Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

General Manager of Engineering Services in Consultation with
the Director of City Plans and the Director of Central Area Planning

SUBJECT:

Major Road Network (Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority)

 

RECOMMENDATION

COMMENTS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER OF ENGINEERING SERVICES

COUNCIL POLICY

Council approved the City Transportation Plan in May of 1997, which includes an arterial street network for illustrative purposes but did not anticipate a "regional road" classification. The Transportation Plan provides for pedestrian priority areas.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is:

· to review the background on the creation of the Major Road Network
· to review the criteria proposed by the GVRD for the selection of "Major Roads"
· to review the preliminary network resulting from the proposed regional criteria and to make comments including the need for public review and comments

· to review the benefits and costs of establishing a Major Road Network in Vancouver within the framework of the new Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

· to update Council on current working discussions within the GVRD on this subject.

This report will be forwarded to neighbourhood groups, major employers, interested residents and road users for discussion over the summer at their convenience. In the fall, an information meeting will be held. Finally, Council will be presented with a summary of the public discussion and will hear delegations prior to making a decision on the Major Road Network.

BACKGROUND

Roads have different and often multiple functions. Some carry a large proportion of inter-regional trips and clearly should remain a Provincial responsibility (e.g., Highway 1). Others have a clearly local function which primarily provides access to adjacent land use. In between are roads of regional importance which carry longer distance trips between municipalities, serve important goods movement functions, and may provide capacity for trunk-line transit services.

In 1996 the Province indicated it intended to devolve responsibility to municipalities for maintenance of many of the Provincial Highways in the region. Although Vancouver owns and maintains all its streets, this proposal had severe cost implications for many of the smaller neighbouring municipalities. Accordingly, this proposal was deferred pending negotiations on transportation governance and funding. In addition, the GVRD Regional Engineers Advisory Committee began to define a "Major Road Network" with a view to maintaining regional mobility while obtaining compensatory revenue sources from the Province.

Subsequently, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (GVTA) agreement was approved between the GVRD and the Province. This agreement recognized several key elements of the transportation system including transit, Broadway Rapid Transit, major roads, AirCare and TDM.

Specifically, it recognizes the importance of a Major Road Network (MRN) in order to provide for intra-regional mobility needs, including the movement of goods (e.g., food, business needs) and workers to Vancouver. Moreover, sources of funding to maintain this network were an important element of the agreement. The agreement was reported to Council on February 17, 1998 and approved by the GVRD Board on February 27. At this meeting, the GVRD also adopted principles by which the GVTA would govern the Major Road Network. These are shown in Appendix A. These principles recognize that the responsibility for roads should rest with local municipalities and that the regional (GVTA) role is essentially limited to overall coordination, planning, and funding.

The Province has now prepared legislation to become party to this agreement. The Major Road Network must be set prior to December 31, 1998. Prior to this, Council will approve those roads which will be included in Vancouver. A new Major Road Technical Advisory Committee has already been created and has set three subcommittees:

· Network Definition

· Network Maintenance

· Network Development

The discussion below reviews the criteria that the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee chose and the resulting network proposal.

DISCUSSION

Criteria

To help define a Major Road Network, a preliminary set of criteria was established in 1997 by the GVRD against which arterial streets could be tested. (See Appendix B for details) As more of the criteria are met, the more regionally important the arterial street becomes. The following criteria were proposed by the Committee. A major road must do one or more of the following:

1. Activity Centre

2. Inter-Municipal Travel

3. Transit Corridor

4. Goods Movement

5. Emergency Response

6. Network Continuity

The above criteria are presently being reviewed by a subcommittee of the Major Road Technical Advisory Committee.

The Major Road Network

· The roads in the region that have been initially tested and meet the above criteria are illustrated in Figure 1, in three classes (see Appendix C):
· Highways and Bridges for which the Province retains jurisdiction
· Former Provincial highways will be added if agreed to by the municipality in which they are situated
· Municipal roads which meet the criteria for major roads but require municipal approval before being added to the network.

Those Vancouver streets included in the proposed MRN are shown in Figure 2. Also shown as Figure 3 is the network included in the Transportation Plan for illustrative purposes (May 1997). Note that all streets on the proposed MRN outside the downtown are classified as Primary arterials in the Transportation Plan and are generally truck routes. However, not all City arterials are included in the proposed MRN.

Cost and Benefits of the MNR to Vancouver

Under the existing system, all streets are owned and maintained by the City. The City has control over new construction and operation. For those streets which are classified as part of the Major Road Network, this will not materially change:

· The City retains ownership and control
· The GVTA cannot force the City to rebuild, widen lanes or increase capacity
· The City retains control of traffic management including signalization, signing and road-marking.

On the other hand, the City would give up some control once a street is designated as a part of the MRN. These areas include:

· abide by agreed-upon standards to maintain the functionality of the network. The standards discussed at the regional level relate to maintenance levels, i.e. rideability, cleaning, signal outage response times, etc. (This is based on the premise that if a City receives funding for maintenance/operations, they should meet agreed-upon standards.)
· once selected as a major road, both the City and GVTA need to agree if it is to be deleted.
· the people-carrying capacity of a major road could not be reduced without the consent of the City and GVTA. The understanding of this is that municipalities would not be able to remove existing lanes of moving traffic. However, general purpose lanes could be converted into lanes for buses or HOVs if the municipalities so chose. This measure would not preclude the City from improving the pedestrian environment in commercial centres, for example, through adding pedestrian signals, crossings, enhanced sidewalk treatments, and sidewalk bulges where they protect full-time parking. However, this would preclude creation of a Kerrisdale-type of treatment on streets like Kingsway or East Hastings.
· truck routes either added or deleted from the system would require GVTA approval. The existing truck route system within municipalities is grandfathered.

Any disputes between a municipality and GVTA would be referred to a third party for binding arbitration with no provision for appeal.

There are two major benefits to the Major Road Network. First, the region will have a network of major roads which provide continuity across municipal boundaries. These routes will be maintained and operated in a reasonably consistent manner.

The second benefit is that municipalities will have access to capital and operating funds for the Major Road Network. This will transfer funding from the property tax base to a more appropriate user-pay base. This is more equitable for Vancouver, which in the past has not received Provincial funding for its roads and yet carries a high proportion of regionally-based traffic on its streets.

For Vancouver, it is expected that we will receive from the GVTA between 2 and 3 million dollars annually in operating funds commencing in 1999, depending on the network designated and the final cost sharing formula. It is expected that some limited capital funding will be available, but this remains to be more fully developed by the GVTA.

Additions to the MRN Within Vancouver

Because of its ownership of streets, Vancouver would be the sole initiator of improvements to the MRN within its borders. Should Council choose to proceed with improvements, these could potentially be eligible for cost sharing with the GVTA subject to the availability of funds and regional priorities. The GVTA would not have the power to initiate projects but would only administer the funding mechanism.

The initial network of major roads is shown in Figure 2. City staff have proposed that Grandview Highway and its connection to Broadway via Nanaimo be included in the MRN at this stage. Similarly, the extension of Main Street to the Port is proposed as a major truck access point. This route constitutes an important (regional) connector to the freeway and truck route.

Downtown Streets Designation

The proposed regional road network in the downtown includes two major roads (Georgia and Hastings) that under any scenario will remain so, as well as several other connecting streets. Staff acknowledge that within the downtown, Georgia and Hastings are logical inclusions in the Major Road Network at this time. In the coming year, the Downtown Transportation Plan will begin to examine downtown transportation needs in the context of adopted land use plans, including livability issues in the emerging downtown residential neighbourhoods. Final designation of other roads in the downtown as part of the Major Road Network at this time would prejudge this process. It would also add an undesirable level of complexity if major roads cannot be removed from the network without the consent of the GVTA. The process and timing for the removal of streets from the network have not yet been spelled out. Smithe-Nelson and Seymour-Howe are now shown on the preliminary Major Road Network, but these streets may change in light of further studies next year. It is suggested that they remain on the preliminary network at this time because of the need for network connectivity. However, prior to final Council consideration of the network, further clarification will be sought from the GVTA on the ability to substitute alternative streets following the Downtown Transportation Plan. If there is flexibility, then the interim designations are appropriate; if not, staff advise caution to such designations.

Pedestrian Priority Areas/Neighbourhoods and Centres

CityPlan, the Transportation Plan, and the draft Community Visions all include the notion of creating neighbourhood centres and facilitating shopping in the centres by creating pedestrian priority areas. In designating major roads the City would be agreeing not to decrease the person carrying capacity of the Major Road Network.

This report raises the question about whether the City would be permitted to create a neighbourhood centre with a pedestrian priority area on a regional road. The Kerrisdale Shopping area is a good existing example of a neighbourhood centre on a major road. Along most of 41st Avenue traffic moves freely. For the several blocks through Kerrisdale traffic slows to accommodate the neighbourhood centre. The regional roads proposal is understood to mean that Council could not reduce the number of lanes on a major road. This makes it difficult, from an urban design perspective, to create a neighbourhood centre on a major street. However, Council would retain the ability to create pedestrian improvements along regional roads, through measures such as:

· improving sidewalk and boulevard areas
· creating curb bulges, where these protect full-time parking (noting that most major roads do not permit full-time parking)
· adding trees, benches and other beautification elements
· adding signalized pedestrian crossings

Staff will continue to seek clarification of the definition of "existing capacity". Depending upon response, Council may wish to clarify our understanding of the City's ability to implement pedestrian priority areas as a condition attached to our submission to the Major Road Network.

Next Steps
A regional Major Road Technical Advisory Committee (MRTAC) has been constituted to study the issue of regional roads under three headings:

The Major Roads Technical Advisory Committee has proposed a preliminary Major Road Network. After further public and technical review, Council is asked to approve a network before the end of October, 1998, in order to meet the end of year deadline to submit a Major Roads funding proposal to the GVTA.

