ENGINEERING SERVICES

February 18, 1999

MEMO TO: Mayor and Council

COPY TO: City Manager

Director of City Plans
Director of Central Area Planning
City Clerk

FROM: General Manager of Engineering Services

SUBJECT: MAJOR ROADS POLICY REPORT - PLANNING COMMENTS
______________________________________________________________________________

Unfortunately, the attached Planning comments arrived too late to incorporate into the Major Road Network Report. We needed to get the report out to the public prior to Council’s consideration of the issue on February 23, 1999. However, we can provide commentary on the material submitted by the Director of City Plans.

1. Revise Wording for Principle #2

The proposed revisions in this section cannot be supported in that they suggest a joint GVTA/municipal responsibility in the setting of targets for travel modes and levels of services. This is contrary to the GVTA’s responsibilities as defined in the Act, and I have been advised that any suggested changes in this area would be strongly opposed by the GVTA CEO.

The principles for co-management recognize that there needs to be broad consultation with not only the municipalities, but also the general public. In addition, the Strategic Plan must, by law, be consistent with the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the municipal/regional context statements. If there is a dispute on the setting of targets, a mediation and dispute resolution process is established to resolve the differences. While ultimate responsibility lies with the GVTA, it is believed that a number of safeguards are in place to ensure that this responsibility is exercised judiciously.

2. Recommendation E

It is suggested that this recommendation be split into two, one dealing with standards and the other dealing with dedicating new resources to mitigation. This does add further clarity and if Council is agreeable, the original recommendation from November 10, 1999 could be included as a separate recommendation as follows:

“THAT Council adopt a principle that a portion of annual savings from the GVTA funding for regular maintenance be allocated to supplement existing budgets for improving pedestrian safety, comfort and convenience; reducing speeds; and other actions to address traffic impacts of the MRN.”

3. Error in GVTA Table, Attached as Appendix C

There was an error in the precise definitions of road segments to be added to the MRN, primarily relating to definitions such as the line between east and west. The accompanying map accurately shows the roadways proposed to be added to the MRN. The intent is clear and the word definitions can be modified to reflect that intent.

4. Apparent Priority Given to Goods Movement

While the words around Livable Region Strategic Plan refer to regional priorities as “walking, cycling, transit, goods movement, and then the private autos.” it is difficult to rank the movement of goods and people in the same statement. As a result, for clarity purposes, goods movement is given recognition quite apart from the priorities for moving people. It also recognizes the economic importance to this region in the movement of goods.

It should also be noted that Council retains its rights to add new roads to the truck route system. Similarly, there needs to be concurrence by both the municipality and the GVTA to delete roads from the truck route system irrespective of whether they’re on the MRN or not.

5. Modification of Consideration F

This modification is not required because Consideration F deletes roadways from Recommendation A and that recommendation is conditional upon approval of the co-management principles.

 

6. Deletion of Downtown Streets

I have also received the following statement from the Director of Central Area Planning, which confirms material presented in the earlier report:

“The Director of Central Area Planning and the General Manager of Community Services are concerned that designation of some streets in the downtown at this time may limit reasonable choices arising out of the Downtown Transportation Plan. To the extent that this involves streets, such as Georgia and Hastings, where almost any future scenario would see these as major streets, this is a less urgent concern. To the extent that this involves streets bisecting newly emerging downtown residential areas, such as the Smithe/Nelson and Howe/Seymour couplets, this is a difficult
problem. Of particular concern is the fact that if the streets are designated, the City would not control any de-designation that might be recommended by the Downtown Transportation Plan, as all revisions to the network are subject to the approval of the GVTA. It is preferable not to designate such streets at this time. While the network in the short run would be incomplete, the practical functional implications would be modest. The intention of the Downtown Transportation Plan would be to define the appropriate links to complete the MRN. Deleting the couplet streets -Seymour, Howe, Smithe, and Nelson - at this time would cause the City to forego up to $167,000/year until designations are forthcoming.”

Staff will be available at the Council meeting to respond to any questions.

D.H. Rudberg, P.Eng.
General Manager of Engineering Services

DHR:sas
ER3060.wpd

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver