Provincial government to scrap TransLink

[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/n...bbe51a&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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

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.

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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;

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]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

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.

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]

Originally Posted by fever

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 (it's a 60-page PDF file; you can also access it through this page).

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by obscurantist

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/stor.../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]

Originally Posted by obscurantist

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.

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, 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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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.