Public Referral
It is proposed that this report be circulated for discussion to the public, who may wish to comment on the criteria for selection and/or the Major Road Network. These comments, together with an update on the status of roadway planning in general as developed by the interim GVTA team, will be forwarded to Council in the fall. Council may wish to hear delegations at this time.

CONCLUSION

The new Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority has been given the mandate under the agreement of maintaining a set of major roads to facilitate intra-regional mobility. Broad criteria to define regional roads have been developed which, when applied, yield a proposed Major Road Network shown in Figure 1. Vancouver streets are specifically shown in Figure 2 along with additions proposed by staff.

It is expensive to maintain roads. The GVTA will compensate municipalities for the maintenance of these regional roads. Since Vancouver maintained its own roads in the past through dedicated budgets, these new monies, in the order of $2-$3 Million annually upon the full implementation of the formula, would represent a more appropriate source of funding than the current property tax base, or could be devoted to other functions at Council's discretion, such as reduction of taxes or new programs.

Upon designation of major roads, Council will be expected to keep the roads in good repair with monies provided by the GVTA and would not be permitted to reduce the people-carrying capacity of the street. Council would retain ownership of the streets, decide on its operation and be the sole initiator of improvement projects.

In the months ahead the GVTA must develop a capital budget based on submissions from member municipalities, finalize the unit maintenance costs within the constraints of the funding available and the necessary expansion of the transit system.

The public is invited to comment on these proposals. Council will hear delegations in the Fall at which time it will be asked to formally declare a set of major roads.

* * * *

ag980728.htm

APPENDIX A: PRINCIPLES

Principle #1: The role of the regional transportation authority (GVTA) with respect to roads should be limited to achieving overall coordination, planning and funding of the Major Road Network. GVTA funding may be conditional on meeting certain criteria but the autonomy of the local municipality with respect to decisions concerning municipally owned roads within its boundaries should be absolute excepting only the case where a municipality wishes to decrease the person-trip capacity of an element of the Major Road Network.

Principle #2: The principal source of staff advice to the GVTA Board, with respect to the Major Road Network, should be the staff of local municipalities gathered together in advisory committee(s). The role of GVTA technical transportation staff, with respect to the Major Road Network, should be to support and complement such advisory committees, rather than be independent and apart from such committees.

Principle #8: The GVTA will own the three declassified bridges - Patullo, Knight Street and Westham Island (Canoe Pass) - and the Albion Ferry and will provide 100% of the funding necessary to operate, maintain and rehabilitate these facilities to an agreed upon set of standards.

Principle #9: The GVTA will provide 100% of the funding necessary to operate, maintain and rehabilitate declassified roads retained within the network to an agreed upon set of standards.

Principle #10: The GVTA should initially provide seventy percent of the funding necessary to operate, maintain and rehabilitate other municipally owned roads in the network. This percentage will increase annually so that one hundred per cent funding is provided after four years.

Principle #11: Funding for the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of the Major Road Network will be distributed directly to municipalities on a block funding formula, based on the proportion of lane kilometres in a municipality to the total lane kilometres in the major road system. Adjustments will be made to account for (1) the initial difference in funding principles for declassified and uploaded roads, (2) the need for the GVTA to fund the rehabilitation of below average declassified roads to average standards, (3) the need to recognize the responsibility of local municipalities to fund the rehabilitation of below average uploaded roads to average standards. These funds can only be spent directly on the Major Road Network and the municipalities shall keep a record of all expenditures for audit purposes. The Municipalities will be responsible for seeing that the work is carried out.

Principle #12: During the transition period, the MRTAC in conjunction with GVRD staff, and with input and guidance from RAAC as appropriate, will develop overall standards of operations and maintenance for roads in the network, establish current average conditions of the network, develop reliable per lane kilometre estimates of the costs to operate, maintain and rehabilitate roads of average condition to the proposed standards, and estimate the costs of bringing any below average components of the declassified road system up to average condition; and submit these to the GVTA Board for review and approval as the basis for the operations, maintenance and rehabilitation budget and funding allocations.

Principle #13: The GVTA Board, having fully consulted RAAC and the MRATC, will adopt annual and five year capital plans for the upgrading of the Major Road Network, circulate them to local municipalities for review and comment, provide for input from the public and other levels of government as appropriate, and submit final draft plans to the GVRD Board for ratification;

Principle #19: A dispute is defined as a disagreement between the GVTA and a Municipality on:

APPENDIX B: GVRD CRITERIA - (APRIL 1997)

i) Regional Activity Centres

ii) Inter-Municipal Travel

iii) Major Transit Corridor

iv) Goods Movement

v) Emergency Response

vi) Network Continuity

NOTE FROM CLERK: ELECTRONIC COPIES OF FIGURES 1-3 AND APPENDIX C -ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.

* * * * *

ag980728.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver