[SpongeG]

Province to radically reshape TransLink

VICTORIA — The provincial government will radically alter the management of public transit and roadways in the Lower Mainland by scrapping the current TransLink transportation authority that it has called “dysfunctional.”


In the next few weeks B.C. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon will introduce sweeping legislation that will create a “Council of Mayors”, who will be asked to oversee all transit decisions. The government will tell the mayors to come up with a 10-year, integrated plan for an area stretching from Pemberton to Chilliwack.


In a news conference Thursday, Falcon will also say that to make sure that bold plan actually happens, the government will also create a 11-member, full-time “Professional Board” with the expertise in law, accounting, finance and transit planning to oversee the system’s management on a day-to-day basis.


A report commissioned by a panel appointed by the government has found that under the current situation, TransLink would chalk up a $200-million deficit annually by 2013. The new government plan would end that sea of red ink by giving the TransLink authority new revenue streams. It is also contemplating allowing the authority to develop land around rail stations and major transit hubs, not unlike private transit companies in Hong Kong, to cash in on the lucrative spike in real estate that usually happens when transit is developed.


To keep TransLink from being too ambitious in the costs it passes along to the public, however, the government will set up an “Independent Commissioner” to review such things as fare hikes and make sure that local land-use plans are followed.


The TransLink board that now exists will stay in place until the new legislation takes effect, in the autumn.


The government’s move follows years of tension between the province and local governments, who are often at odds about how, where and when to build up transportation infrastructure.


Set up by the New Democratic Party in 1999, theoretically to give local government more say and independence on the planning of transportation and mass transit, TransLink has always been conflicted, caught between local politics and the demands of the province.


The NDP government, for example, had to overrule TranslLnk's attempts to impose a vehicle levy -that is tolls - as a source off revenue for the new projects it was supposed to build. The Liberals have similarly intervened, such as when Falcon scuttled TransLink’s suggestion of tolls on existing infrastructure as a way to pay for new projects.


But that leaves TransLink in a bind.


How can it raise money for projects, such as the $970 million Evergreen light rail line from Burnaby to Coquitlam, without major new revenue streams?

TransLink, for example, was more than $400 million short for the Evergreen line but the provincial government would not pump in more money, suggesting that a private-public partnership — the so-called P3s — was the way to raise the needed funds.

TransLink -- officially, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority -- manages the transit stem, some provincial highways and bridges as well as major municipal roads that carry traffic across municipal boundaries.


It had a major long-term expansion strategy including a major bus fleet expansion, several new rapid transit lines and a lot of regional road improvements.

Operations were to be funded from fares, the share of property taxes that used to go to hospitals, a share of provincial fuel taxes, a small levy on Hydro bills and -- potentially -- a few other things like parking taxes.


Major expansion was to be paid for from a new vehicle levy - about $70 a year - on every motor vehicle in the region. But the vehicle levy was political dynamite and a lot of local politicians, especially in Surrey, fought against it.


It never got implemented.


The province dithered for a time, then the NDP government backed away from the issue in the run-up to the 2001 election. That forced TransLink into drastic cutbacks on an expansion program it had already begun, and led directly to a long transit strike in 2001.

That cost George Puil, TransLink's founding chairman, his seat on Vancouver council the next municipal election when public anger over the strike was directed at him.


Nothing has ever surfaced to replace the vehicle levy.

Consequently TransLink is far behind on plans to expand the bus fleet, build more rapid transit, and carry out more maintenance work.


TransLink maintains it has done well under difficult circumstances.


But Falcon, who believes that TransLink is parochial and poorly run, has expressed little patience. Here’s what he said in a recent Vancouver Sun Interview:

"With the current fiscal plan that TransLink has in place today and the current projects they have in the pipeline, they are going to start significant deficits in '09, and they will essentially be bankrupt by 2012.

So the whole organization is not financially sustainable.


“They can't go forward like this,” he added. “They're lurching forward, adding new projects without putting the financing mechanisms into place, and they run off and do things like parking stall taxes etc., and it's a combination . . . that is filling the public with a deep sense of unease and lack of confidence in their ability to carry these things forward."


But the province, which prefers not to be directly linked to the thorny issues of solving gridlock and fixing eroding infrastructure, has also never really engaged fully with TransLink.


There are supposed to be three provincial representatives on the TransLink board. Yet those seats have never been filled, likely because all the local directors would have looked to the provincial appointees for policy direction and funding for projects. One of TransLink's arguments is that if the province had appointed its three directors, they would have been able to swing all the controversial, close decisions that Falcon was so frustrated with in the province's preferred directions.



http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=fa64f24c-4c06-417d-ad07-f56dc2bbe51a&k=75639

[mackeast]

At first I thought this was pretty bad news, then I saw this:

It is also contemplating allowing the authority to develop land around rail stations and major transit hubs

We all remember streetcars doing this pre WW2? This created the ever-loves streetcar buildout development that New Urbanism tries to replicate. Could this be a wonderful new era for Vancouver urbanism?

[SpongeG]

translink had flaws - i think a big problem was it was an unelected body that wanted to impose things on the general public - such as levies

[The_Henry_Man]

At first I thought this was pretty bad news, then I saw this:

It is also contemplating allowing the authority to develop land around rail stations and major transit hubs


We all remember streetcars doing this pre WW2? This created the ever-loves streetcar buildout development that New Urbanism tries to replicate. Could this be a wonderful new era for Vancouver urbanism?


This is one of the best good news to come out of Falcon and Translink in years. This will definitely benefit the whole region. Actively encouraging housing development around station area WILL indeed have significant profits going towards transit improvements, and better city planning can occur too!!

It certainly benefited HK a whole lot. Many neighbourhoods are built up originally by MTR company, including the one at Kowloon Bay.

[obscurantist]

translink had flaws - i think a big problem was it was an unelected body that wanted to impose things on the general public - such as levies The changes that the province is imposing won't make TransLink any more accountable at the ballot box.

Before, the board was made up of elected local councillors and mayors, who could be removed by being defeated in municipal elections, as happened to TransLink chairs George Puil and Doug McCallum in 2002 and 2005.

The proposed model will replace the board with

- a "council of mayors," which sounds more or less like the current model, except possibly weighted less by population (it depends how many mayors, and from where);

- an appointed board of "experts" (who may well know more about the topic than local councillors, but who will be accountable only to the provincial government that appoints them); and

- an "Independent Commissioner" (which sounds a bit like the "Ferry Commissioner" idea the Libs came up with when they sorta-kinda privatized BC Ferries).

So, more effective, possibly. More in harmony with the province's plans, certainly. More accountable? Doesn't look like it.

[queetz@home]

:previous: Indeed! And Doug McCallum's ouster, who happens to be Kevin Falcon's b*tch in the Translink, is proof that people aren't happy with the way that ugly little troll ran things. Falcon is just full of sh*t and it remains to be seen if this silly tactic of his will work.

Actively encouraging housing development around station area WILL indeed have significant profits going towards transit improvements, and better city planning can occur too!!



We already have tons of housing development around the station areas and frankly its been done to death already. For example, I just saw the Surrey thread and it seems most if not all developments around the Whalley areas that are suppose to take advantage of the Skytrain are residential. One thing that is missing and ALWAYS forgotten is the employment centres, which are still located in areas far from transit lines. :rant:

[Stingray2004]

Three important improvements:

1. The area encompassing Translink will move outside GVRD boundaries and encompass Abbotsford, Chilliwack in the Fraser Valley and Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton up Howe Sound - essentially one contiguous region;

2. A "Professional Board", which will hopefully oversee needed trasportation improvements as well, devoid of petty parochial politics (Burnaby's Derek Corrigan comes to mind);

3. "Council of Mayors" to be weighted by population, a more reasonable and balanced proposition than the current set-up where tiny Anmore gets a vote;

[SFUVancouver]

The last straw for Kevin Falcon and the Province was the budget projections for Translink that would see it running a substantial deficit in six years. This assumes no new funding for Translink, which is absurd in light of the Province and Federal Government's commitments to climate change and intention to realise CO2 goals largely through public transit expansion. How does this new governance structure fix the budget holes?

Translink has been working with one hand tied behind its back from day one when a principle revenue stream, the vehicle levy, was made politically off-limits.

I am thrilled with the intention to allow Translink to value-capture mass transit improvements. I also think a more open procurement process may come about from this new governance model. In particular I am referring to the botched bid process for the RAV Line, when Bombardier was prohibitted from incorporating cost-savings and service benefits for its bid that would come about from integration with the existing SkyTrain network. I am also referring to the equally botched procurement process for the trolley bus fleet when Skoda offered more buses for less money a year earlier and vehicle assembly in Vancouver and yet Translink still chose New Flyer, likely because of the very same cost savings of fleet and maintance integration that Bombaridier was prohibitted from using.

Only time will tell how this all works out in practice. One more thing I'm happy about is that they are not changing the damn name of the thing and repainting all the buses, again.

[Wooster]

At first I thought this was pretty bad news, then I saw this:

It is also contemplating allowing the authority to develop land around rail stations and major transit hubs


Agreed. That is a great idea. Hong Kong does this really successfully. In Calgary it seems Corporate Properties and Buildings (who did The Bridges project) is responsible for developing the land around stations, not the transit authority.

[obscurantist]

Three important improvements:

1. The area encompassing Translink will move outside GVRD boundaries and encompass Abbotsford, Chilliwack in the Fraser Valley and Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton up Howe Sound - essentially one contiguous region;

2. A "Professional Board", which will hopefully oversee needed trasportation improvements as well, devoid of petty parochial politics (Burnaby's Derek Corrigan comes to mind);

3. "Council of Mayors" to be weighted by population, a more reasonable and balanced proposition than the current set-up where tiny Anmore gets a vote; Who appoints the "professional board" (or the "Independent Commissioner")? Everything's political -- it's just a question of whose politics. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

Is it the provincial government? If so, is that an improvement? And do you think it's an improvement because you agree with their politics, or because structurally it makes more sense? The BC Liberals (hopefully) won't be in power forever....

[The_Henry_Man]

:previous: Indeed! And Doug McCallum's ouster, who happens to be Kevin Falcon's b*tch in the Translink, is proof that people aren't happy with the way that ugly little troll ran things. Falcon is just full of sh*t and it remains to be seen if this silly tactic of his will work.



We already have tons of housing development around the station areas and frankly its been done to death already. For example, I just saw the Surrey thread and it seems most if not all developments around the Whalley areas that are suppose to take advantage of the Skytrain are residential. One thing that is missing and ALWAYS forgotten is the employment centres, which are still located in areas far from transit lines. :rant:


That's true....

I mean Translink developing town centres, and themselves getting the profits, not the private developments (Translink should join private investors/developers for developing town centres, which includes BOTH office/residential development).

[fever]

Have any of the details been released? Will the "Professional Board" be political appointments? Other than development will there be additional sources of revenue? This has been Translink's main problem.

I'm happy to see Translink getting the ability to finance new lines through development. I'm not sure what's gained by adding the eastern parts of the Fraser Valley or Whistler and Pemberton. It's a bit far to travel for a meeting. They're not commuting distance, at least not yet.

[obscurantist]

I'm not sure what's gained by adding the eastern parts of the Fraser Valley or Whistler and Pemberton. Right now the north-of-Fraser and south-of-Fraser municipalities are at about equal strength on both the TransLink and GVRD boards. So if an issue creates a split along geographic lines, it tends to be resolved by a very narrow margin one way or the other. (Or the TransLink and GVRD boards may end up disagreeing with each other, also by a very narrow margin.)

That happened with the vehicle levy in '01, with the series of votes on the RAV line in '04, and more recently with the Gateway project. Although in the latter two cases, it was clear that the province was going to go ahead regardless of what was decided at the regional level. In the first case, the provincial government overturned TransLink and the GVRD's approval of the levy on the policy ground that the issue was too contentious and would split the region (as well as on the political ground that there was an imminent political election and the NDP was truly desperate for votes).

So the purpose of adding the ex-exurbs of Vancouver is to swing the balance decisively in favour of the suburbs. That's good news in terms of decisions probably passing by wider margins (resulting in greater certainty). But it probably also means that more central and more densely populated municipalities like Vancouver, the North Shore, Burnaby, New Westminster and the Tri-Cities will have to wait longer for the transit improvements they need, like the Evergreen line and the Millennium extension along Broadway.

The governance review report is available here (http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/translinkreview/documents/TranslinkReport_070126.pdf) (it's a 60-page PDF file; you can also access it through this (http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/translinkreview) page).

[mezzanine]

Who appoints the "professional board" (or the "Independent Commissioner")? Everything's political -- it's just a question of whose politics. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

Is it the provincial government? If so, is that an improvement? And do you think it's an improvement because you agree with their politics, or because structurally it makes more sense? The BC Liberals (hopefully) won't be in power forever....


But then again, Translink as it was was flawed from the start - it had an awful lot of responsibilities, but was hamstrung from day one to raise money for them.

At its best, Translink OK'd major initiatives, with some say, imposed by the province. At its worst, it had a great potential to bog things down with short-term parochialism. The run-up to RAV was a three-ring circus. Corrigan's objections to it as a matter of transit planning neglected that BBy had two ALRT lines and was greatly benefitting from redeveloping areas by the M-line, itself imposed on the GVRD by the provincial govt (changing from light rail to ALRT, and building the (arguably redundant) BBy section frst, as opposed to the tri-cities). Being able to elect/not elect translink councillors in civic elections would not be advantage IMO, that would be like running govt by referendum, where inertia would be an electoral advantage...

In hindsight, we came close to *not* building RAV due to translink issues, and certainly, not building rapid transit is an option for some unfortunate cities.... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2006/12/14/lrt-vote.html


I do like the expanded scope - I would think that ppl in abbotsford have more common goals with ppl in Surrey than in North Vancouver.

[mezzanine]

So the purpose of adding the ex-exurbs of Vancouver is to swing the balance decisively in favour of the suburbs. That's good news in terms of decisions probably passing by wider margins (resulting in greater certainty). But it probably also means that more central and more densely populated municipalities like Vancouver, the North Shore, Burnaby, New Westminster and the Tri-Cities will have to wait longer for the transit improvements they need, like the Evergreen line and the Millennium extension along Broadway.


But then again, even the bus service in Surrey and Langley are awful, and areas like Clayton village, sullivan and cloverdale are densifying quickly...

In the end, as you were saying these changes will make translink more synchronous IMO with the Prov. govt. Larger projects should be easier to pass - whether or not this is a good thing we'll need to see....

[obscurantist]

The BC Libs continue to hack away at the concept of regional growth strategies that was brought in under the NDP in the mid-'90s:

Property taxes and transit fares will rise under a provincial government plan to create a new, bigger version of TransLink. But a controversial parking tax and a special Hydro-bill levy that homeowners have paid for years will be scrapped. (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=19f1bae2-1d0c-4e0b-be33-d447460c2a83) The higher taxes are a condition the province is setting in return for providing more money to TransLink from provincial fuel taxes, under a plan unveiled and endorsed Thursday by Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon.

The plan also means control over Greater Vancouver's transportation system will largely shift from local politicians to the provincial government.

TransLink -- which will gradually expand east into the Fraser Valley and north to Squamish and Pemberton -- will be governed in future by a long-term "vision" provided by the government, instead of being guided by the Greater Vancouver Regional District's sustainable growth strategy.

"The GVRD will no longer have a role in the governance of TransLink," says the report of a TransLink governance review panel. ...

The new provincial fuel-tax money will cover only one-third of the $200 million a year TransLink will need by 2013 to build everything in its plans.

In order to get it, TransLink will have to raise another one-third, or close to $70 million, from increased property taxes, and the final third from a combination of higher fares and revenue from property development around rapid transit stations and other TransLink facilities. ...

The parking tax and Hydro levy will be scrapped, but TransLink will have to replace the revenue -- about $37 million in total -- by raising property taxes, on commercial and industrial property for the parking tax money, and on residential property for the Hydro levy. ...

The plan also calls for TransLink to be given power to override municipal zoning and permitting decisions in order to get its major projects built, said Marlene Grinnell, the former Langley City mayor who chaired the review panel.

There will still be some municipal input. A board of appointed professionals will formulate options for 10-year TransLink plans, based on the provincial government's 30-year vision, and a council consisting of all the mayors in TransLink's coverage area will choose its preferred option.

But if the mayors fail to agree on the options within 90 days, the professional board will be able to impose its "base option." The plan calls for the mayors' council to meet only four times a year, while all TransLink's day-to-day decisions would be made by the appointed professional board. The board would be solely responsible for the three-year financial plans that drive TransLink's actual operations, and for hiring a chief executive.

It is not clear yet how that board will be appointed.

Meanwhile, all TransLink's ties to the regional district are being severed, which Vancouver Coun. Raymond Louie, a former TransLink director, called "most disturbing.

"It essentially eliminates local authority on land-use decisions."

TransLink chairman and Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie said he had thought the GVRD's Livable Region Strategic Plan would still help shape TransLink's priorities, but "I don't see that in there."

"We just can't ignore the LRSP. That needs to be clarified."

GVRD chairwoman and Delta Mayor Lois Jackson said: "I'm concerned about that, because as many of us have discussed before, land use and transportation are so linked." ...

Grinnell said TransLink would still be politically accountable to local voters, because mayors would be automatically elected to the mayor's council when they are elected in municipal elections. ...

Votes by the mayors' council will be based on population, giving the most influence to Vancouver and, increasingly, Surrey.

The mayor's council would appoint a commissioner who would hold public hearings and rule on major financial decisions. Richard Campbell observes on the Livable Region listserve that according to the funding scenario proposed by the governance review (http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/translinkreview/documents/TranslinkReport_070126.pdf), the start date for building the Burnaby / Coquitlam / Port Moody light rail line would be delayed from 2007 until 2010. The start of the construction of the Millennium Line extension along Broadway would be delayed from 2014 to 2018. There's nothing about when the badly needed 500 or so buses would be on the road.

Pg. 50: For the period through 2013, the total expenditure projection is comparable to that in TransLink’s 10-year outlook, with the exception of the start of construction on the Evergreen Line being delayed to 2010, the provincial contribution towards the project remaining at the $170 million already announced, and lower debt servicing charges as a result of maintaining a lower reserve in the initial years. A reserve requirement based on maintaining an amount equal to one year’s interest and principal repayment is assumed. This would be a typical reserve requirement for an entity like TransLink. After 2013, total expenditures – except for those associated with the Evergreen Line and an extension of the Millennium Line – are assumed to increase by an average of 3.3% per year. Expenditure projections also assume that a 6 km Millennium Line extension (westward) would be built between 2018 and 2021 at a cost of approximately $850 million, of which TransLink would be responsible for 40%, with the balance coming from senior governments. It is further assumed that any replacement of the Pattullo Bridge would be paid for through tolls.

[fever]

Thanks for the link. After reading the report, I think most of the recommendations are reasonable.

The furthest parts of the Fraser Valley or Sea-to-Sky wouldn't be added until it made sense to do so.

My main concern is with the governance of the authority, especially the inability of elected officials to legislate. Effectively the Council of Mayors holds only the power to veto plans created by the unelected Board.

[raggedy13]

That's disappointing how long it will take until the Millennium extension is complete... only about 20 years overdue. I honestly don't know how the Broadway corridor is expected to go on like this for 14 more years. Transit demand along the corridor is only going to increase as more people move to the city, as the corridor becomes more developed both commercially and residentially, as more jobs accumulate in the area, and as enrollment is increased at UBC. It's already bursting at the seems. 2021?! Ridiculous...

[mr.x]

That's disappointing how long it will take until the Millennium extension is complete... only about 20 years overdue. I honestly don't know how the Broadway corridor is expected to go on like this for 14 more years. Transit demand along the corridor is only going to increase as more people move to the city, as the corridor becomes more developed both commercially and residentially, as more jobs accumulate in the area, and as enrollment is increased at UBC. It's already bursting at the seems. 2021?! Ridiculous...

Not to mention only 6 km? By 2021, it would be very feasible to extend all the way to UBC....though it probably is already feasible today.

[fever]

I don't think the governance review was meant to set a timeline for future rapid transit extensions. afaik, no timeline has been set for the MLine-West. I think that was in there to provide an example of how tax revenues would rise depending on one possible scenario.

I thought about this a bit more since my last post. If the authority's tax revenues are collected only from within the service area, why is a Board responsible to the Province setting policy? I think it's acceptable that the Province have a place at the table on specific projects in which it puts money forward, but I'm uncomfortable with only the Province having the ability to propose Regional transportation policy.

A couple ways to get around this would be to have the proposed unelected Board appointed by the regional districts within the service area or by the Council of Mayors instead of the Province. It could also be a combination.

[queetz@home]

A couple ways to get around this would be to have the proposed unelected Board appointed by the regional districts within the service area or by the Council of Mayors instead of the Province. It could also be a combination.

Never gonna happen.... :(

[officedweller]

From the Richmond Review.


New TransLink has ‘great dangers’ Mayor worried about threat to override local zoning decisions

By Martin van den Hemel
Staff Reporter
Mar 10 2007

The threat that a newly restructured regional transportation authority might receive the power to override local zoning decisions around rapid transit stations has Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie worried.

“I see great dangers because the cities have been responsible for the zoning and the land use within the cities...I think to have a provincial override over the local autonomy is a real danger,” he said Friday morning.

Brodie is chair of TransLink, which Victoria announced Thursday is about to undergo major changes following a review launched last year into its governance structure.

“Often times, it...may work out but that’s not to say that the province should have that overriding power...TransLink will own the stations so who know what their plans can be...There could be some real local implications on this.”

The authors of the review tout the “significant potential to raise revenues from non tax sources including advertising, retail kiosks, shops at the transit stations, commercial development around transit stations and depot lands including...rights for such things as housing and office space.

“Translink should be encouraged to maximize revenue from these sources...We encourage municipalities in TransLink service areas to support this densification around stations to maximize the benefits from substantial rapid transit developments, to redirect development away from areas less well served by transit and to improve Translink’s financial performance,” the report states.

Brodie also has other concerns that the previous close working relationship between TransLink and the Greater Vancouver Regional District appears to be at an end.

See Page 3

If TransLink operates entirely independently of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which formulates land use planning and growth strategies for the region, that could present major challenges for transportation planning, he said.

“In the past we’ve had mutual support and approval of the major plans of the other body and I think that that has brought land use and transportation planning very close together,” Brodie said.

When planning for the type and locations of growth, transportation is an important component of that, Brodie explained. In the past, when Translink came up with a plan, it required the approval of the GVRD, which also had to approve the financial plan.

“What I don’t see is where the GVRD fits into it because their land-use plan is very important,” he said, referring to the new Translink.

There are many unanswered questions about the new TransLink, Brodie said, adding that it’s possible the province has plans to incorporate the GVRD’s plan into its vision for the area.

“It begs clarification.”

This would be a good thing if Translink could dictate zoning near rapid transit stations. It would force Vancouver to densify near its stations (which it has not done in established areas).

Even though GVRD approves the Livable Region Strategic Plan, it has no teeth in enforcing it. Enforcement is just through each municipality agreeing to comply with it. There have been some contentious projects approved that run counter to the plan - most notably Richmond's approval of housing in the Riverport area of Richmond.

Even if there is no formal approval by GVRD of transportation plans, those plans wouldn't be formulated in isolation - i.e. they will cater to the demands of the population, which in turn has been shaped at least in part by the Livable Region Strategic Plan. There could be a problem in "shaping" new development, but a rapid transit line isn't going to be built without a reasonable business case behind it.

[fever]

What would density sell for along Broadway?

As high as $100/sf? At that price and with one million square feet per kilometre elevated rapid transit would be profitable there and likely in some other corridors. Of course, they wouldn't want to flood the market with density, but they could sell it off slowly.

This is going to cause opposition to rapid transit, especially in Kits and West Point Grey. Personally, I think it's the best way to go but I have reservations about how urban design would be regulated.

[officedweller]

Not sure if Translink would ever be able to sell density (even bonus density) - it'll be interesting to what mechanisms would be established to implement this.
Would this be tantamount to Ontario's hated Ontario Municipal Board?
A Translink Board of Variance, perhaps?

[Rusty Gull]

On the subject of rapid transit to UBC, there is a huge push for this at the university currently. The bus system to campus along the Broadway corridor is absolutely overflowing and deteriorating - although it did reach its crescendo earlier this winter during some of the snow and wind storms, when thousands of commuters were passed over by full 99 B-Lines.

The situation is embarassing to the province, the city, and the university. I don't think that UBC can wait until 2021 for a Broadway Skytrain extension. Frankly, this -should- have been Translink's priority before Evergreen Line, and even before RAV.

[The_Henry_Man]

On the subject of rapid transit to UBC, there is a huge push for this at the university currently. The bus system to campus along the Broadway corridor is absolutely overflowing and deteriorating - although it did reach its crescendo earlier this winter during some of the snow and wind storms, when thousands of commuters were passed over by full 99 B-Lines.

The situation is embarassing to the province, the city, and the university. I don't think that UBC can wait until 2021 for a Broadway Skytrain extension. Frankly, this -should- have been Translink's priority before Evergreen Line, and even before RAV.

I hope that sentiment can lead to the second Great Trek (of 1922)!!! :D

[fever]

Yes. I wouldn't want an OMB. My understanding is that developers can go to it to overturn a municipal zoning bylaw. I'm not sure what other powers the OMB has.

I would prefer a system in which Translink and the municipality come to an agreement beforehand on how much bonus density would be sold and how it would then be regulated. I'm not sure what should be done with existing stations. There would be no consideration (and it wouldn't be seen as fair). Translink would have to be able to change municipal zoning laws or grant bonus density there, but I don't like it.

[SpongeG]

translink will be headed by mayors - so they can rezone etc what they want in their own cities - of course it would have to pass city halls

[raggedy13]

Critics pan province’s new TransLink model


By Jeff Nagel
Black Press
Mar 11 2007

The new TransLink unveiled by transportation minister Kevin Falcon Thursday faced immediate accusations it’s confusing, politically motivated and certain to fuel more discord with Lower Mainland cities.

It wasn’t immediately clear what carrots or sticks might be used to persuade cities not now part of TransLink to sign on and subject their residents to stiff fuel and property tax hikes.

“It will be done with their approval,” Falcon promised. “It won’t be done by fiat.”

Marlene Grinnell, the review panel chair, wouldn’t say whether lower property tax rates or other sweeteners might be offered to places like Abbotsford or Chilliwack, but added she expects those cities will make significant transition requests as part of the pending negotiations.

The panel also recommended TransLink get the power to override local zoning so it can develop high-density residential and commercial areas near transit stations to provide new revenue.

That will be a flashpoint for civic leaders, predicted NDP transportation critic David Chudnovsky.

“It’s a wacky idea for TransLink to become a development company and siphon off development revenues from municipalities,” he said.

He said it means Falcon and his new TransLink will find themselves in “constant conflict” with municipalities.

He said the plan to extend TransLink boundaries appears aimed to water down influence of the directors in and around Vancouver Falcon considers troublesome.

Also up in the air is exactly who would appoint a board of professionals that will oversee most TransLink decisions.

Falcon stressed it won’t be the province, but the process to select those directors is undetermined.

Chudnovsky said the NDP wanted TransLink instead made a committee of the GVRD.

He said the transportation challenges facing Hope or Chilliwack or Whistler are very different than those facing Greater Vancouver.

Political analyst David Schreck said the new TransLink may end up far from democratic and accountable if the new Council of Mayors is “going to be so distant from the nitty gritty that in effect the board Falcon will appoint will run the show.”

He said the big questions are how decisions will be made regarding the order of major projects to proceed.

“Who make decisions around the Pattullo Bridge?” he asked, giving one example. “The professional panel or the mayors?”

Schreck said the funding formula is designed to make the region raise its own revenue, rather than the province putting an extra share of the fuel taxes it already gathers on the table – or some other pool of money.

“It’s not like saying we will share part of our natural gas revenue with you,” he said. “It means everyone in the region will pay.”

http://www.tricitynews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=74&cat=23&id=850290&more=

[obscurantist]

Local media focused on the shiny surface of the review panel's proposals. But scant attention was paid to the elements that had local transportation experts crying into their bike helmets. (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/03/13/TransLinkSmackdown) For a taste of that, you would have had to crowd into a lecture hall at Simon Fraser University's downtown campus on Thursday night. That's where two hundred-odd transpo geeks gathered to hear the world's expert on traffic hold forth on our region's crisis of mobility. Anthony Downs -- author of the transportation bible, Stuck in Traffic -- is no starry-eyed car-hater. The septuagenarian is most famous for advising urbanites to recognize congestion for what it is: an inevitable by-product of vibrant cities.

The best way to plan complex urban regions is to create a regional government responsible for both land use and transportation planning, said Downs. That was it. No silver bullet, just boring, effective government with plenty of local input and control.

Downs's model would look something like the Greater Vancouver Regional District, but with directly elected members and much more power to compel local municipalities to follow collective plans.

In other words, it would be the exact opposite of Falcon's TransLink 2.0.

According to the people who spend their lives thinking about city and transportation planning, TransLink 2.0 will corrode what's left of our regional planning process, and scratch apart years of local work to build a livable region.

First of all, 2.0 will effectively take responsibility for long-range transportation planning away from Lower Mainland residents, and give it to Victoria. How? Under the suggested plan, the province will decide on the 30-year-vision for the region. Their appointed board will develop 10-year plans. Then the new council of mayors will have 90 days to pick one of the board's strategies. If the mayors can't agree, then the board will simply go with the strategy of its choice. In other words, Minister Falcon will call the shots, and invite local mayors to the shotgun wedding.

"What is so funny about this proposal is that it flies in the face of everything we have learned about how democracies are supposed to fashion sustainable plans for the future," lamented Alex Boston, a sustainability consultant who has advised all levels of government.

"It's the height of arrogance to suggest that politicians who are not immersed in local politics are able to figure out what's best for the entire Lower Mainland."

Ironically, it was Premier Gordon Campbell -- in a previous life -- who brought together all the region's players to forge a common plan for the future.

"Campbell created the Livable Region Strategy. He stick-handled it when he was the mayor of Vancouver," said Boston. "The reason it was a good plan is that it involved lots of people in its development. But it wasn't implementable because there was no governance structure to make it happen." ...

Right now, the GVRD and TransLink work together to ensure that new road and transit projects jibe with the Livable Region Strategy. They do a fairly weak job of it, largely because the province never gave the GVRD the power to force municipalities to follow their strategic plans. But when TransLink 2.0 takes its orders from Falcon, the link will be lost completely.... (I realize there's also another thread in this forum about Anthony Downs, but this seemed more on topic here.)

[SpongeG]

the LM will always have problems has long as each city within the region has its own agenda

[obscurantist]

But the different regions of the Lower Mainland will always have competing interests. I don't see how a merger (if that's what you're suggesting) would change that.

What I'm suggesting is something close to a merger anyway -- having transportation and land use decisions being made by a single regional government body.

The question is whether it's more appropriate to have region-wide decisions made by a regional government, or by the provincial government (or in this case, an agency that's primarily answerable to the provincial government).

[SpongeG]

well obviously thats the best decision but as long as the cities have their own power and priorties they will never just accept thinsg being forced

look at the thing over that little bridge between new west and coqutilam - the reguion planned a roadway so Coquitlam did its part and created a 4 lane road to the new west border where a single lane bridge is, new west mayor was like i don't think so we don't want to be a thouroughfare and locked the bridge with a gate - it ended up having to go to court and new west lost

unless this new body has the power to over rule the city councils and mayors than its kinda useless and than if does have the power to over rule and over power city councils and mayors - thats a slippery slope to start

[queetz@home]

Kevin Falcon is so evil he is the devil incarnate for sure... :mad:


TransLink 'makeover' a sham

By Allen Garr

The Big Lie told about the current TransLink board is that it is "dysfunctional." The dozen local politicians appointed to the board by the GVRD become so entangled in their own parochial interests they are paralyzed.

This point has been effectively repeated by the provincial government in general and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon in particular with the able assistance of the Vancouver Board of Trade.

A series of public opinion polls conducted by TransLink starting near the end of the 2001 bus strike showed the organization growing in public approval from a low of 33 per cent to a high of 67 per cent. Since the provincial assault began, that has dropped to the high 50s.

What irked Falcon and the rest was the lengthy, and at times, tortuous debate over the RAV Line (now the Canada Line) and specifically whether it should proceed as a "P3," a public-private partnership.

TransLink Board member NPA Coun. Peter Ladner wasn't on the board for that debate. But he notes the size of the RAV project and its impact on other transit projects was sufficient reason to warrant a lengthy discussion. "To confuse disagreement with dysfunction is a mistake," he says.

The board also produced a three-year operating plan and a 10-year outlook. And it did approve a RAV plan that included a P3. What is more, in spite of so-called parochial interests, the RAV project, which will most directly benefit Vancouver and Richmond, was supported by mayors from the northeast of the region even though their own priority for a rapid transit line-the Evergreen Line-was delayed as a result.

None of that matters. Falcon set the table to yank significant control of transportation policy away from local officials. He is expected to introduce legislation to implement a series of recommendations issued in a report last week. There will be changes to funding, governance and the geographic area covered by the transportation authority. All Vancouver councillors agree we will be worse off as a result.

TransLink funding has always been precarious thanks, again, to Victoria. The first problem arose with the vehicle levy, a tax the province agreed to implement. But once it was passed by TransLink and the GVRD, former NDP premier Ujjal Dosanjh reneged. That decision threw TransLink into a state of financial uncertainty. It took years to recover. TransLink director NPA Coun. Suzanne Anton says the board still "mourns" the loss of that levy.

But the B.C. Liberals have been no better. Their refusal to give TransLink an extra penny of their gas tax revenue left the board with no real choices except more property taxes and the unpopular parking stall tax.

Under Falcon's plan, bus fares, property taxes and the gas tax will all rise. But it won't cost the provincial treasury a nickel.

The governance of the operation will be even less accountable and more remote from regional voters than it is now. It will also cost more for extra layers of bureaucracy.

The TransLink board will be replaced by 11 "professionals" appointed by the province. Some 31 regional mayors will sit on a council that meets a few times a year to approve a 10-year strategic plan developed by the board.

The mayors will also hire a commissioner on a six-year term. The commissioner will set bus fares but will be independent of the board, the mayors and the provincial government. He will judge citizen satisfaction through polling and take no specific complaints about service.

And that's not all. The area covered by the transportation authority will be expanded beyond the GVRD to include Pemberton and Hope. That will likely shift the focus of the debate from transit improvements to asphalt. Those outlying communities of car drivers will be demanding better and bigger roads for their commutes.

published on 03/14/2007

[queetz@home]

View from the Ledge

Will region's transportation woes ever end?

By Keith Baldrey - chief political reporter for Global B.C.

No issue seems to get Lower Mainland residents more worked up than transportation. Not even the debate over health care seems to spark the frustration and aggravation that comes with trying to figure out the solutions to the traffic nightmare that is part of so many people's daily lives. Which is why Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon's plan to revamp TransLink no doubt has more people talking than the government's ongoing Conversation on Health Care.

A steady rise in population growth, along with years of poor regional planning, has resulted in a transportation system that is failing the residents who use it.

TransLink, the regional transportation authority created by the NDP government in 1999, was supposed to change that. Unfortunately, TransLink hasn't lived up to the task. Not that it really had much of a chance.

It was never really sure of its long-term funding, which made long-term planning that much more difficult. As well, the makeup of the TransLink board was ever-changing, with local politicians coming aboard for short stints that provided little continuity and didn't allow for the build-up of institutional knowledge. And it was never clear for whom the board directors were acting - their own constituents who elected them to perform duties within their municipalities or the regional interest as a whole.

The debate over the RAV line signalled the end was near for TransLink. The B.C. Liberal government made it clear it considered the project a top priority, and when it was nearly killed at the last minute by a handful of politicians from municipalities nowhere near the actual project itself, one could sense the province wasn't interested in having that kind of debate again.

Which brings us to Falcon's plan for TransLink II. The organization will retain the TransLink brand, but the structure of the organization will be significantly different. Whether it will work any better, however, is far from clear.

The new structure will allow more municipalities - such as Squamish, Mission and Abbotsford - to join the transportation authority. It will also create a new council of mayors, made up by the mayors - or their designates - from every municipality in the authority.

But this council will not have the real power in the new TransLink. It will meet at most four times a year, hardly often enough to exert real control over TransLink operations. The council will simply approve, and occasionally update, the 10-year strategic plan that has yet to be created.

The real power will reside with an 11-member appointed board of "professionals" whose function will be to provide the council with planning options.

In other words, the politicians won't be involved in the planning process itself until the very end of it, when they have to vote on which option they prefer. It's not yet clear how this board will be appointed. Falcon has suggested the mayors' council may appoint the board members, but I suspect the provincial government may want some kind of input into its makeup. In any event, the key difference between how this professional board will function and how the current TransLink board operates lies in the fact that none of the professionals will be associated with any particular municipality, thus removing the conflicts that currently exist.

But that will only solve part of TransLink's problems. The provincial government has given it more funding sources - an increase in its share of gas and property taxes, as well as incentives to build high-density housing near transit stations - but it's not clear whether that will be enough money to solve all the transportation woes in the region.

There's a need for more buses and more transit lines, as well as for a better road system that allows goods to get around without gridlocking commuters.

Falcon insists the new TransLink, which should be in place by the fall, will have a much better chance at coming through in those areas. Maybe. But does anyone really believe that simply revamping TransLink is going to provide the magical cure? It's more likely that a few years from now, Lower Mainland residents will continue to rage on and on about their traffic problems. The Conversation on Health Care will be long over by then, but the Conversation on Transportation shows no signs of ending any time soon.

published on 03/13/2007

[hollywoodnorth]

!Go Falcon Go!

[djp]

This is just going to give the car-heaven suburbs carte blanche when it comes to transportation planning. What else could be expected of the Liberals, though? This is the same party that relentlessly pushed the Gateway project. I guess they desperately want to see more sprawl, more congestion, more clogged freeways, less greenspace, etc, all with no tangible benefit. I really don't understand any of it.

[hollywoodnorth]

This is just going to give the car-heaven suburbs carte blanche when it comes to transportation planning. What else could be expected of the Liberals, though? This is the same party that relentlessly pushed the Gateway project. I guess they desperately want to see more sprawl, more congestion, more clogged freeways, less greenspace, etc, all with no tangible benefit. I really don't understand any of it.

and the same party that relentlessly pushed through RAV...........don't forget GORDO used to be the MAYOR of VANCOUVER..............I know for sure he wants to be the man who helped get the skytrain out to UBC......that would be an amazing legacy.......as if he has not done enough already ;) but it would be a great cap off! :)


Go GORDO Go!

[mr.x]

^ during Gordo's tenure as mayor, wasn't he also an advocate against highway expansion? how ironic.

[hollywoodnorth]

^ during Gordo's tenure as mayor, wasn't he also an advocate against highway expansion? how ironic.

well ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm TIMES CHANGE......cities grow........they even tripple in population.........and how much of the new MONSTER FREEWAY is coming into Vancouver? oh ya none..............:koko:

[Smooth]

^ during Gordo's tenure as mayor, wasn't he also an advocate against highway expansion? how ironic.

Mike Harcourt was really against Expo '86 when he was mayor but was a huge supporter when we were bidding for the Olympics. I'm sure these political u-turns are pretty common.

[Stingray2004]

Mike Harcourt was really against Expo '86 when he was mayor but was a huge supporter when we were bidding for the Olympics. I'm sure these political u-turns are pretty common.

Actually, during the early '80's then Mayor Harcourt came out strongly against the construction of the Alex Fraser Bridge as well as the connecting Hwy. 91.

The AF Bridge was not within the City of Vancouver, nor was it under a municipal jurisdiction. (It was MoTH).

In the early '80's Harcourt did, however, support the demolition of the 4-lane Cambie St. Bridge for a new 6-laner, which is under Van City's jurisdiction.

More interestingly, Harcourt now apparently understands and supports the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. Can you imagine that!

Political U-Turn indeed.:D

[Rusty Gull]

I would re-iterate: rapit transit to UBC has to be the government's number one priority. The parade of B-lines roaring down Broadway at all hours is an embarrassment; especially when thousands of commuters are stranded roadside because of full buses.

If UBC is to be the flagship institution of higher learning in this province, it has to be imperative to provide it with proper transportation infrastructure. Relative to its peer universites in Canada (such as University of Toronto, McGill) UBC is sorely lagging.

I read this week that York University is now going to be serviced by subway from downtown Toronto.

Apparently Ontario has its priorities straight. Why can't we in British Columbia?

[hollywoodnorth]

Actually, during the early '80's then Mayor Harcourt came out strongly against the construction of the Alex Fraser Bridge as well as the connecting Hwy. 91.

The AF Bridge was not within the City of Vancouver, nor was it under a municipal jurisdiction. (It was MoTH).

In the early '80's Harcourt did, however, support the demolition of the 4-lane Cambie St. Bridge for a new 6-laner, which is under Van City's jurisdiction.

More interestingly, Harcourt now apparently understands and supports the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. Can you imagine that!

Political U-Turn indeed.:D

!Go GORDO Go!
!Go FALCON Go!
!Go HARCOURT Go!

[SFUVancouver]

I would re-iterate: rapit transit to UBC has to be the government's number one priority. The parade of B-lines roaring down Broadway at all hours is an embarrassment; especially when thousands of commuters are stranded roadside because of full buses.

If UBC is to be the flagship institution of higher learning in this province, it has to be imperative to provide it with proper transportation infrastructure. Relative to its peer universites in Canada (such as University of Toronto, McGill) UBC is sorely lagging.

I read this week that York University is now going to be serviced by subway from downtown Toronto.

Apparently Ontario has its priorities straight. Why can't we in British Columbia?

I must say that getting the Skytrain to the bottom of Burnaby mountain has made a huge difference to SFU students. The B-Line calibre 145 runs up and down the mountain and during the 8-10am window the buses arrive at almost the same rate as the trains. During off-peak hours the service really suffers and the buses leave every five to ten minutes and fill to capacity at the upper bus loop, leaving people at the lower loop stranded.

The Millennium Line extension should go all the way to UBC. It just makes sense and would free up a huge number of high capacity buses, in addition to those freed up by termination of the 98 B-line, and these can start providing better transit service South of the Fraser.

[raggedy13]

From today's Vancouver Sun:


Transit blueprint must fit growth plan, minister says
Government appears to back away from goal of removing GVRD from TransLink table

William Boei, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, March 17, 2007

GREATER VANCOUVER - The provincial government appears to have stepped back from a plan to sever transportation planning in Greater Vancouver from the regional district's growth and land use strategy.

Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon says in a letter to TransLink chairman Malcolm Brodie, made public Friday, that legislation creating a new TransLink "will still stipulate that TransLink's plans must be consistent with the region's growth management plans."

A panel that reviewed TransLink's governance and financing recommended that the GVRD should no longer have a role in TransLink's governance.

It also called for the new TransLink to be given power to override municipal zoning and permitting decisions. Falcon's letter said that won't be happening either.

Falcon broadly endorsed the panel's recommendations earlier this month, and made no mention of the GVRD or the override power when asked which recommendations he would not support.

Many local and regional politicians were angered by the plan, calling it a power grab by the province.

Brodie met with Falcon on Tuesday, and Falcon's letter was dated the same day.

It says a commissioner who will be appointed to review TransLink's plans will assess whether they are consistent with the region's growth management plans.

Brodie said TransLink is setting up a committee of four directors -- Brodie, Surrey Coun. Marvin Hunt, Vancouver Coun. and GVRD vice-chairman Peter Ladner and North Vancouver District Mayor Richard Walton -- to study the plan and try to advise the government as it crafts new legislation for TransLink.

A special TransLink board meeting Friday asked Brodie to set up a meeting of all Lower Mainland mayors, to which Falcon will be invited, to discuss the plan.

Brodie approached Falcon after saying he could see no way to split up land use and transportation planning.

"That was a very important point in my mind, that there was a link between them," he said in an interview.

"The letter says it will be part of the legislation, so that provided a lot of comfort."

Brodie said TransLink staff was still crunching numbers to determine whether a funding formula recommended by the review panel will allow TransLink to keep up with regional demand for transportation infrastructure.

He suggested the review report could now be seen as "a positive framework for analysis" rather than a blueprint for the new TransLink.

The GVRD voted Friday to ask staff to prepare an analysis of the implications of Falcon's plans.

But Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan -- Falcon's fiercest critic among local politicians -- said he's not convinced Falcon is really softening his plans.

"I think this is the most appalling example of interference by the provincial government in local autonomy in the history of British Columbia," Corrigan told the GVRD board.

NDP transportation critic David Chudnovsky, who observed the GVRD meeting, said "This is taxation without representation. It is a massive incursion into the authority of the municipalities."

bboei@png.canwest.com


© The Vancouver Sun 2007

[Rusty Gull]

Significant from today's federal budget: The Harper government did not allocate a penny to the Port Mann Bridge twinning... I'm sure much to the consternation of Kevin Falcon.

Let's hope the government will re-prioritize, and instead put those scarce transportation dollars towards rapid transit to UBC.

[SFUVancouver]

Significant from today's federal budget: The Harper government did not allocate a penny to the Port Mann Bridge twinning... I'm sure much to the consternation of Kevin Falcon.

Let's hope the government will re-prioritize, and instead put those scarce transportation dollars towards rapid transit to UBC.

Now that is an interesting parsing of the federal budget, thank you.

I'm against an all-road Gateway strategy, though I support better interchanges and widening Hwy 1 enough to accomodate HOV lanes in both directions. In fact the HOV designation should be reframed as HPV (high priority vehicles) and would be freight lanes too. This will address goods movement and accomodate express bus transit. The South and North Fraser perimiter roads are also an acceptable idea in my mind, though I think BNSF and CN should be compelled/encouraged to increase rail capacity and help pay for overpasses in Langley and Delta. I don't think a Port Mann crossing is needed.

In light of the budget, I wonder what will happen next? Falcon has picked a fight with Translink and pissed off a good chunk of the cities in the GVRD and put mayors in the Fraser Valley on the defensive as they contemplate significantly higher gas and property taxes. Basically Minister Falcon has got his plate full trying to deal with the hornet nest he stirred up and now has a huge shortfall in his Gateway plan. If money goes to that exclusively instead of transit upgrades that are now implicitly expected due to his Translink power grab then the public will (hopefully) cry foul and question why the Province stole Translink and isn't fixing the problems it cited as its rationale.

Interesting times.

[twoNeurons]

How long before the BC election?

[The_Henry_Man]

The next provincial election will be in May 2009.

[Nutterbug]

Just wondering. If the whole of the 604 is going to be bunched together into a single transportation zone, are they going to make similar arrangements for the rest of the province? Like, say, Victoria and all of Vancouver Island being grouped together under a single transportation authority, or the entire Okanagan, and the like?

[queetz@home]

:previous: That's a bit extreme since basically the Province would free itself from most transit obligations (even though we still pay the same amount of provincial tax), hence eliminating most if not all of "BC Transit". It would be a double whammy for BC taxpayers as a whole since we won't see a decrease in provincial taxes in this regard but we will inevitably see an increase in municipal taxes. But I wouldn't be surprised if that happens since the political motives are clear.

[Jared]

Just wondering. If the whole of the 604 is going to be bunched together into a single transportation zone, are they going to make similar arrangements for the rest of the province? Like, say, Victoria and all of Vancouver being grouped together under a single transportation authority, or the entire Okanagan, and the like?

I dont think its nessecary; Vancouver's and Victorias transit systems basically have no interconnection (save dropping people at the ferry on each side). WRT the Okanagan: do they actually have buses between cities/towns, or just within them?



BTW, does anyone know if Translink pases/tickets (or U-Pass, more specifically) work with BC Transit (i.e. if I'm on the Island)?

[Nutterbug]

Just wondering. If the whole of the 604 is going to be bunched together into a single transportation zone, are they going to make similar arrangements for the rest of the province? Like, say, Victoria and all of Vancouver Island being grouped together under a single transportation authority, or the entire Okanagan, and the like?

Oops. I left out a crucial word, which completely changes the meaning of the whole statement, which I have just corrected above. Sorry for the confusion.

[renthefinn]

Upass was originated and piloted in Victoria by Uvic students. Even Camosun College students have upass, not sure about Royal Roads University, but I'd assume so. What I'm not sure about is if Upasses are transferrable between the two jurisdictions.