategic
toward
of
Transportation
Dcc
on
committees
achieving
Planning.
and
Framework
these
#:
1483746vl
Page
8
TransLink
2014
Strategy
TransLink
Implementation
lOJune iiiio
TransLink
Framework
Draft
Province
Appendix
Plan
Strategic 2013 - -
-
A
RTS
Base RTS -
— Resolutions —
—
Program
Million
and
Million
funding
in
vehicle
Request
realistic
service
necessary
bus expansion
Advise
linked
pricing
Strategic Transportation
Endorse projects
TRANSPORTATION
movement
including
implement
has
leadership Call
the
Bike
service)
and
the
on
2014
othe to
for
for
TransLink
in
levels
initiatives the
TransLink alternative
tools
Program
Proposed
the
in
the
to
the
Framework
transit,
Major
(i.e.
Base a
by
and
Province
regional
as
timely
provision
provide Regional
necessary
as
northeast
Regional
ensuring
new
increasing
Strategy, road
-
Plan
per Road
140
and
that
goods
to
will
Agency
to
and
manner
2011
reinstate
to
plans
to
a
system
to
travel
future
Network
need
of
viable
Bike
exercise
frequent
TransLink
$20
to
sector
$6
transit
(Draft)
transit
levels
Circulation
to
by
road
be
is
Appendix
}
TransLink
Moody
City
MOTI,
Port
Vancouver,
Metro TransLink
Vancouver,
MoTI,
TransLink
Metro
Committee
Transportation
Vancouver,
municipalities,
member
Metro
TransLink
gknalAge
of
Coquitlam,
Port
City
Board,
Board,
Board,
Board,
of
and
n
cy A TransLink
Bridge
NE
Area
Study
Transit
Pattullo
Plan
the
to questions Alternative outlined Request transit short-listed As Transit stage
TRANSPORTATION as Transportation incorporate
the
outlined
part
Province
of
Pattu
supply
Plan of
TransLink the
in
the and
File
this
as
in
Ito Coquitlam-Surrey
and
work;
request
address
#:
the
Northeast
part
related
comments
Bridge
report
Plan
16-8690-30/TLRTS -
implement 141
City’s
in
of
TransLink
the concert
the
Study,
initiatives
pertaining
Strategic
Area
City’s
next
as
with
to
(2045)/i —
Appendix
TransLink Transportation
Committee, Metro Westminster City TransLink, City MetroVancouver,
City Moody Port
Doc
of of
of
Coquitlam,
:
Vancouver
Surrey, New
Port
A
1483746Vi -
Board,
City Page
Port
of
2 -
the
TransLink
infrastructure
support
Strategy.
Moody,
have
manner. New
Braid
Interchange in congestion
efficiency,
require
Perimeter that
benefit While
that
appreciation
Provincial Firstly Re:
Dear Victoria.
CoQuitlam
P0
June
Premier Honourable
Our
Doc#:
our
•
extent
Box
Leadership
vein
Westminster impacts
File:
not
Street
Premier
18,
area
we
we
a additional our
‘
from
9041,
of
been
BC, 2013
needed
we
We
is In
01-0410-201034!2013-1
have
would
Transit
Road
possible, economic, 1464885.v4
a.a.w.Cotar
Df.ce.
31000
have
Offce
the
and
area,
currently
Bailey
addition,
at
V8W
Christy
would
for
our
a
believe
Clark:
Stn
investments
proceeding
the
Office
Highway
Gwdftod
more
experienced
Province
of
and
capacity
604
and
raised.
the
like
including
municipality
piece
the
Plan
Prov
9E2
do road
Bridge,
Mayor
2’
aligned
like
Governance
Mayor
the
Clark
leadership
to
effective
that
social
in
not
another
Way
of
300
Ca
and
Govt
of
network
acknowledge
the to
Major Pitt
of
1,
issues
Coqoitiam.,
appear
infrastructure
TransLink’s
satisfactorily Pattullo
City
see
United
the British
must
bringing
3’
and
with
process
a
River
of
number
example
governance
and
boa
similar
parts
Port
that
Cowtiam
that
environmental
improvements
their
of
be
to
077
Bridge
Columbia
Boulevard
Bridge our
TRANSPORTATION
vtt
Metro
be Mann
supported
of
have
the
of
has
the
planning
leadership
7N2
priorities.
of
preparing
planned
neighbouring
the
of
includes
Evergreen
that
been
upgrade,
road
yet
work
replacement
regional
Vancouver
Bridge/Highway
model,
North
Extension, to
we
afforded
improvements
by
of
processes
concerns
and
to
be
the
support.
Coquitlam
and
an
Fraser
a the
there
resolve
addressed.
rapid
road
In
wide
managed updated
-
Murray
cities. focus
142
our Transportation
Province
and
by
connections Braid
corridor
continues
transit
variety
that
view,
require
the
the
1
on
road
Council
Clarke
upgrade,
Regional
that
many
Street/Rail
in
current
Province
the
From
and
to
line
of
a
improvements
such
better
be
holistic
directly
current
to
stakeholders
Connector indicate
of
is
to
our
in
successful,
System
be
as
therefore
safety,
Transportation
the
the
Coquitlam.
our
in
leadership
significant
perspective,
the
Intersection,
Attachment
developing
or
or
South
stakeholders road
area
our
Brunette
integrated
indirectly
reliability,
in
network
through
asking
that
and, major
Port
Fraser
and
In
we
to
a I the Province to resolve the TransLink governance issues so that the organization is positioned with the appropriate leadership, authority and accountability which will allow them to comprehensively plan and implement a number of overdue improvements in the region, for the benefit of the entire region, Fundamental change is required so that stakeholder concerns can be addressed, funding secured and projects completed within a reasonable timeframe.
I tookforward to your comments and feedback.
Mayor c. Transportation Minister
Fi’e 4 Q1O4tO2O?O34/2O131 Do L 1464883v4
TRANSPORTATION - 143 Attachment 2 June 14, 2013 DRAFTfor Consultation Regional Transportation Strategy Draft Strategic Framework for Consultation June 10, 2013
A SHAREDVISION
Metro Vancouver is, by every measure, one of the most liveable regions in the world, It isbeautiful, prosperous and, byglobal urban standards, environmentally pristine.
One of the region’s enduring strengths is its consistent vision for regional growth management that is supported and reinforced by an effective transportation system. Metro Vancouver introduced its first “Livable Region Plan” in 1975, setting out an urban development pattern that would serve the people and save the land. Giventhe region’s limited land base and its rapidly growing population, the leaders of the day — and all those since — resolved to focus growth and development in a series of compact centres that would be easy to get around and would allow for the preservation of the parks, natural spaces and agricultural lands that enhance our quality of life.
1975 Livable Region Plan
To help realize this vision, TransLinkwas founded in 1999 as an integrated, multi-modal, regional transportation authority to provide a regional transportation system that moves people and goods and supports:
1, the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy (successors to the LivableRegion Plan);
2. regional economic development; and
3. regional and provincial environmental objectives.
In service to these goals, TransLink is in the process of updating the current RegionalTransportation Strategy, Transport 2040. Over the coming year, and working in collaboration with its partners and the public, TransLink willreconsider, refine and seek broad agreement on a transportation action plan that will help maintain Metro Vancouver’s position as one of the best places in the world to live.
1
TRANSPORTATION - 144 June 14, 2013 IDRAFTfor Consultation
1. A region that is vibrant and sustainable Adopted in 2011, Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy articulates five regional growth management goals: create a compact urban area; support a sustainable economy; protect the environment and respond to climate change impacts; develop complete communities; and support sustainable transportation choices. The RGSalso emphasizes the importance of coordinating land use and transportation, recognizing that location of jobs and housing fundamentally determines where and how much people, goods and services need to travel. In seeking to reduce the distances that people (and goods) need to travel and in increasing the likelihood that those trips can be made by walking, cycling or transit, TransLink will work even closer with its partners to align transportation infrastructure with land use decisions that are the responsibility of Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities.
2. A region where businesses prosper Every economic activity depends upon the transportation system to bring together people, goods, and services at the right time and place. An efficient system ensures that: employers can recruit and retain skilled workers from across the region; students can make it to class; manufacturers and distributors can be confident of “justintime” deliveries within the region and throughout North America; families can get to the store; and service providers can reach client sites, reliably, each day. TransLink recognizes that where our transportation system performs well, individuals and businesses reap direct economic benefits; where it falls short, we all incur costs—through lost productivity and foregone transactions.
3. A region where air is clean and the land — and the people — are healthy Transportation is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions in BC.The BCClimate Action Plan aims to reduce GHGs by 33% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050, from 2007 levels. Motor vehicle traffic is also the principal regional source of hazardous air contaminants. Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan set goals to protect public health and the environment; improve visual air quality; and minimize the contribution to global climate change. The Regional Transportation Strategy can help achieve these objectives by creating and supporting a cleaner, more efficient transportation system,
WE AREMAKINGPROGRESS Thanks to the support from local, provincial and federal governments, we have made sweeping changes to regional transportation infrastructure in the last three decades. We built three rapid transit lines since 1986, with another now under construction; increased bus service by 50% since 2002; built strategic links in the road network; and added, rebuilt or replaced bridges. The result is a transportation system that supports the local economy, connects the region to the rest of Canada, connects Canada to the rest of the world, and is frequently held up as a North American model of integrated, multimodal planning.
A Challenge
Over the next 30 years, Metro Vancouver is expected to welcome one million additional residents, adding 500,000 jobs and three million more passenger trips every day. Bumped up against mountains, an ocean, an international border and a protected agricultural zone, there is little room to continue expanding outwards, little room to accommodate all of these additional trips by car. The economic reality has also changed. The 2008 recession was not so much a bump in the road as a shift in gears. The new economy can still be healthy. It will still expand. There are promising signs that senior levels of government are committed to supporting public transportation. But in general, individuals, businesses
2
TRANSPORTATION - 145
a
money
The
If
again,
Metro
the
the
maintain cycling,
health.
These
trips
livability,
to
First,
Now
by
around.
need
compact,
We
prosperous
transportation
work
and
we June
track
second
public
and
regional
least
achieve
have
governments
by
we
ensuring
14,
in
Vancouver.
and
and
to
are
If
they
Transport
walking,
our
an
More
2013
improve
need
environmental
or
we
environmental
transit—
demonstrated
the
the
complete
hassle
headline
improve
Opportunity
road
progress.
economy.
both
can
actually
lowest-cost
amenities
to
than
the
DRAFT
system
achieve
raise
cycling,
system,
moving
our
these
It
2040
smooth
a
are
is:
90%
target communities
much
travel-time
promote
for
quality
the
to
all
work
the
targets,
Impact,
Consultation
they
already
of
and
this
reduce
looking
and
around,
even
and
bar
higher
will
flow
the
region
better,
of
economic
target
want. transit.
—
the
lowest-impact
measure
in
places
life
of
and
by
have that
reliability
distances
more
the
level
that
improving
active
traffic
agreed
2045,
even
And
by
and
to
this
face
the
where
enable
than
2045,
set carefully
goals
our
residents
do
as
lifestyles
to
is
people,
greatest
that
of
for
Tc two
TRANSPORTATION
driven
we
possible.
so
enable
most
success
quality
physical
people
we would
forms
commuters people
at
the
increase
clear
50%
at
will
a
goods
comparably
that
have
by
economic
large
cost
most
3
efficient
of
be
of
in live
and
be
Metro
to
onethird.
and
transportation.
life,
getting
contribute
to
an that
able
live
our
and
new
affordable and
measurable
make
economic
and
increasing
protecting
Vancouver
Percentage
closer
goods
population taxpayers
-
services
to
work
payback, spending
146 sized
—
people
accommodate
it
importantly
possible
to
to
in
movement
and
regions
constraints.
personal
Metro
will
their
amount
“headline
of
closer
the
They
and,
find
is proposals.
—
efficient
all
a
all
is
environment,
trips
for
work,
continental
affordable.
in
to
in
require
Vancouver spend
—
to
the
of
and
within people North
for
make
population
by
jobs
targets”
choice
way
to
walking,
case
goods
Our
community
less
the
the
and
communities
America.
and
of
to
challenge
of
time,
leader
can
services
least
in
achieving
and
services
that
movement
make
cycling,
walking
through
growth
how
be
supporting
energy,
land,
we
in
good
reached
half
they
and
they building
—
can
and,
and
and
and
our
inflict as
transit
of
on
get
use
we
all the June
TransLink system; authorities It RETHINKING funding roads, development, others
cooperation. pricing
any In Times
within INVEST pace we In will equal possible
What budget We will
for Not priorities. funds prioritized interests
deliver
To
any MANAGE cost must efficient.
an
that
work
14,
one
the compare make will
ensure
all
era
with
market
of
bridges
consideration are
this have
the
be 2013 mechanisms we
context,
the to
performance
decisions.
first
of on
continue
a
solutions of
with
is
clear,
based tight. growth, the
service build
had
region Through It these in means
goal an future
increasing
and the
investments
— time.
also
We
DRAFT system,
North
demand
to and
system
our
essential
available.
DO responsibility walkways,
we in
advanced In is
on
raise
in must
generates
—
have
to means
for to thinking investment. partners rapid We addition on achieve
isolation. for
America. must
clear
this that
GIVE
use to
support
objectives pricing
the an
work
MORE or
fiscal
evaluated
management Consultation
make
reasonable
all
service
regional transit
taxpayer will
equal assign are
We that affirm agreed-to
region TRANSPORTATION
the of
bikeways
our
about
to to
more
constraint,
revenue
indeed make
acts the
will commitments
But
a
PEOPLE
and
users
make an most
tooting.
shared
vibrant,
lines,
funds
provider:
that
might
transportation modes.
cycling,
continue
array it WITH
as efficiently,
transportation
resources
authority
those
and
is
criteria.
pay effective
the
moving new
solutions we
and that
just
it
for
goals
be
of can
pressing the
For
sustainable,
more
key are
We
road investments roadways.
investment transportation
it
one is TRANSPORTATION equally operating
to
THE
example,
buy is best
more LESS
to to link In providing the for
efficiently.
we
will
take combination
one
directly
partner on and
TransLink’s
Invest, make
and
livability
ambitions to planning region
have opportunities
assess
policy,
par
closely important
of
this
TOOLS transit
balance
operate
and It
prosperous
the
decisions
when decisions
with
to
4
for can pay maximum
in Manage
performance
closer
Decision-making
capital
that
make
maintenance most
investments a and
related
process, what
initiatives
bigger help
Moving strategies
region-wide of
to
seeking
supply -
and
147 buses,
we
economic
solutions
expand
to
complex
informed that TO
about
in they
budget promote, and
and
are
its
different value to
dividends.
a
we
and Forward
more
to goals. lay demand, trains
Partner
against
based
use,
not MAKE
healthy to
land
the
and
will
resolve demands,
from
decisions demand. to before
c1laboration.
multi-modal
prosperity. increase
choices trying
will
making
integrated coordinate,
transportation
get
to and
have
partners
use,
approach
expansion
a
concurrently.
our
establish
be community.
People
us
common
a
us seabuses,
to
to
to
CHOICES traffic
transparent.
there
existing
Aligning capacity. about
along many
will the
build
manage
balance
might
way,
transportation
have
as system
be
and
TransLink
some
with chokepoint,
plan,
with communities
how a
set
we
found
assets
system, it
transportation
price
considering To
organize.
have
the
We
and We
competing can
of
plan
the
we operating
we
of
more this
Moreover,
goals,
right
will
can’t
in direct with provide the
different
limited did and travel.
can
and
end, to
give
we
this signals
But that the keep
and do build
all
In
it
and
level desired
with
realistic
all
delivered
What
Well-managed
affordability
decisions
projects.
and
inter-governmental The
local
most
services
location
It
administrative
PARTNER
some travel
savings value
Traffic
What
health,
aproved
infrastructure
Cooperation
levels
approval
day,
independently,
exploring
direction.
travellers
road
in
to
June
is
trips
approval
1993
municipal often help
core
the
of
governments,
transportation
this
location
14,
trips
users
pricing.
at this
of
certainty
congestion
development),
made
(e.g.
in
provides
least
need
of
make
issue
Metro
a
transportation
2013
are
as
government
from
means said
time
implementation
less
means jobs
more
In
(e.g.
who
major
and
resources
of
made
environmental
by
2013,
between
to
or More
partners
that
IDRAFT
travel
development here
more
challenge
busy
the
developments
and
Vancouver
and
commercial
walking
for
that —
usefulness
travel.
choice
distance
are
maximum
for
for
investment
and the
—
by
Provincial
WORK
the
coordination is
money.
example
recently,
housing
time,
decisions.
the
not
efficient
will
decisions
we
the
the
for
TransLink,
have
stronger
may
overcrowding partners best
—
Mayors’
Ultimately,
and
services
cycling able
ConsuIttion
all region
of
and
give
travelled,
region
necessity
use
adopted
of
authority
of
collecting benefit
need
not
transportation A
value.
trucks).
fundamentally
around
impact. by
Transport
government.
to
clearer
and
TransLink
challenge
road
a
the
decisions
or
that
TOGETHER
partnerships
be less
establishing
will
and
Council
change
will
and
through
is
to
sustainable.
entire
available
pricing
land
already
to
for
work
or
a
plan be
busy
Those
transit,
new
commitments
It
make
during
over
by
regional
user
users
adjusting
greater
is
critical
2040
their
the
that
are
supported
use
the
transportation
effectively.
a best
and
route,
agreements
in
TRANSPORTATION road
esmust fees
recipe
who
compact
plan
widely
determines
guidance
made
and,
development people has
transit
to peak
—
needs
this
travel
and
existing
for
to
transportation
Going
in
expand certainty
pricing,
choose
or
is
as
its
ultimately,
make
region.
community
them
for the
hours
to
a
TO
admired.
travel
great
user
S parking
to
prices
to
and
patterns.
good
communities
ensure
forward,
livability.
be
and
Regional
transportation
be
in
land
service,
new
and
to
where some
fees
goods
system will
MAKE
considered.
on
TransLink
an
advance
addressed
by
land
certainty that
forego
community.
parking
for
land
use
impact
investments
But
another
be
delivers
- our
to plan
148
In
strategy
changes
we
use
will
more
and
Recognizing
Growth
the
zoning reduced,
shape
addition,
and
closer
At system
use
a
of
need
development,
easily
plan,
move
can
the how
system.
PLANS trip,
on taxation
it
will
development
investment
and
accurately
mode,
us
infrastructure
needs
demand
changes
transportation
that
cooperation for
Metro
make
same Strategy
to
the
continues
and bundle
much
be
accessible.
enhancing
freely,
affordable
investment
the
which
work
that potential
included
Pricing
quality
will
to
levels.
for
time,
some
technical
Vancouver’s
people,
prioritize
and
A
don’t
some
to reflect
be
good
at
total reaffirmed
—
through
require
goals
can
to
the
have
REALITY
well-planned
is
rewarded
of
Other
of
recommended
between
With.at will
reliability
and
commitments
about
commitments
increased
necessarily
enjoy
certainty
reason: trips life
outcomes
these
goods
least
demand
still
and
maximize
pricing
as
existing
major
legislative
consideration
we
agencies
together,
investment
record
increase
financial this
giving
least
cost
changes
TransLink
expect.
and
with
the
for
capital
is
costs
measures
policy
by
than
and
and
lead
half
not
highest
the
of
time
and to
—
the
good
for
of
to
by of June
conceptual In INVESTING
transit above Metro
These
spent presents economy agree • how dialogue
a plan Strategy
initiatives • 2008,
•
•
• •
Regional
14,
today’s Billions regional The select implementation
The road investments
corridors.
the and Blvd), Burnaby
complete prioritization For
in to to
$5 with $18
the $275
2013
will on Vancouver’s
upon are infrastructure
Transport
Urban
spend this
billion
Regional
confirmed transportation transit a
Framework over decades Province safety. $5
network
billion—the is
require
big growth
connections and
Other challenge
million Transportation
DRAFT strained
have Strategy how
levels.
billion
road
mountain/SFU,
numbers,
Centres
it. the
the Since —
priorities
the To network 2040 much
will
corridors
Transportation been
substantially
in for
rest
to for
the walkway network has
current
to
has
Our
come
the
the
and —
currently
of
to Framework. 2008,
as $1 be Consultation IN
$23 transit, cost
and displayed
is
of
they
not for invested
the region
a
well representing
also focus
in coming billion following also
for extensive
government
2013
long-term
to
billion concept
this Strategy for other transportation
OUR
goods shown
TransLink
citizens
the reflected want and is
as
this
be
Expo
identified
as
the
unfunded
now
largely to
region
— more has
investment
next
decades.
shown bikeway required existing
areas
cost in the agreement,
Strategy.
In develop to
movement,
highest
require
are and
Line
shows the that
and
called is
2014,
spend
solution
funds. 15 increase more
of FUTURE
is and that. and
in complete.
of
priorities
costly.
in upgrades,
trying regionals
years.
leaders
those
includes the TRANSPORTATION
cost and
dealing
high networks
to
the network
TransLink priority a coming
further its
increased
on than for
program
Consider
Early 15-year
complete
TransLink
committed
to Massey
for
partners
maps in Major transportation to cycling
in items,
priority
in
we’ve keep
the
for
contain a
this
the
with
In
road and
new
at
the and
study
way —
with
on
implementation will
identifying thirty
6 region’s rapid new a including
combined. these
longer the
potential. levels Pattullo
Tunnel
region time
historically significant Surrey local
projects a
the
will have network
that
for
bring a
and
road
spending. few
investment, system
- particular
transit
years,
next
facilitate 149 numbers:
when
networks walking term of
does
further
share will —to
and
(104th major
forward network
Bridge
the
as
service
identified
page.
in
in be
then the
regional investment investment: an not
roads,
the of
It
a
focus
discussed a
investment
studied
Aye, and
state and
nulspending annual including investment
in
increase
projects
and past
developing
bridges,
by
its
cycling, Fraser on
of traffic
investment
number our
several
network
traffic
good
will
as
Broadway-USC
general
the
and
partners.
needs
Hwy,
sidewalks, part
is
priority.
now but
repair
priorities
laid
protected
areas
targeted
of
of
connections
of
and
required
our purpose
these out
years,
be
on
this
and
for
and
King
required a Substantial
cycling investment many
described
update
30-year
example,
keep
to
corridors
bikeways
corridor,
improve
and
George to
traffic.
be
cover new
and
pace
and the
at
to
to June 14, 2013 DRAFT for Consultation
‘4.4 I
TRANSPORTATION / - 150
9,
I , 4 8
Figure 1 - Major Roads, Highways and Gateways, 30-Year Concept from Transport 2040 (2008) with confirmed regional priorities (2013)
7 June 14, 2013 I DRAFT for Consu1taton TRANSPORTATION - 151
IPI I !I’5r ir 2040 (2008) with confirmed regional priorities (2013) Figure 2—Regional Transit Network, 30-Year Concept from Transport
8 June 14, 2013 DRAFTfor Consultation
BE PART OF THE PLAN
Transport 2040 has laid out a transportation vision for this region where most destinations are handier, where most trips are made by walking, cycling, and transit; where travel is easier, more reliable and less stressful; where goods move efficiently; where people and businesses have more transportation choices; where the roads are safer, the air is cleaner, the climate is protected, and where we lead healthier, more active lives.
This vision can only be achieved by coordinating our efforts to get the investments we need, along with commitments to the pricing and land use policies that will ensure best value out of every transportation dollar spent. Working together and refocusing our efforts, we can achieve this vision.
The dialogue is just getting started. We invite you to join the conversation at wwwtranslink.ca/rts
9
TRANSPORTATION - 152 June
Vision DRAFT economy, PROPOSED transportation Goals
We
Choice People Economy Environment As
Headline a Achieving make
way
• • •
• • • •
• • • • •
a
maintain
14,
region,
Giving
Giving Making Making half Giving Making Ensuring
that Helping Making Helping
Making Protecting
2013
and
these
of
allows
Targets we
our people
us
people
all DRAFT
travel STRATEGIC
environment.
it
our living,
the
us needs us
businesses
more
can
easier 1. 4. 3. 2.
trips
targets
global
live get our
us
roads air
TRANSPORTATION
for
Make
best Support
Foster
Enable Protect
and more
better working
to
in
out
climate we healthier by
time
and
Consultation
a
reduce position
will
walking, safer
businesses achieve
breathe
on
way
transportation
reliable
continue for
less
Safe
access
a
benefit
the the
Sustainable
and Sustainable
by
that
doing
and
distances
stressful
and
as
sidewalk
Environment
meeting
these
cleaner
cycling, doing
to
simultaneously
one
more
everyone
more
to
the
Healthy
more
FRAMEWORK
prosper
goals
of
business
to
things
our Transportation driven
decisions
active
to TRANSPORTATION
and
and
transportation the
jobs
get
meet
by
Communities
greenhouse
best
by:
transit.
Resilient
to
we
with
and
designing
lives,
by
in
work
our
enhances
places
love
that:
VISION,
this one-third
more
better
10
reducing
neighbours
and
region
Economy
choices
Choices
in
gas
opportunities our
access
- school
the
153 the
and reduction
communities
more the
world
health
GOALS
by and
to
burden
affordable
more
making
to
deter
of
targets
live
our
on
workers
and
crime
because
it
&
people the
possible
transportation
TARGETS
healthcare
and
and
we
for
more
meet
communities,
people
system
markets
our
system
to
in
the
design
parks,
We 4.
implement
technological
of We
3.
responsibly.
system. The
changes
2.
decisions
consideration
driving
demand
decisions
In
We
In
June
1.
PROPOSED
possible
this
planning
level
will
Affordable
will
Resilient
Seamless
regional
Outcome-Driven
commit
14,
and
investment
assessment,
continue and
recognize
Users
2013
and
in
management
against
based
broader
futures
transportation
initiatives,
all
and
to
transportation
sources
change,
have
othe to
DRAFT
forms
advancing
decision-making,
on
to
our
our
plans
and
ones
we
a
an
invest
PRINCIPLES
choices
of
for
of
right
long
vulnerability
we
fuel
assessment
solutions
will
not
transit.
funding.
Consultation
that
such
are
transportation
over
infrastructure
term
prices),
to
just
consider
system
between
can
expect
mindful
heath
the
the
And
goals.
on
be
we
seeking
of
to
future
long
par
is
we
and
implemented
all
that
will
the
of
forces
a
and
solutions
will
with
quilt
term
other
education.
or
solutions
the
set
best we
TRANSPORTATION
out
the
land
assess
beyond
strategies
of
regional
system
to
think
ways
needs
and
potential
components
meet
use
on
in
capital
11
that
prioritizing
is
to
There an
in
our a
—
will
most
priorities
the
timely
achieve
regional
one
to
equal
are:
to
control
be
budget increase
diverse
are
integrate
part likely
-
managed managed
154
footing.
way
solutions
limited
the
together
priorities
of
(e.g.
today.
decisions
and
needs
the
capacity.
outcomes
different
global
For
dollars
seamlessly,
that
by
region
that
of
and
such
different
example,
have
all
along
economy,
We
best
make
and
we
can
parts
modes
as
will
public
all
water,
with
affect
one prepare
efficiently
jurisdictions,
spending
we
of
agree give
—
taxpayer.
the
operating
natural
will
support
walking,
the
sewer
equal
that
region. us
compare
entire
and
and
for
disasters,
and we
for
and
cycling,
a
We
budget
policy
As
range
want.
both
will we June
There
people PROPOSED 3. 2. 1.
for both Each altogether. hour transit, The Moving corridors. By without Given Canada’s Moving trucks,
Achieving We make reliable The
the quality Growth Containment compact be
most
helping
car
iNVEST MANAGE PARTNER
a
14,
goal
can
assets
ease,
people of congestion,
collaborative
are
room the
livable
commuters
and
2013
these
help transportation
of
way, provide major
Strategy
is
three
communities Pacific
Accurate
critical People strategically convenience Goods life.
to
goods a optimally
for and to the I
to
system
DRAFT
reduce levers
regions around
Regional
Boundary,
congestion,
streamline
make
Accordingly, key
high-value
transportation
goods. new
Gateway,
thereby
nature where
goals,
TRANSPORTATION
and
process
transportation
for
pricing
has
that
it
trip
and
and road
in
to
happen.
investments
Consultation
trucks
that
and the Far
implications even
they
of maintain
enables distances
protecting work delaying
through
Objectives
regulations,
capacity
commercial we for
crowding
among goods
example,
world.
affordability
are a
as
moving need
strategy
system
can transit
closely
connected
it
people
and
movement
supports
help the Metro levers
all
and
to
where
can
the
for
or
to
and if
goods. expand
Metro go
need with
support in
vehicle
more
protect increase
delays. support
be
the
natural
to as of the
which Vancouver.
driving TRANSPORTATION
necessary
more
efficiently
the transportation walk, Partners
reliably,
to
entire
Vancouver
If
the region
people
to
trips, build
car
pricing industrial
economy
we
growth and the efficient
the
transportation
can
cycle,
drivers
transportation
STRATEGIES
Invest
can
local opportunities safely, new and agricultural to
ride
to
12
also
and
to
maximize
ensure take
in governments
use
and
work
their infrastructure, economy reduce and land,
to help change
that
Urban
affects
efficiently, -
to
transit user-focused;
maintain 155
safeguards
together
bicycles,
support system; achieve remain that reduce
lands
congestion
Centres
its
their
system,
every
for
and
or goods
effectiveness
and
people and
that
drive congestion comfortably and
hours, our
safety
to
to they
&
aspect or
the
and
and
agencies
Metro relating can expand coordinate
cleanly
help removing
overarching
ACTIONS
safely,
on
free
environment.
to
along
improvements they
move
of
the
make
walk,
Vancouver’s
up
Metro will and
the
to as
comfortably
can
within that
road
frequent
more
in
the the possible,
regional
this cycle
reinforce system,
increase
a
reduce
goal
deliver
timely network Vancouverites’
need movement
one the
road
The
and
of
for transit
function
Urban
We
of Manage planning.
peak-
getting
fairness.
complete,
result and space
and take Regional
rail
the
and
can:
and
of
will
as June 14, 2013 jDRAFTfor Consultation
1. INVESTSTRATEGICALLYTO MAINTAINANDGROW THETRANSPORTATIONSYSTEM
Understanding what land uses and demand-management measures are in place and anticipated for the future wil provide us with a good idea of what investment is needed, where and when. We will maintain the system to ensure its safety, reliability and resilience. Where basic networks are incomplete or supply is insufficient to meet demand, we will consider expansion in a way that achieves our goals as cost- effectively as possible.
1.1. Maintain what is needed in a state of good repair
Maintenance costs will continue to grow as the system ages and expands. It is important to use strategic asset management principles to keep infrastructure in a safe and functional condition.
Key actions include working with partners to:
• Evaluate an asset’s condition, vulnerability and importance to the performance of the transportation system when balancing state-of-good repair funding against other investment priorities. • Upgrade infrastructure to respond to climate and seismic risks.
1.2. Make early investments to complete the walkway and bikeway networks Walking and cycling are low-cost, emission-free, energy efficient, and space efficient. Walking and cycling also lead to better public health and safer roads for all users. Parts of this region still have major gaps in the walkway network. This region was also late to invest in cycling infrastructure, so there is a shortage of traffic-protected bikeways which are needed to support more cycling by people of all ages and abilities. Walkways and bikeways are predominantly on municipal networks. TransLink plays in important role by supporting municipal investments that move us towards are regional goals.
Key actions include working with partners to:
• As a near-term regional priority for investment, invest in the walkway network to strategically improve connectivity, especially connecting to and within the Frequent Transit Network. • As a near-term regional priority for investment, make significant and early investment to complete the bikeway network, as outlined in the Regional Cycling Strategy, with a focus on Class 1 facilities in Urban Centres and other high cycling potential areas.
1.3. Invest in the road network to improve safety, local access, and goods movement The region’s roads form the foundation of the transportation network, carrying people, goods and services by foot, bicycle, bus, car and truck, For our transportation system to work well, we need our roads to work well. Beyond the need to maintain our infrastructure in a state of good repair, we propose to support additional investments in streets, roads, and bridges for three main reasons: to improve safety, increase connectivity, and improve goods movement. Keyactions include working with partners to:
• ensure the effectiveness of road investments by making concurrent commitments to appropriate optimization actions (see Strategy 2.3), pricing measures (see Strategy 24); and land use measures (see Strategy 3.4) • Increase road connectivity in support of better local access, especially in Urban Centres and FTDAs • Make infrastructure changes that improve road safety
13
TRANSPORTATION - 156 June 14, 2013 IDRAFTfor Consultation
• Provide additional capacity where needed to improve travel time reliability on key goods movement corridors in a way that does not increase general purpose traffic. • Find and implement a long-term solution for the Pattulio Bridge • Find and implement a long-term solution to address goods movement along the north shore of the Fraser River. • Work with the Province to ensure a replacement to the Massey Tunnel is integrated with the regional network and supports regional goals.
1.4. Make investments in the transit network to increase ridership The cost-effectiveness of transit routes vary depending on the demand, which is generally a factor of nearby land use. The highest and most balanced transit demand comes from within transit-oriented communities or that connect such centres on well-populated major routes. These high-demand areas tend to have a finer-grained network of well-connected streets, higher densities, diverse mixes of land uses, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design, and priced or managed parking. Sparsely populated communities, on the other hand, generate little demand and are more costly to service,
In 2008, TransLink identified a Frequent Transit Network within which it could more affordably provide service every 15 minutes or less, throughout the day, seven days a week, Further, by shifting resources from high-cost, low-ridership routes to the FTN,it was also able to increase ridership for the same or less investment. In future, the direction is to continue to direct resources to the FTNto increase ridership; and to expand the FTNlevel of service in areas where demand has increased adequately or where commitments to a level of development can be expected to create such demand.
Keyactions include working with partners to:
• ensure the effectiveness of transit investments by making concurrent commitments to appropriate optimization actions (see Strategy 2.3), pricing measures (see Strategy 2.4); and land use measures (see Strategy 3.4) • Invest in future transit service on the basis of performance with “productivity” targets guiding investment in ridership-focused service and “extent of coverage” guiding investment in basic access service. • For ridership-focused service, focus on matching service levels with current transit demand. • Where demand is predicted to grow in the future, based on committed plans and reasonable level of surety, provide higher service levels in advance of demand. • Develop and communicate meaningful, manageable, and measureable transit service standards. • Use development review process to align expectations for transit in planned communities with service standards. • Complete high-priority rapid transit projects including the Broadway-UBC corridor, Burnaby mountain/SFU, Expo Line upgrades, and Surrey (104th Aye, Fraser Hwy, and KingGeorge Blvd).
1.5. Ensure the continued provision of basic access transit service in low-demand neighbourhoods While working to maximize ridership and, therefore, the value and affordability of existing infrastructure, TransLinkhas maintained basic access service in low-demand neighbourhoods for those with few mobility options.
Keyactions include working with partners to:
• Maintain basic access services in stable, low-demand areas where use stays above a critical threshold, based on meaningful, manageable, and measureable transit service standards.
14
TRANSPORTATION - 157 x r. r’J -l Q vi
US 0 z -1 0 0 n 0 ci ‘-S U.S C Di ci TRANSPORTATION
vi - 158 C D a 1- mC NI alt 0 — w 0)1 w z rn c. 0 — at ,, 3t11 -I 0101 --F, Zr, 0 a. a -- -F, C n a,. 0 XC U, C
ro’ 0) a-- -, a 0
a_vCo 0
TRANSPORTATION C 01 Hit 0 90 m 3 •0 0 -C 3 a - 159 C a z VI
z a. 0)
Iso 0) a 0) 0)
transit
Key
before
System
2.3.
Key
The
abilities
2.2.
Key stressful,
securely
The
2.1.
•
•
space
choices.
•
that
system
trip.
Metro
2.
June
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
actions
actions
transportation
connected, actions
lane
Explore
effectively
Integrate
Continue transportation
wayfinding
Make
Make
Provide
people
Provide Offer
will
Design
To
14,
vulnerable
Use
Support
networks
pursuing
Be
and
optimization
Optimize
Vancouver’s
Make
can
requires
Make
help
MANAGE
2013
Technology
as
give
management,
prepared
more
physical
include
protection energy
it
the
include
possible
move
include
for
and
possible
easy
on-demand
people
incentives,
individuals
travel
to travel
DRAFT
Intelligent laws,
major
transportation
achieve
comfortable
more
universal
and
system
for
roads road
excellence
reallocate
to
about
efficient.
working design
THE
to
system
working
system
working
is
integrated
and
businesses
self-driving.
easy
and
share
and
enforcement, safe
for
respond
efficiently,
investment
from
about
users.
opportunities
and
TRANSPORTATION
regional
and
and
the
Consultation
free
and
marketing, businesses
supply-management
access
and
accessibility.
and
and
Transportation should
—
with
should
the
transit
with
in
signal
with
and
real-time
region
using
savings
by
of businesses
enforcement
attractive
secure
design,
effectively
system
transportation
elements
supporting
moving
fear
partners
to
transportation
even
partners
safely
partners
in
be
technology
priority
be
for
a
independently,
skills,
expansion.
make
from
information,
full
from
as
and
designed for
travel
regulation
enjoyable.
efficiency,
easy
and
accommodating
goods
for
a
range
all
to:
and
in
to:
harm. impacts
TRANSPORTATION
training
to: choices
for better
Systems,
SYSTEM
system
car-sharing,
to
reliably. the
to
users
all
information
provide
goods
and
deter
and
system
solutions
of
understand
so
users
goals.
event
There
and
travel
transportation
safety
that
and
17
that
management
services.
efficiency
of
with
and
TO
We crime.
incident
and
pricing
places
offers
of
new
support
people
are
are
BE
experience
ride-sharing,
designs can
confidence
need
as
and
natural
transit.
for
MORE
many
best
possible,
and vehicle
- also
—
users
all
to reliability
160
measures
management,
to
and
and
programs
modes.
rest.
fort’nem
navigate,
solutions
make disasters
services
that
things
make
EFFICIENT
a
businesses
in
and
technologies
and
complex
so
bike-sharing
making
improve
the
the
that
we
help
into in
with
and
to
with
to
and
most
comfort.
transportation
can
people
AND
them
help
operate
road
available
initiatives
array
for
can
the
other
a
do
road
of
the
consistent
USER-FOCUSED
including
and
make
use
Compass
to
make
works
what
of
of
emergencies.
transportation
make
our
safety
choices
taxis.
it
all
the
that
as
travel
we
efficient
ages
road
management,
system
information
safely
travel
Card.
low-carbon,
have
region-wide
and
most
for
and
and
easier
and
every
travel
less
protect
more
cost for June
Aligning
spreading system. 2.4. tune people Key municipal
2.5. when automobile bicycle Bicycles parking, pricing,
Key
•
• • • • •
•
•
• • •
actions
actions
14,
the
Assess
improve
Support Adopt
to distance
based implementation Link Introduce Undertake
cycling, Install Ensure Unbundle Facilitate Use Urban and
pay
parking
2013
Price
and Manage
the
and
TransLink reflect
improving
road-related
demand or
pricing
where
pricing
more
include
include
pricing parking on
right-sizing
a sufficient
cars
Centres
Provincial
site-specific
roads
that
DRAFT
and
transit
capacity,
travelled a
time,
across user
area-wide
road
costs
region-wide
parking
a
closely
both you
decisions
transit
automobile and/or
can
to
near-term
housing working of
and
working
for is
value
distance and
fare
less user
need
pricing
for transportation
often the
requirements
bicycle
need institute
government
Consultation
safety
parking or transit
for
for
options.
Frequent auto
road busy
time
structure region and
parking
location. pricing
to
it,
affordability,
what
with
an places
with
fairness,
mechanisms
road
thereby field
parking
travelled investment
and
to
parking
parking
times,
invitation for
usage
pricing limits
can
partners
discourages
incent
they
partners
concurrent
management
reliability fairness,
to study
Transit pricing
levels.
improve that
of
with
park efficiency routes,
to in
reducing and,
use.
requirements and changes
a
or
appropriate
Urban
region-wide
allows
make
to and
and TRANSPORTATION commitments.
to:
that
location. the
to:
at system
Development
commercial
It
as
efficiency drive
for
convenience
can the
and
some supporting
supporting
with
full
must a Centres
most
directly congestion
walking,
for
and
and
beginning
priority, make
for
modes.
cost
that
the
more people
18
choices. be
revenue
other
are even
efficient road
and
of
the
and introduction
and/or
on established,
allows
cycling,
Areas.
not more providing
technical
fine-grained
It
and
reallocate
the
pricing
transit revenue
opportunities
from
in system -
and can
Frequent 161
excessive
Urban
shortest reliability
use
residential for compact
also
ends
cycling,
transit
fares
system.
more
more
of
it
work
approved
Centres help
of
makes
of Transit
road
on-street
variation
and of
major and
and
their
transit-oriented
by
abundant
efficient
for to
fine-grained
raise
trip.
space.
space
ensuring
reflect
can
understand
the goods
shared
from
Development
trips.
transportation
or
Actively
revenue
administer
and system
in
legislated
and
where
cars
and availability movement.
While prices
parking.
parking
off-street
reliable
variation
circling
managing, frequently
to
fairer
the
communities.
the
appropriate
based
pay
Areas.
and at
impacts
is
shortage
investment
the since
of by for
for
available
parking
fine-
in
on
walking,
the
free
prices
time,
and
to
of
in
Key
growth,
explore
to
a
and
provide
Many
•
•
3.1. To
collective
TransLink 3.
June
cooperation.
on
TransLink
TransLink
is
•
deliver
actions
stable,
make
ensure
Balance
revenue
Advocate
the
most
Develop
ongoing
The
should
14,
The
including:
of
innovative
principles
funding
and
Establish
PARTNER
2013
the
our
Government
sufficient on
Mayors’
actions
pricing
include
will
supports
o
o o
o
relies
o
o
stable
o
o
o
o
o
take
for
contributions
initiatives
operations.
sources,
our
a
plans
I
DRAFT
and
continue
AbilityforTransLinkto
Affordability
Effects
Revenue
sustainable
As
considered
The
each Collectively,
Funding
Transit
Funding
Transportation
transportation
encouraging
that
into
plans
funding
up
are
and
working
decisions
set
TO
funding
Council
advance newer,
a
proportion
the
and
other.
reality, for
is
account
and
its effective,
forth
MAKE
on
resilient
of
and
fare
described
stable
options
principles
should
Consultation
to generation
appropriate
In
municipal
the
British
that
supports
for
with
from
work
approaches
the
on
order
funding
more
by rates
for
funding they
immediate
IT
and
efficient
provincial
and
the
funding
the
objectives.
Regional
is
HAPPEN
revenue. public
of
be
we
families;
partners
should
should
users
towards
stable,
Columbia
should
above
to
need
on
funding
following
predictable
laid generated
effective
Mayors’
need
goals
across
strategy
make
partners
sources
to
any
travel.
support
share
out
of
sources
sufficient
to
be
economy;
the
need
and Transportation
sufficient,
be
be
consistent
to:
for
the
TRANSPORTATION these
substantive
from
reinforce
these
economically
the
by
Council
has
sensitive
considerations:
travel
in
priced
revenue
managing
that
longer-term
should
from
transportation
the
money—
over
to
and
the
region;
that
property
specified
and
things
funding
use
Mayors’
19
responds
choices
local
the
the
and
appropriate
on
are
monitoring
our
advocate
more
be
to
this
sources
changes
goods
especially
transportation happen,
tong-term,
senior
less
the
public goals
benefit
reliable
efficient
has
taxes
and
capacity.
that
transportation
Council the
-
accurately
Province.
consistent to
162
set
system
movement
for
strong
for
affordability.
new
the levels
should
region
and
are
of
we
to
and
and
forth
managing
in
for
approaches
transit
We
and
We
trends
the
need
their
transportation
evaluation.
introduced,
and
influences partnerships.
major
predictable,
of
seeks
not
demand.
need
transportation
with
Government
also
to
funding
administration sector
government
from
a
funding
investments.
increase.
affecting
mix
better
have road
and
these
sufficient
to
that
broad-based
of
encourage.
to
travel
focusing
and
the sources
reductions
revenue
principles.
but
solutions
To
recognize
align
provide funding
TransLink’s
of
opportunity
transit
ensure
financial
funding
adjustable
choices
for
British
and
regional
behaviour
and
tools
support
On
funding
mechanisms
that
expansion
sources,
collection.
the
that
should
Columbia.
amounts,
principles,
land
capacity
existing
that
costs.
reflect
to
against
our
that
use,
and
and
to be June
3.2,
progress options Performance-based
Key
to 3.3. Making partnerships including greater help investments
Key
•
• •
•
• • •
•
• •
improve
14, actions
actions
travel Advocate
Enable
Continue and pursue
coordinate
feedback
Collaborate Establish
respond Build Make analysis
Convene Advocate corn
articulates
maintain Develop
2013
Monitor
might
progress Ensure
certainty
towards
commercial
governments,
mittees,
patterns
into
include
Metro
transportation I
policy-based
include transportation
needed DRAFT
and
perform and
to
to
for
loops
a
effective
strategies and
the funding
progress
these
changes
on
for
our
actions
robust
about making with broaden
tool
Vancouver’s
regional
working
for and
decisions
transportation
working
these and
facilitate
to to
goals,
the partnerships.
Consultation
partners in efforts. development.
a
get adjust
who the
framework
other
coordination
the and
related adjustments goods
reciprocal
towards
in
strategies
development TransLink’s to
the funding
data
and
with
private transportation
behaviour.
with
will future.
require
coordinated
ongoing ensure
course
trends.
record best
to
to
movement
to
do partners
available
partners
continuously
our
help
system.
transportation. sector,
from
commitments
what the
performance
and
good
as
a
to of
through
non-transportation desired
regional
understand
ability skilled
necessary.
actions funding
inter-governmental TRANSPORTATION
senior
of
and
to:
to:
data.
in
labour,
system
council.
needs
a
an
under
outcomes
to
strong
and regional
dialogue improve
levels
Monitoring
will
open
rates
from adjust
at to
community
of
how
what qualified 20
require
deliver the
of
partnerships monitoring,
and format
each
the initiatives data
government.
through
economic
provincial
conditions.
revenue -
sources 163
and
the
solution. coordinated
mix
coordination
collection
organizations labour
whenever
policy
evaluation
and
stakeholder
are
evaluation,
base over
and
development
rates TransLink This
force
performing
measures,
and
time, —
national
effort
possible
coordination
by
from
of
are
evaluation
to
and
establishing
different
to
forums,
and
from essential
plan, is
real
residents.
account
land
uniquely level
and
to
strategy
reporting,
estate,
many
build, enable
ue
how
tools. standing
and
will revenue
to
for
stronger
changes
partners, positioned We
assess
different
provide
continue
advertising,
operate
that
changes
third-party
can including
tools
advisory
clearly
work or
and
to
in
to to
Key
system,
within
and
growth
2011,
trips
local
It 3.4. June
•
•
•
•
•
is
actions
industrial
important
and
in frequent
14,
and
Encourage
certainty
Develop
land
Establish
requested
Make
Continue
TransLink
a
the
in
we
Support
2013
clearly
more
communicate
Urban
use
implementation
commitments
can
include
corridor
uses.
planning
DRAFT
transit
around to
trips
mechanisms
defined
reinforce
to
of
endorsed
affordable
Centres,
regional
get
TransLink,
support
working
Through
by
for
jobs,
areas
expected
and
which
walking,
Urban
resources
Consultation
these
Frequent
land
to
the
housing
area
and
with
of
and
investing,
supportive
such
contained
must
Regional
Containment
transit
use
regional
rental
cycling,
land
plans,
partners
implementation
to
as
and objectives
Transit
be
use,
help
oriented
partnership
housing
consistent
managing
and
Growth
major
in
land
land and
TRANSPORTATION
policies
to:
support
the
Development
provide
Boundary.
transit.
use
use
trip
Regional
communities.
along
Strategy
concurrent
objectives.
and
with
21
and generators
the
local
agreements
supportive
In
the
partnering
investments.
Metro
this
It
transportation-related
Growth
governments
and
Areas
also
Frequent region, -
164
with
its
Vancouver’s
in
contains
funding,
and
commitments
Strategy
the
and
to
investment
municipalities
Transit
deliver
along
right
joint
and
policies
to
locations
the
Regional
Network.Continue
the
the
improve
planning
commitments.
Frequent
including
development
to
regional
actions,
are
protect
to
Growth
access
to
responsible
facilitate
Transit
transportation
policies
provide
including
industrial
to
Strategy.
community
to
and
shorter
Network
to
develop
for
greater
within
focus
those
land In
t
3-- 0 3-3- I r ,
—a.
0
-9 _c
I
V3p
z Vt
3-3-3
92
V.. o.2
CC 0 3- 3-U
(1)
‘oE
11
(_
C
0) c_3
-
— -i-i
p
OQ)
0- C
2
(-U
‘3-1’
10-c
:3 0)
i_i) :3-
:3 (3-3
3
:3. 0
3-_i
‘(3
(U
(U
t
1(3
(JO
(0 U
-3
C
o CO
:3 3 C
:3
p
(-(3
‘-3.) JED
-4-,
0)
c-i
-
3-fl C-
.2 CC
.2
(U
U)
,—
II)
3-U
ft_
3-0 (13:3
cLo
C-:
C>
40J
.
_3
C.2
,0)
0-—
t
(3-3D ci. -
C :j4
2-;
(U ‘1 0 (3, (z-E)
!.fl
3-) ID
(_ (33
(-3
D (U
u.I
C :3
(U
3-I .Y (- .0
(U
÷- 0) 3;
-U
C,
- -4-i
TRANSPORTATION
U,
> çi a:
4-
C
-c 0
(.3 l-’1
CC C
(3-’ ‘1
(3)
(U
‘1’ C:
9
0 3-3
CC
(j
(3) ‘-3
(1’ ‘3-
‘(3
CV, CC
-3
(V
I-i,
- U
a C
165 C)
(—3 4mG
:3
‘n 13
:33 w;z C
.2
in
11_i
:3
3-V
-,
(33
CC 3-U
u-i
‘-U
‘-3-
0
0? (:3 (U
:3-
0
(U (3-
3--
13:
:3- 03
C)
P
--3,
L
C-o
04
C
(3
-c (1)
-p ‘(-‘4
(3
o
(U
p 1 U :3:3
0
C 0
C,
LL C
A C (U A Backgroumter
What is included in the Northeast Sector Area Transit Plan? How are the Northeast Sector municipalities involved? ard TNurieas: ScxAmc iras Pia l rieu r r)9reruat ors or tne trar St nato t c tioribras: Secto incLia r bot’ trs’t srv e a c hrvrv tore Toe enthe Northeast Sector sub-regon vsih be considered as a r.ersoork, and a! flue c-oeraDr tc r -riceLiceJ areco lre ne CiD5Ci invoLed in me area transrr p an aci the Dco or Teme, be cos od process. F :nia T -‘--“‘‘ S i, ,OS i .5 0’ a te o an s. aourass tras n:eora: or for toe s:akeho’ders, inc!udrg Metro Vancouuer ad the OCC9IO OF tbc rca Ervroree Lineextens on o the BC M nhtry of iranspartaor and lnfrdstructure, rogonc reh ran d r’ash s1sem, so no in:! id’ p nmj to ensure land use and tranpoia:ion policies for the rari d trds: exteos’on irself Reoon& transit issucs are ahgned (e.g fare policy, service de!er rnode!s transit fleet), transt operd ons (inc ding depots, schedu’e rc!ah1t arid skech moenjes’ coo aiStO ciar,sit (-tcnd;DA°J) are cho no Tv- a aci’odoo h :he pan For Information How is the public involved? Learnmoreabout the NortheastSectorAreaTransit Planaridhow to get involvedat translink.ca!nesatp Toe p ar no proLess ci a opptun t’ fo s:akeboders and toe pb’ic to a trv mcjt to Pa’sUr P on the Ljjr or contact KateGrossmanat of trans tin toe Nor:beast Sector Trans[mk soil proade a kate [email protected] 2 of on in the ries sahety oppoounit’es ire and conor o 4fr ci a Northeast Saror to engagn wth ad receive feedback from stakehoders ad the pub! c on toe transit netvorP raconimendarors V the par
arid non. thc Nortneac: Secto- Orea Transi: Pan Pub! Adjisory Comm::ee (PAC)is being es:abhshed as a rneanrgfu part of TransLinksstakeho!drn and pubic tationconsu for the ratv yLunched area transt plan 1PAP members from across the Northeast Seotor are se’ted based on the r expert se, transportator interest, common t rvoivement and leade’sh’p ao on their aM ty to r ae pos rye contribot on
or vu! ne oao rCthe a*er feeoac cciie:rvci fr cie brcader oo!c corsnji:n: or omcess v;h ch cors’dered ar anu to ne!p T’a-mL.nkma translink ca TRANS,.K TRANSPORTATION - 166 TRANSPORTATION - 167 lOu 100 re the Enc Manager. PORT Yours Thank and A finalized Attached Designation information, Thank Vancouver Re: Dear 4330 Burnaby, General Metro Deputy July Delia reg P Po,rtc. summary future nte, PMV PMV Yeomans 30, METRO Ms. truly, Kngsway Laglagaron you Vancouver you 999 Q9 Commissioner/Deputy report Manager, Response 2013 Planning is Laglagaron: Land again phases BC for on a of Canada Maps VANCOUVER The ana document the all your V5H will Use for comments document a that existing of Planning Chart be Pla 4G8 Place, letter your P’an PMV’s circulated were e, outlining ancoi V comments, of Update Port Land ncou outlines presented May received Policy Chief Metro to s Plan Use er, er 3, PMV TRANSPORTATION Phase and all 2013 B Admrnistrative how and uigthis during Vancouver C s participants during Envirorment B responses your in we anada Update. 3a Canada which appreciate PMV’s comments Legacy phase map V60 - you \60 to 168 and Officer Stakeholder the f4 designations. 314 provided will will Metro Map items have be be Designation posted available Vancouver’s been raised comments GMD GAO Ooc.No.:.... FI infocopy JUl Workshops ?ortmetrOanu\er No.: Tracker considered 312013 on in No later your our CMD 222.- ‘XThz(.a— from participation Feedback website. held this ‘3Q z7 letter in Metro 21 L> summer. in the 4 for June, _____ Caiiad Draft your corn in 2013. this The Metro Vancouver - (May 3, 2013) Preliminary Consultation (April May 2013) Comments - PMV Response July 26 2013 Org. Category No. Comments PMV Response PAN Map N AC N Defining the Shoreline according to the best available map base: Agreed. PMV’s jurisdiction boundary is informed by Metro There exist numerous instances where the Port marine Vancouver survey data. We would appreciate receiving updated designation encroaches on the foreshore and RGS land survey data from Metro Vancouver to assist in resolving the designations, and vice-versa. This may be due to erosion, mapping inconsistencies, especially around Fraser River islands. accretion, or simply a by-product of using mapping from Our recent meeting has already made progress in this regard. Metro various sources. Having a consistent shoreline boundary which is Vancouver . . Mapping MV1 updated from time to time will be beneficial to Port Metro (May Vancouver, Metro Vancouver, municipalities, and other parties 2013) so that designations and land and marine uses can be referencei from a common base. As part of the update to the Port’s designations, we suggest that the Port prepare an updated shoreline boundary pertaining to its jurisdiction, and ideally for the entire Metro Vancouver region. TRANSPORTATION Standardizing Upland Designations: Metro Vancouver’s regional Regional parks have been identified in the Draft Designation Metro parks and greenways are indicated under a variety of Maps. We would appreciate receiving updated GIS data related to Vancouver designations, and, in some instances, even omitted. The regional Regional Parks and Greenways to consider in our analysis and M apping MV2 (May 3, parks and greenways should be shown as such. We would be incorporate into PMV’s GIS system. We want park boundary 2013) pleased to provide mapping information to indicate the current information to be consistent with Metro databases. boundaries of regional parks and greenways. - 169 Clarifying Overlapping Port and RGS Designations: In our initial Acknowledged. PMV’s Land Use Plan is intended to be a high leve review, we found instances where Port designations overlapped policy plan indicating land and water designations. In assigning RGS land use designations and which do not appear to be draft designations, PMV considers municipal OCP data, Metros Metro related to differences in shoreline boundaries. Generally, the RGS, environmental data and existing FREMP data, and Port’s Vancouver designations be consistent with the RGS designations, comments made through consultation, as well as other Mapping MV3 Where (May 3 there is a variance, additional information should be stakeholders, tenants, First Nations and the public. We would be 2013) ‘ provided as to the rationale and criteria used to establish the pleased to discuss any remaining areas where draft land use Port designation. The objective is to move towards consistency designations may not be consistent with RGS designations. with the RGS. Org. Category No. Comments PMV Response PA # Map U AC U Undetermined Designation: A number of locations have the Acknowledged. Under PMVs Letter’s Patent, the Port does not Undetermined Designation. We recognize that the Port’s have the ability to designate lands for agricultural use. All land intention is that the designations and policies reflect the best and water use designations within the Port must abide by what is use for particulate site in the context with the Port’s mandate. In allowed in PMV”s Letters Patent and Provincial Head Lease the case of agricultural lands, it is the established position of the Agreements. Draft Designation Maps have currently identified the Metro Metro Vancouver Board that the Port’s Land Use Plan not small number of agricultural sites under PMV’s jurisdiction, such Vancouver include any designation that would allow non-agricultural uses as the Gilmore Farms in Richmond, as “Special Study Areas”. This Designations MV4 (May 3 on Agricultural Land Reserve lands. The provisions and interim designation recognizes that further consultation with 2013) intentions of the Agricultural Land Reserve Act should be upheld stakeholders will be required before a permanent designation can Further, we recommend that all lands with the Undetermined be determined. All formerly undetermined” parcels have been Designation be designated with the same or equivalent reviewed to assign a land use designation. designation as in the RGS. To reiterate, the objective is to move towards consistency with the RGS. Clarifying Multiple Port Designations: In our initial review, we In some cases the Legacy Port Authority plans had multiple TRANSPORTATION found 55 instances of records having multiple designations. designations and were not consistent across PMV’s jurisdiction. Most commonly, we observed areas that are designated as Log This phase of work includes developing a consistent set of Storage in addition to other designations. In cases where there is designations based on primary uses across PMV’s jurisdiction. a combined Conservation and Log Storage/Moorage designation Log storage sites are being reviewed based on consideration of M etro fronting regional parks, the two designations may be compatible current use, future needs, industry needs, upland activities and ancouver Designations MVS and the log booms may aid in reducing the rate of shoreline environmental information such as FREMP coding. ( ay erosion. In other cases where the upland is a Regional Park or 2013)- 170 reserve lands with a conservation focus, the existing log storage designation may no longer be appropriate relative to the FREMP’s Highly Productive habitat designation and should be phased out when log storage tenures are no longer renewed. Clarifying Foreshore Designations: Foreshore designations are Acknowledged. The draft designations include a “Log Storage and important with respect to the appraisal value of upland park Barge Moorage” designation for areas with those types of Metro land. If log storage is a permissible use, then the value of log primary uses. See draft designation maps for areas assigned the Vancouver storage is capitalized and included in the land value. Achieving draft “Log Storage and Designations MV6 Barge Moorage” designation. (May 3, certainty on areas where log storage is permissible or prohibited 2013) by the Port will be beneficial to all parties. Org. Category No. Comments PMV Response PA if Map if AC if Simplifying the Number of Designations: The wide range of Acknowledged. The Legacy Designation had multiple designations conservation-oriented designations should be unified for greater and were not consistent across PMV’s jurisdiction. This phase of simplicity and effectiveness in setting expectations for what is work includes developing a consistent set of designations based permissible and what is not permissible on lands and marine on primary uses across PMVs jurisdiction. Log storage sites are areas under the Port’s jurisdiction, being reviewed based on consideration of current use, future For example, it is unclear what the difference is between the needs, industry needs, upland activities and environmental Recreation/Park and Park Areas Water designations. We suggest information such as FREMP coding. FREMP designations are not that the RGS Conservation/Recreation land use designation be administered by PMV: they were developed through a multi- Metro considered as a model for simplifying the Port’s conservation- stakeholder process which has now largely dissolved. We are Vancouver Environmental MV7 oriented designations with perhaps policies detailing permissible considering the existing FREMP Area Designations in our analysis (May 3, Data uses, such as log storage/moorage in appropriate locations. This and in the assignment of draft designations. FREMP shoreline 2013) combined with FREMP shoreline habitat designations will set out classifications continued to be utilized by PMV. clearer expectations for management and shoreline sensitivity. We would appreciate the Port ensuring sufficient time is provided to Metro Vancouver and stakeholders to review and comment on any proposed TRANSPORTATION designations. Anmore and Belcarra -Thwaytes Landing Regional Park Regional parks have been identified in the Draft Designation Upland Designations: Maps. We would appreciate receiving updated GIS data related to - Thwaytes Landing Regional Park is omitted Regional Parks and Greenways to consider - in our analysis and M e ro 171 - Twin Island are incorrectly shown as Regional Park - they are incorporate into PMV’s GIS system. The area in front of Thwaytes . . Vancouver Mapping . . . & . . . MV8 part of the provincial park Landing is currently assigned the draft designation of Port 6 82 . .. (May 3, Designations ,, . . . -Belcarra Regional Park boundary is incorrect Water which allows public recreational areas as a conditional 2013’! Marine Designations: use. Generally, only when there is lease with PMV would we - Waters in bay fronting Thwaytes Landing be designated consider assigning the area the draft designation of “Recreation”. recreation/Park We can discuss this further. Anmore and Belcarra - Belcarra Regional Park The larger maps included regional parks data for reference. Upland Designations: Regional Parks have generally been identified in the Draft - Racoon and Twin Island are incorrectly shown as Regional Park Designation Maps. We would appreciate receiving updated GIS it is part of the Provincial Park data related to Regional Parks and Greenways to consider in our Metro - Belcarra Park boundary is incorrect - land around east side of analysis and incorporate into PMV’s GIS system. Generally, only Vancouver Mapping & Sasamat Lake omitted as well as Admiralty Point Area when there is lease with PMV would we consider assigning the MV9 6 77 (May 3, Designations Marine Designations: area the draft designation of “Recreation”. The water area 2013) - Should water fronting the west side of Bedwell Bay with the fronting the west side of Bedwell Bay is currently assigned the upland all regional park be designated recreation/park? draft designation of “Port Water” which allows public recreational areas as a conditional use. Org. Category No. Comments PMV Response PA # Map U AC U Burnaby - Belcarra Regional Park Generally, only when there is lease with PMV would we consider Marine Designations: assigning the area the draft designation of “Recreation. The Metro - Park Area Water fronting Belcarra Park should extend further Legacy Designation is ‘Port Water”. There has been no proposed Vancouver . up to the coastline to Designations MV1O the north to reflect the park upland. change to the designation or use. The water area fronting the (May 3, 6 77, 78 west side of Bedwell Bay is currently assigned the draft 2013) designation of “Port Water” which allows public recreational areas as a conditional use. Delta - Deas Island Regional Park Acknowledged. No designation changes have been proposed for Upland Designations: areas around Deas Island, which is currently assigned Metro the draft - Deas Island RP shown as “environmentally sensitive area” as designation of “Conservation”. Currently identified Vancouver as regional Designations MV11 per Delta OCP - should just show as regional park land park. We would appreciate receiving updated GIS data related (May 3, to 2 25, 26 Marine Designations: Regional Parks and Greenways to consider in our analysis 2013) and Conservation designation around Deas Island Park is incorporate into PMV’s GIS system. appropriate - Delta Fraser River Regional Reserve - - TRANSPORTATION Don and Lion Islands Acknowledged. The area around Don and Lion Islands is currently Delta South Surrey Greenway “undetermined’. They have now been assigned the draft Upland Designations: designation of “Port Water” which Metro the primary use is for - Don and Lion Island Park reserve status omitted. navigation. In thee proposed list of general Vancouver uses, “Conservation” Designations MV12 Marine Designations: uses or activities are permitted in all designations (May 3, and through 2 31 2.34 Undetermined designation on foreshore around Don and Lion PMV’s jurisdiction. We would appreciate 2013) receiving updated GIS Islands should likely be conservation much of the foreshore data related to Regional Parks and Greenways to consider in our - 172 around these conservation-oriented park reserve lands is analysis and incorporate into PMVs GIS system shallow and not suited for log storage. Langley Township - Derby Reach Regional Park Acknowledged. Part of the area fronting Derby Reach Regional Upland Designations: Park has been assigned the draft designation “Conservation’ and - Derby Reach partly shown as regional park and partly as “Log M etro Storage and Barge Moorage’ from the Legacy Designations natural area - should be all regional park. of “Water ancouver Orientated Residential Commercial” and “Log Storage”. Designations Marine Designations: MV13 This is to recognized there is existing log storage uses on the 3 58, 59 3.26, 3.27 - Log storage provided in mixed designation with conservation eastern end of the Derby Reach Regional Park. We would ) ‘ along portion of central Derby Reach - actual log storage is appreciate receiving updated GIS data related to Regional Parks further to the east in an area designated as conservation. Use and Greenways to consider in our analysis and incorporate into designations fronting the park need to be rationalized. PMV’s GIS system. if Org. Category No. Comments PMV Response PA if Map if AC front of - MV13. Area in Maple Ridge - Derby reach Regional Park Kanaka Creek See response for Derby Reach under Upland Designations: Kanaka Creek has been assigned the draft designation “Log from legacy designation of - Derby Reach Regional Park omitted Storage and Barge Moorage” the Marine Designations: “Industrial” and “Undetermined”. This is to recognize there are Log storage provided to Catherwood Towing fronting the no existing or intended future industrial use in this area, but ther Metro eastern portion of Derby Reach Regional Park which is is existing log storage uses. 3.27, 3.28, Vancouver 3 Designations MV14 designated conservation on the map - mixed conservation/log (May 3 29 storage/moorage zone fronting the central portion of the park 2013) should be conservation. - Undetermined designation fronting the part of Kanaka Creek should perhaps be conservation. - assigned draft designation of New Westminster - Sapperton Landing Regional Park Brunette The mouth of Brunette River is the Fraser Greenway “Conservation”. The area across from the mouth of the Brunette Marine Designations: River is assigned the draft designations of “Log Storage and Barge TRANSPORTATION existing log storage uses. Metro - Conservation designation appropriate at the mouth of the Moorage” to reflect - Vancouver . Brunette River. Designations MV1S 2 39 2.61, 2.62 (May 3, - Lrg Storage/moorage designation covers eastern portion of 2013) island and shallows of the mouth of the Brunette River while conservation zone is on western part - log storage/moorage designated area appears to need to be reduced. - 173 related North Vancouver City - Capilano River Regional Park and We would appreciate receiving updated GIS data to Seymour River Greenway Regional Parks and Greenways to consider in our analysis and Metro Upland Designations: incorporate into PMV’s GIS system. The draft designation Vancouver assigned is “Industrial” due to existing industrial use in - currently MV16 Seymour River Greenway omitted. 4 68 4.07 (May 3, Marine Designations: the area. 2013) - Should any non-Port Marine designation be associated with the mouth of the Seymour River? Draft Designation Map North Vancouver District - Capilano River Regional Park Regional parks have been identified in the Upland Designations: where possible. We would appreciate receiving updated GIS data Regional Parks and Greenways to consider in our - Capilano River Regional Park Omitted related to M e ro Marine Designations: analysis and incorporate into PMV’s GIS system. The area in front V ancouver Park is currently assigned the draft designation of 4 62 MV17 - Area fronting Ambleside Park could have a parks designation. of Ambleside (ay “Port Water”. There is currently no lease for recreational uses, ) although recreation use is permitted in “Port Water” designation. A portion of the park is also considered to be part of Squamish Reserve. PMV Response PA U Map U AC U Org. — Category No. Comments North Vancouver District - Bekarra Regional Park See MV1 10 Response. Upland Designations: Metro - Belcarra Regional Park omitted. Vancouver 77 MV18 Marine Designations: 6 (May 3, - Recreation/Park designation could be applied to western half 2013> of Bedwell Bay fronting Belcarra Regional Park. North Vancouver District - Thwaytes Landing Regional Park See response under MV8. Upland Designations: Metro - Thwaytes Landing Regional Park omitted. Va ncouver Designations MV19 Marine Designations: (May 3, - Recreation/Park designation should be applied to 2013> landing/beach area fronting the developed portion of Thwaytes Landing. been to the Draft Designation Pitt Meadows -. Barnston Island Regional Park, Surrey Bend Most park names have added appreciate receiving updated GIS data related to TRANSPORTATION Regional Park, Pitt River Greenway Maps. We would Upland Designations: Regional Parks and Greenways to consider in our analysis and GIS Most of areas around - Parks not shown. East portion of Pitt River Greenway shown as incorporate into PMV’s system. open space from PM OCP. Barnston Island have been assigned the draft designation of ‘Log and Barge Moorage”. Please indicate specific areas where - Eastern end of Pitt River greenway shown as industrial land. Storage Metro Marine Designations: Metro foresees “Recreation” uses as more appropriate. Dotted lines reference municipal boundaries. 53, 54, 55, Vancouver - Portions of Mann Point on Barnston Island need to have a yellow - MV2O (May174 3 Recreation/Park designation and be free from log storage to S6 2013) allow small craft ingress and egress to park. This is also a sediment deposition area and parts no longer suitable for log storage. - A corridor for park use access/egress required fronting Roberts Point park land area at the west end of the island. - What does habitat compensation area dotted all around Barnston Island indicate - has compensation been done? PA # Map # AC It Org. Category No. Comments PMV Response The area fronting the Pitt River Greenway is currently used for log Pitt Meadows - Pitt River Greenway Upland Designations: storage, and the draft designation assigned is Log Storage and shown as Barge Moorage”. We would appreciate receiving updated GIS - Portions of Greenway below the Lougheed Highway open space but newer portions of greenway between the data related to Regional Parks and Greenways to consider in our Lougheed Highway and the Alouette River omitted. analysis and incorporate into PMVs GIS system. PMV is working Marine Designations: to map out all habitat compensation areas within Port Pitt River in jurisdiction. These area will be considered when assigning draft - Foreshore designations along the east side of the review process. this stretch should be fairly consistent - some is shown as designations during the Metro and some as mixed log conservation 45, 46, 47 MV21 storage/moorage/conservation while the actual uses are the 3 greenway ‘ same. Log storage can be accommodated fronting the 2013) both north and south of the Lougheed Highway. Undetermined portion immediately north of the Lougheed Highway is in fact used for log storage. bottom of - Water area fronting the Pitt River Greenway at the the map is showed as undetermined by is in fact log storage. TRANSPORTATION fronts a - Undetermined area on the west side of the Pitt River major fisheries compensation project and should be conservation. WFP has removed its pilings from this stretch. Load-out area fronting the quarry has been assigned the draft Pitt Meadows - Minnekhada Regional Park, Pitt River Greenway Marine Designations: designation of ‘Industrial. Area between Loughheed Highway as open and north to DeBouville Slough has been assigned the draft - Portions of greenway above Alouette River shown - designation of “Conservation”. We would appreciate receiving 175 space, should be designated as greenway. Upland Designations: updated GIS data related to Regional Parks and Greenways to consider in our analysis and incorporate into PMV’s G1S system. Metro - All west side Pitt River foreshore between the Lougheed 3.09, Vancouver Highway and north to DeBouville Slough should perhaps be 3 45 46 MV22 ‘ 3.lOa (May 3’ conservation designation now that forest companies have 2013) removed piles and major fish habitat compensation projects have been completed. industrial. - Load out area fronting quarry should be designated Org. Category No. Comments PMV Response PA ft Map ft AC ft Pitt Meadows - Widgeon Marsh Regional Park Reserve. Regional Parks have been identified in the Draft Designation Upland Designations: Maps. Area fronting Siwash Island has been assigned the draft - Widgeon Marsh Regional Park Reserve omitted although designation of Conservation’. Area fronting private recreational Siwash Island designated conservation, properties have been assigned the draft designation of “Port Metro Marine Designations: Water which allows for private recreational docks and uses. Vancouver The south east Siwash Island foreshore should have the log MV23 3 50, 51 3.12, 3.13 (May 3, storage/moorage designation changed to conservation. 2013) The industrial designation on the foreshore fronting private residential properties south of the desired south boundary of Widgeon Marsh Park Reserve (Tony Edwards’ property) seems inappropriate. It makes sense further south fronting the quarry. Port Coquitlam Colony Farm Regional Park, Fraser River Islands Regional Parks have been identified in the Draft Designation Douglas Island Maps. Colony Farms is outside of the Draft Designation map area. Upland Designations: Area around Douglas Island is currently assigned the draft - Coloney Farm boundaries incorrect, designation of “Log Storage and Barge Moorage”. Conservation is TRANSPORTATION Marine Designations: permitted in this and all designations. - Conservation log storage and moorage designation around Metro and Douglas Island. A forest company has the statutory right of way Vancouver MV24 for log storage. If storage grounds to be given up in future, then 3 42 (May 3 ‘ mixed designation should be reviewed as entire upland is a 2013) conservation-oriented park reserve. To be compatible with - conservation, it is essential that log booms are not grounding as 176 accretion is occurring around some portions of the island. Org. Category No. Comments PMV Response PA U Map U AC U Port Coquitlam - Pitt River Greenway Area north of Pitt River Bridge has currently been assigned the Upland Designations: draft designation of Log Storage and Barge Moorage. Area in - Pitt River Greenway omitted - goes the length of the east side front of Alouette River is assigned the daft designation of “Log of the river. Storage and Barge Moorage. Conservation uses are permitted in Marine Designations: all designations. Noted concern regarding log storage at mouth - Undetermined designation on foreshore immediately north of of Alouette River. Will consider when conducting second review Pitt River bridge fronting MV park land should be consistent with of draft designations. Metro designation up to the mouth of the Alouette River. That Vancouver 3.08, MV25 designation shows conservation when in fact it currently 3 44, 45 (May 3 3.lOb accommodates log storage. Log storage has been permitted by 2013) MV as the upland owner as it is compatible with park use at this location. Conservation/log storage/moorage as below bridge a more appropriate designation. - A conservation zone at the mouth of the Alouette River should be established where possible. There is a marine on the south side but log storage on the north side should be pulled away TRANSPORTATION from the mouth. Port Coquitlam North - Colony Farm Regional Park, Fraser River See MV24 Response Islands - Douglas Island Upland Designations: Metro - Coloney Farm boundaries incorrect. Vancouver Marine Designations: MV26 (May- 3, - Conservation and log storage and moorage designation around 177 2013) Douglas Island should be reviewed in future as entire upland is a conservation-oriented park especially if requirements for log storage are decreasing. Port Moody - Belcarra Regional Park See MV1O Response Metro Upland Designations: Vancouver - Belcarra park boundaries incorrect. MV27 (May 3 Marine Designations: - West side of Bedwell Bay should perhaps have a 2013) ‘ recreation/park designation. Port Moody - Belcarra Regional Park See MV1O Response. Area around Admiralty Point to Carraholly Upland Designations: Point “Park Areas Metro is designated Waters” under the Legacy - Belcarra Park boundaries incorrect. Designation. It is currently assigned the draft designation of Vancouver . . MV28 Marine Designations: discuss 5 74 (May 3, “Recreation”. We can this further as needed. - Is a Port Marine Industrial designation appropriate for the 2013) portion of foreshore around Admiralty Point to Carraholly Point? PMV Response PA # Map # AC # Org. Category No. Comments Parks have been identified in the Draft Designation Map Richmond Pacific Spirit Park - lona Island Regional Park Regional Upland Designations: where possible. Area fronting Pacific Spirit Park currently assigne the draft designation of “Log Storage and Barge Moorage”. There - Pacific Spirit Park omitted. foreshore for on Richmond OCP. is currently a lease with GVRD along the - lona shown as Public and Open space Marine Designations: recreational uses. “Log Storage and Barge Moorage” designation some public recreation uses. We Metro be extended further west along the would permit conditionally - Should conservation zone appreciate confirmation if Metro is requesting Vancouver Pacific Spirit Park boundary (from Musqueam #2) to take in the would 1 1 2 3 4 MV29 conservation use or recreational use for this area or if recreation (May 3, near foreshore shallows? This is FREMP red zone and there is use under “Log Storage and Barge Moorage” is 2013) deposition along these shores and increasing potential for log as a secondary Area fronting lona Beach Regional Park currently booms grounding. adequate. and Barge fronting small south west assigned the draft designation of “Log Storage - Is the very limited conservation zone this is currently the primary use of this area. portion of lona big enough? Moorage” as Conservation uses are permitted in all designations. Regional Parks have been identified in the Draft Designation Map Richmond - Deas Island Regional Park Lion Islands have been Upland Designations: where possible. Area surrounding Don and TRANSPORTATION on map. assigned the draft designation of “Port Water” which permits - Deas Island Regional Park should be indicated area is to permit Marine Designations: conservation uses. The primary use of this Metro industrial areas to Foreshore around Don and Lion island is shown as navigation through narrow channels to access 2 25, 31 2.34 MV3O “undetermined”. Much is shallow sand bar (especially between the north of the islands. islands) and should be designated Conservation Areas Water as 2013) ‘ is FREMP red zone. Note adjacent tip of Annacis Island is zone. - designated conservation and compensation 178 Regional Parks have been identified in the Draft Designation Map Metro Richmond - Deas Island Regional Park Upland Designations: where possible. 2 25 Vancouver MV31 on map. (May 3, - Deas Island Regional Park should be indicated 2013) — Map Sapperton Regional Regional Parks have been identified in the Draft Designation Surrey - Brunette Fraser Greenway, Landing Metro receiving updated GIS data Park where possible. We would appreciate Vancouver . to consider in our MV32 Upland Designations: related to Regional Parks and Greenways (Ma 3 Greenway omitted. analysis and incorporate into PMV’s GIS system. - Sapperton Landing and Brunette Fraser 2013) ‘ Org. Category No. Comments PMV Response PA # Map # AC # Surrey - Colony Farm Regional Park, Douglas Island, Pitt River See MV24 Response. Greenway Upland Designations: Colony Farm and Douglas Island not shown as Regional Park land. - Pitt River greenway omitted. Marine Designations: Metro - Douglas Island foreshore designated both conservation and log Vancouver MV33 storage and moorage. A forest company holds a statutory right (May 3, of way for the riparian rights for log storage. Long term, if log 2013) storage grounds around the island are given up, perhaps given the status of the upland as conservation-oriented regional park reserve, portions of the foreshore (FREMP red zone) should be designated for conservation as well. - Water fronting the lower portion of the Pitt River Greenway is shown as undetermined designation when it is in fact log TRANSPORTATION storage. - 179 Response PA 4* Map 4* AC 4* Org. Category No. Comments PMV Regional Most park names have been added to the Draft Designation Surrey - Surrey Bend Regional Park, Barnston Island to Park Maps. We would appreciate receiving updated GIS data related in our analysis and Upland Designations: Regional Parks and Greenways to consider as Regional incorporate into PMV’s GIS system, Area fronting Surrey Bend - Surrey Bend boundary incorrect and should show of ‘Log Park. Regional Park has been assigned the draft designation Storage and Barge Moorage”. The area in front of Centre Creek - Barnston Island Regional Park land is omitted. consider the Marine Designations: seems does have an existing Log Storage lease. Will is split between designation when undergo second phase of review of Draft - Surrey Bend Regional Park designation we conservation (east side of Center Creek) and recreation park/log Designations. See MV20 Response for Barnston Island, which storage and moorage (west side of Centre Creek). Some area on discussed with Metro in our recent meeting. either side of Center Creek estuary should be conservation and west side of park is more conservation-oriented and east side Metro should be has seen more disturbance so perhaps designations 3.02, Vancouver log 3 MV34 reversed. With he exception of the mouth of Centre Cree 3.17a (May , storage may be accommodated along the park’s waterfront as it 2013) can help control erosion. TRANSPORTATION for log storage - All of Barnston Island foreshore is designated moorage. A section right at the eastern tip of Barnston Island Needs to be designated recreation/park to allow small craft access to and from the sand beach at the tip of Mann point. Similarly an opening is required at the west tip of the island fronting Roberts Point. - FREMP red zone 180 is - Since the entire Barnston island foreshore and a compensation area, it is important that the accretion zone at the east end of the island (Mann Point) be recognized and log booming moved substantially off shore to avoid grounding and substrate damage. See MV16 Response. Vancouver - Seymour River Greenway Metro Upland Designations: Vancouver - Seymour River Greenway omitted. MV3S (May 3, Marine Designations: for the mouth of 2013) - Possible conservation/recreation designation the Seymour River. See MV17 response. West Vancouver - Capilano River Regional Park Metro Uplands Designations: Vancouver - Capilano River Regional Park omitted. MV36 (May 3, Marine Designations: a parks designation. 2013) - Area fronting Ambleside Park could have TRANSPORTATION - 181 TRANSPORTATION - 182 TRANSPORTATION - 183 OCTOBER 31, HOLD THE DATE! Moving the Future: A New Conversation about Transportation and the Economy Vancouver Convention Centre (West) Thursday, October 31, 2013 • 7:30am – 2:00pm Major decisions about the future of transportation across the lower mainland are about to be made. The choices we make will significantly shape and impact our livability and prosperity. REGISTER ONLINE NOW AT www.movingthefuture.ca Join community, business, political and economic leaders and experts in this important debate at A detailed agenda will be provided Moving the Future: A New Conversation about in the days ahead. Transportation and the Economy, October 31, Vancouver Convention Centre. Do you know someone who would be interested in attending Participate in thought-provoking conversations that bring experience and innovative thinking this conference? Let us know at to the table, helping to build a better future by [email protected] rethinking transportation’s connections to our economy and our lives. A COMMUNITY PRESENTATION OF Sustainable Transportation Coalition TRANSPORTATION - 184