City of Vancouver

M E M O R A N D U M

MEMO TO: The Mayor and Members of Council

COPY TO: Ken Dobell, City Manager

FROM: Dave Rudberg, General Manager of Engineering Services

Ted Droettboom, General Manager of Community Services
Francie Connell, Director of Legal Services

DATE: November 30, 1998

SUBJECT: Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act (the Act)

The purpose of this memo is to provide updated information on the issues raised by Council at its November 17, 1998 meeting regarding the Major Road Network (MRN) and the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (GVTA). The specific motions approved by Council on November 17, 1998 are attached in Appendix A. The responses provided in this memo address Council’s information requests and are intended to assist Council in dealing with the November 10, 1998 policy report on the MRN and the Act.

a) Amendment to Section 21(1): “reduce or limit”

The Province has expressed willingness to amend section 21(1) to more clearly define its scope and meaning. Staff are currently discussing this issue with the Province. The discussion has focused on a proposal that section 21 be amended by deleting words “or limit” in subsection (1) and further adding a new subsection which would clarify what actions would reduce the capacity to move people.

The GVTA Transition Committee has recommended to the GVTA Board a request for an amendment to section 21(1) to address concerns over the word “limit” (Appendix B). That recommendation was received by the GVTA Board for information on November 30, 1998. While it addresses one of the issues raised, the proposed amendment would not eliminate the City’s concerns related to the words “capacity to move people”.

b) Truck Routes

The GVTA does not have the power to create truck routes. The Act does, however, limit the municipal power to restrict movement of trucks - a municipality must not, without the approval of the GVTA, prohibit the movement of trucks on any highway.

The Act contains a provision “grandfathering” all existing municipal restrictions on trucks. Due to a drafting oversight by the Province, Vancouver by-laws are not covered by that provision. Staff have brought this to the attention of the Province and have been assured that the Act will be amended to “grandfather” Vancouver by-laws. The provision of the Act which overrides the by-laws is not currently in force and the necessary amendment are expected to be made prior to this provision coming into force. Once existing truck routes are “grandfathered”, GVTA agreement will be required to remove a truck route.

c) Types of Standards to be Established by the GVTA

The GVTA is required to establish standards for the management, operation, construction and maintenance of the MRN. Only “maintenance” is defined in the Act. The meaning of other terms, in particular “management” and “operation”, is open to interpretation. It is possible that these words could be interpreted broadly, giving the GVTA power to set standards as to things such as parking restrictions, signal timing, etc. On the other hand, discussions to date suggest that the standards will be limited and general in nature.

In absence of interpretation of these terms by either the GVTA or the Courts, it is difficult to speculate as to the nature of standards the GVTA will establish. It is worth noting that the language of the Act suggests that different standards may be established for different parts of the MRN.

Effect of Non Compliance with Some of the Standards

Under the Act, the GVTA is required to contribute funding to a municipality for maintenance and construction of all or part of the MRN if the municipality complies with all standards set by the GVTA for the management, operation, construction and maintenance of the MRN. While the City could not be compelled to comply with those standards, failure to do so could result in loss of funding. It must be noted that, on the plain reading of the Act, it is possible that failure to comply with standards with respect to part of a road in the MRN, could result in a loss of all funds from the GVTA for all City streets included in the MRN. It is not known how the GVTA would interpret these provisions. However, it could chose to suspend funding only for the parts of the road which do not comply with the standards.

Whether the City receives funding or not, designated roads remain in the MRN and the City cannot unilaterally reduce the capacity to move people on those roads.

d) Expropriation Powers of the GVTA

Under the Act, the GVTA has the power to expropriate land from a person or municipality. The power to expropriate is not unusual in the context of the GVTA’s responsibilities. BC Transit under the British Columbia Transit Act and the Province under the Highway Act have similar expropriation powers. Inclusion of these powers in the Act is consistent with the functions and responsibilities of the GVTA.

e) Meaning of “Capacity to Move People”

The key component of the Act is the restriction on municipal actions reducing or limiting the capacity of the MRN to move people. This concept of capacity to move people represents a departure from the traditional approach, which dealt with road capacity only in terms of vehicles. Staff believe that this is an important and positive distinction which recognizes that the true purpose of the MRN and any transportation system is to move people and goods, not just vehicles.

Because this is a new concept, there is uncertainty as to how to interpret and measure the “capacity to move people”. In particular, capacity in this context could be interpreted prospectively, i.e., the theoretical or potential capacity, rather than the existing ability to move people. Under such interpretation, introduction of new means to move people would not necessarily allow for reduction in vehicular volume, but rather would merely increase the capacity.

For example, this provision would not restrict the ability to implement improved bus service or on-street LRT. Even though these changes could reduce the overall vehicle capacity, they would still improve people-moving capacity. It is uncertain, however, whether adding buses or LRT would allow a municipality to add parking or remove a lane of traffic, even if the number of people who could travel on the road would not decrease.

At this time, it is impossible to determine how “capacity to move people” will be interpreted. Staff are examining possible ways to resolve this uncertainty.

f) Air Quality Impacts of the MRN

This issue will be addressed in a separate memorandum from the Director of Environmental Health.

g) Implications of Not Consenting to Designation of City Streets
The Act requires municipal consent to designation of any street as part of the MRN. Implicit in this requirement is the right of a municipality to refuse its consent. The City or Council cannot be held liable for exercising its discretion and refusing to consent to designation.

Refusal of a municipality to consent to designation of some of its streets may result in an incomplete network which may be inconsistent with the intent of the Act. Furthermore, absence of municipal consent may prevent the GVTA from establishing the complete MRN by the December 31, 1998 deadline imposed by the Act. However, a municipality cannot be compelled to consent by the existence of a deadline or need for a complete network.

If a municipality does not consent to inclusion of any or all roads, then it will not receive funding for those roads. Because the GVTA intends to review the MRN on an annual basis, it may not be possible to add roads to the MRN (and qualify for funding) until a year from now. For Vancouver the potential funding loss is estimated to be $1.5 million for maintenance and $1.5 million for reconstruction in 1999, rising to $2.8 million for each function in 2002.

h) Implications of Consenting to the MRN before the Amendment to Grandfather Truck By-laws are in Place.

The limits on the power to restrict movement of trucks are specified by section 21(2) of the legislation and will take effect when this section comes into force regardless of whether the City does or does not consent to the designation of its streets as part of the MRN.

Other issue

Agreement between GVTA and the City

Staff have raised the possibility of the City reaching an agreement with the GVTA for funding for operation and maintenance of major roads not included in the MRN. If agreed to, this could make available to the City additional funds for maintenance of major roads which, although not included in the MRN, are an important part of the regional transportation system. However, there has been little interest expressed in this approach to date.

Conclusion

There has been considerable debate on the merits and costs associated with the designation of Vancouver’s streets as part of the MRN. Some general conclusions can be drawn:

· there is a transportation need to establish an integrated system of roadways that provides for the regional movement of goods and people;

· this roadway system identified as the MRN, needs to be co-managed by the region and municipalities in a manner that addresses both regional and municipal interests;

· while the initial principles suggest strong autonomy for municipal interests, there remains uncertainty particularly around the development of standards and the meaning and implication of “people carrying capacity”;

· while the legislation requires that an integrated MRN be designated by December 31, 1998, a municipality is not required to give its consent to designation by that deadline. Designation may be possible in the first three months of 1999 prior to the GVTA assuming its full powers (subject to GVTA approval); during the annual review process; or never.

Other municipalities have also indicated some concerns with the role of the GVTA in the management of the MRN. While the GVTA can approve policies which state its management intentions at this time, these can evolve and change over time. There will be an increasing risk of this occurring as the pressure of travel growth and congestion increases on the region.

One way to address this is to have Vancouver and other concerned municipalities work with the GVTA on better defining the principles on which the MRN is co-managed. These principles could be patterned after the original GVRD principles and could provide for a third party mediation process for disputes. This could then form the basis which would allow designation with greater certainty concerning the management of the MRN.

As a result, Council has a choice. If Council is comfortable with the current information and the willingness of the parties to resolve the outstanding issues, they can proceed with the motions presented in the November 10, 1998 policy report.

On the other hand, if too much uncertainty remains with regard to designation, Council may wish to consider the following motions:

A. That Council express its support in principle for the establishment of a Major Road Network including the Vancouver component of that network.

B. That there needs to be established a system of co-management of the Major Road Network which addresses both regional and municipal interests.

C. That until there is a better definition of that co-management system which deals with issues such as standards and “people moving capacity”, Vancouver will withhold its consent to designation of City streets.

D. That Vancouver invite other municipalities to join in discussions with the GVTA leading to agreement which will provide greater certainty in the co-management of the Major Road Network.

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver