Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
TRANSPORTATION

CONSIDERATION

A. THAT the City consent to the designation of the streets indicated on Figure 2 (and listed in Appendix C) by the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (GVTA) to form part of the Major Road Network (MRN) subject to receipt by the City of a commitment from the Province to amend the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act to clarify that section 21(1) applies only to actions lowering the existing capacity to move people; and

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

The City Transportation Plan was approved in May, 1997. Some relevant policies are:

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the results of the public consultation about the Major Road Network (MRN) and to examine the implications, risks and benefits of consenting to designation by the GVTA of certain City streets as part of the MRN. This report also recommends that Council consent to certain streets being designated as part of the MRN.

BACKGROUND

Chronology

In 1996 the Province indicated its intent to download many elements of the Provincial Highway system to municipalities.

In 1997 negotiations were held between the Province and the GVRD with respect to the broader issue of governance and funding of the transportation system within the Regional District. These negotiations were successfully completed in early 1998 and provide for the devolution of Provincial powers and revenues.

The Act and the GVTA

In July, 1998, the Province enacted the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. (the Act). Under the Act, the GVTA, will:

· plan and operate the transit system
· provide a planning and co-ordination function
· define standards of management, operation, construction and maintenance
· provide funding for MRN maintenance and improvements
· develop and administer Transportation Demand Management policies
· administer the Air Care system for light and heavy duty vehicles

Most of the resources and effort will be devoted to operating the transit system. However, specifically with respect to roads, the GVTA Board is required to establish the Major Road Network by December 31 of this year. The regional movement of people, goods, and services is considered important to the future economic well-being of the region.

The Principles

Principles describing the roles of both the GVTA and the municipalities were passed by the GVRD Board on February 27, 1998. The GVRD Principles are listed in Appendix A.

It is intended that the GVTA would provide overall major road planning, standards for maintenance and construction, and funding for maintenance activities as well as new projects. An example of the need for overall coordination is the area of common technology. We learned in the Richmond Rapidbus planning that it is now possible to track buses by satellite, and, further, to communicate the position of a bus to signal systems to benefit transit travel times. In order to do this on a regional basis, it is necessary to have a unified system, geographically and technologically. A Major Road Network could help to achieve this objective.

The municipalities are to continue to have responsibility for operations. maintenance and construction of new works. Funding is to be provided by the GVTA for assisting the municipalities to maintain the MRN.

The Criteria

Meanwhile the Major Roads Technical Advisory Committee of the Interim GVTA Board was formed to examine the issue of developing the MRN. The committee suggested criteria for the definition of a Major Road. The suggested MRN results from the application of those criteria. These suggestions were then forwarded to municipalities for a response. Council reviewed this material on September 10, 1998 and recommended that it be forwarded to the public for comment.

The suggested criteria are discussed in detail in Appendix B. All highways to be downloaded from the province are included in the network with the respective municipality’s consent. For the remaining roads in the region, the identification process evolves in three elements:

First, the overall goal is to ensure that a region-wide road network exists that connects major activity centres. These activity centres are:

· Downtown and the Regional Town Centres
· Major Post Secondary Education Sites
· Industrial Areas
· Regional Gateways

Second, for a road to be included in the MRN, it must demonstrate at least one of the following “use” criteria:

· The street must carry significant intra-regional transit volumes

· The street must carry a high daily truck volume

· The street must carry a high proportion of longer trips and carry a minimum volume

The third element is that the overall network must be seen to be reasonably complete or “connected”.

The MRN

The MRN resulting from the application of these criteria is shown in Figure 1. The Vancouver portion is shown in Figure 2. These streets are listed in Appendix C. Within Vancouver the network differs from that presented in the July 20, 1998 Council report, in that Grandview Highway from Boundary to Nanaimo and its connection to Broadway via Nanaimo has met the criteria, has been reviewed by the public and is now included.

Process and Notification

Following Council’s action on September 10 to refer the proposal to the public, the public was invited to comment on this proposal in several ways:

· Active community groups known to be situated on major roads were directly invited to participate
· All community associations in the City were sent a copy of the July 20 report and invited in writing to participate
· Advertisements for two general meetings were placed in nine local community newspapers:

· Meetings were held with interested community associations, the Vancouver City Planning Commission and the Vancouver School Board Facilities Committee
· A special evening meeting of Council has been scheduled to hear delegations

Minutes of meetings held are reported in Appendix D.

DISCUSSION

GVTA Powers

The ACT confers on the GVTA powers broader than those contemplated in the GVRD Principles and it restricts the municipal powers in several ways:

· A municipality must not without the approval of the GVTA, reduce or limit the capacity of all or any part of the MRN to move people

· The GVTA has the power to establish standards for the management, operation, construction and maintenance for the MRN and funding is contingent on meeting these standards.

· Municipal consent is required to designate a street for inclusion in the MRN; once designated by the GVTA, it can only be removed from the MRN by the GVTA. The GVTA can unilaterally remove any street from the MRN

· Municipalities must obtain the approval of the GVTA prior to imposing any new restrictions on truck traffic on any street, whether or not that street is part of the MRN All existing truck prohibitions are “grandfathered” under the Act. However, due to an inadvertent omission by a legislative drafter, a reference to the Vancouver Charter was not included. As a result, the Act must be amended to “grandfather” existing City restrictions on truck traffic.

· The GVTA will have the responsibility to designate routes and times of travel on the MRN for transporting of dangerous goods. Such a designation may not be made without the consent of the municipality.

· The GVTA has the power to expropriate land. The GVTA could also construct and maintain roads in a manner similar to the municipalities.

· The GVTA has the power, under the Act, to construct any rail system on any street or right-of-way.

Public Consultation

In these discussions, the public was invited to consider three questions:

· Should the City participate in the MRN?
· Are the criteria as summarized above and explained in Appendix B reasonable?
· Is the resulting network as depicted in Figure 2 reasonable?

Staff note that the review process was approved by Council to provide an opportunity for the public to hear about and respond to the MRN proposal. Staff also anticipate that the recommendations in this report will address some of the major concerns raised in this two month review process.

The public raised the following issues:

The Language of the Act

There is strong public concern that the legislation creating the GVTA has conferred powers on it greater than contemplated by the GVRD Principles.

Some of these concerns relate to the broader powers of the GVTA such as the power to expropriate land and to construct roads and railways. Others bear directly on the creation of the MRN.

The GVRD Principles provide that the municipality cannot reduce people-carrying capacity on the street, an approach that is consistent with the city and regional transportation plans. However, section 21(1) of the Act provides that the municipality cannot “reduce or limit” capacity. This could be interpreted to mean that any action which limits future capacity requires GVTA approval. This interpretation is quite different from the GVRD Principles and is inconsistent with the City Transportation Plan. It is recommended that this problem be addressed prior to the City consenting to designation of any streets as part of the MRN.

Comments: This issue has been referred to the GVTA Interim Board. On October 19, 1998 the Board moved:

1. THAT the Province be requested to review the legislation establishing the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority related generally to the Major Road network and, specifically, to Section 21(1) to determine the following:

2. THAT the GVTA approve the following policy with respect to the governance of the Major Road Network:

This explicit adoption of the same principles as the GVRD Board does provide an indication of the present Board’s views but this can only be a temporary comfort. It is conceivable that, at some date, a future Board could act on these powers against the interests of Vancouver or any other municipality.

City and regional staff have been discussing potential amendments to the legislation to address this problem. One suggestion is to delete the word “limit” in section 21(1) and another is to define “capacity” to reconcile the legislation and the GVRD Principles. Any consent by Vancouver to designate streets for inclusion in the MRN should be subject to a ministerial commitment to recommend amendment of the legislation.

Another question was raised about section 19 of the Act. This section gives the GVTA the power to establish standards for the management, operation, construction and maintenance of all or any part of the MRN. This description of the powers is more comprehensive than that contemplated by the GVRD Principles.
Comments: All discussions to date have centred on the question of roadway maintenance and service standards such as reaction time to correct signal failures in the system. However, it is conceivable, that, in the future, the GVTA could set standards for management or operation of the MRN that would require major changes to the character of the streets and traffic in Vancouver. The City could not be required to adopt those standards. However, failure to comply with them would result in a loss of GVTA funding. Designated streets would remain in the MRN regardless of loss of funding. It is suggested that staff work with the GVTA and the Province to clarify the scope of sections 19 and 20(a).

The Neighbourhood Centre Issue

The City intends to implement neighbourhood centres on arterial streets as described in the Transportation Plan. Some of these centres are situated on streets that, should Council adopt Recommendations A or B, would be part of the MRN.

There are actions the City can take to reinforce these centres, including the preservation of on-street parking to ensure the vitality of business, and the creation of more appealing pedestrian and bicycle environments. Kerrisdale is often cited as an example is this regard.
A more interventionist approach would be to physically narrow or add parking where it is now prohibited in order to accomplish these objectives.

Some of these centres are situated on streets that, if Council adopt either Recommendations A or B, would become part of the MRN. The Act would limit the City’s ability to narrow existing pavement or introduce new parking where it is now prohibited without the consent of the GVTA However, the proposal allows the City to enhance the pedestrian realm through:

· special sidewalk treatments and amenities
· tree planting and other landscaping
· introduction of pedestrian signals, since these do not limit existing capacity
· retention of existing parking
· addition of bus bulges where all-day parking presently exists; e.g., West 10th at Sasamat

There are examples of very successful neighbourhood centres on busy streets such as South Granville, Collingwood (Kingsway at Joyce) and East Hastings. Parts of the MRN with full-time parking such as West 10th Avenue and West 41st Avenue could continue to allow parking.

New Funding

The public raised several issues with respect to funding:

· the source
· the amount
· the net effect in the face of potential property value reduction
· use of the proceeds.

The GVTA will have at its disposal several existing sources of funding such as transit fare revenues, the transit gas tax levy, a portion of the hidden provincial gas tax, residential hydro levies, and the former hospital property tax. Funding for the MRN would be provided to the municipalities based on an annual budget process.

The City benefits from the designation of city streets as part of the MRN in that a new, more appropriate funding source is identified to maintain these streets. Over time funding is expected to amount to $2.9 Million annually to cover routine maintenance and an equivalent amount for the complete rebuilding of the subsurface (approximately every twenty-five years). This work had been funded from the City’s own property tax base in the past.

Although the Act does not stipulate a funding schedule, the GVRD Board has approved a principle that proposes the new funding for municipally-owned roads be phased in over four years, beginning with 70 percent and reaching the full funding formula in 2002. The current understanding is that annual funding will be a minimum of $5,000/lane-kilometre and will be paid for all lanes of a road in the MRN if they are used at any time during a weekday as a moving lane. In 1999, the funding is estimated to provide in excess of $1.5 million for maintenance and operation of city streets included in the MRN. This estimate is preliminary because the GVTA has not yet approved its 1999-2000 budget.

Some citizens felt that the designation of City streets as part of the MRN would reduce the value of their properties - so much so that any net gain received by the City in terms of road maintenance funding would be lost by an erosion of the property tax base.

Some agreed that there would be net savings to the City but wondered how those savings would be used. Would there be a reduction in taxes for example? Others felt that the new money should be used to address the detrimental effects of streets in the MRN. The City has recently applied a low-noise asphalt to a test section of Knight Street, and is currently preparing a mitigation plan on 1st Avenue. Both these streets are proposed for inclusion in the MRN. Thus Council will have additional information on which to base further mitigation proposals.

Equity

Many people who drive on City streets do not live in Vancouver (refer to Appendix B). Given that Vancouver currently maintains its streets from its property tax base, two equity issues arise:.

· For the first time, regional traffic using City streets will be paying for the maintenance of those streets
· Second, the use of the gas tax is more appropriate than the use of a property tax for road maintenance purposes.

In both these respects a “user-pay” principle is established which better reflects regional transportation policy.

Other Proposed Streets

The public also identified other busy streets which should be considered for inclusion in the MRN. These include:

· 4th Avenue
· Burrard Bridge
· Powell Street
· 16th Avenue
· Dunsmuir Street
· Denman Street

The network proposed in Figure 2 was the subject of the current round of public consultations and there has been no opportunity to consult with residents of these additional

streets. However, the GVTA will be reviewing the MRN annually. It may be appropriate to review these and other streets in the future, should Council so wish.

The Public Process
The public commented on the complexity of the MRN proposal and the short time in which to evaluate it. Some felt that a door-to-door method of advertising should have been considered, similar to many Zoning proposals.

Our own procedures and practices were also brought into question. The City has a well developed practice of notification where roadway widenings are proposed. This practice also extends to changes affecting traffic, for example, parking regulations. Some residents felt that the context and implications of any change in street operation, like left-turn signals and signage, should also be the subject of notification.

The Downtown Transportation Plan
The General Manager of Community Services is 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. Choices will be limited related to use and cross-section of these streets that may be needed to ensure they are compatible with housing and to accommodate alternative modes moving around the Central Area as compared to just accommodating commuters. Also the credibility of the Downtown Transportation Plan process would be significantly challenged. Of particular concern is the fact that if 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, and with what cross-sections, so these can then be put forth to the GVTA for inclusion in the MRN in the future.

Deleting the couplet streets - Seymour, Howe, Nelson and Smithe - at this time would cause the City to forego up to $167,000/year until designations are forthcoming.

The General Manager of Engineering Services notes that the above streets are, in fact, major gateways to the downtown from the Granville and Cambie Bridges. Seymour and Howe havealways had an important role in serving regional transit, and the Richmond Rapidbus service recently approved by Council will use these streets. The Smithe/Nelson couplet was envisioned to serve a by-pass function in the 1975 Downtown Transportation Plan and the Cambie Bridge was purposely constructed to support this function, to deflect undue vehicular traffic in the downtown proper. By this reasoning these couplet streets could be classified along with Hastings and Georgia in that in any conceivable future scenario they will have a important traffic-carrying role.

Further, the deletion of the couplets would compromise the network - two major bridges would cross False Creek, with no further connection to downtown. There would be no direct connection, for example, from the airport to Lions Gate Bridge.

Therefore, it is preferable at this time to designate a basic network, noting that revisions can be submitted following development of the Downtown Transportation plan.

Dangerous Goods

The GVTA has the power to enact a by-law governing the movement of dangerous goods on the MRN, but only with the consent of the municipality. It is expected that practices governing the routing of dangerous goods will continue as they do today.

Issues Other Than The MRN

Trucking

When section 21 comes into force (and after drafting errors are corrected as discussed above), all municipal truck by-laws will be “grandfathered”. Thereafter, a municipality may not prohibit the movement of trucks on any street without the consent of the GVTA.

There are two related issues. First, City streets included in the MRN are truck routes except Granville Bridge and 1st Avenue. The public raised the question of the GVTA power to expand truck routes. In fact, the Act does not give the GVTA power to designate 1st Avenue, or any other street, as a truck route.

Second, a concern raised in the Broadway Station Area relates to the existing truck route on Grandview Highway North. There is a desire to prohibit trucks on this street. When Section 21 comes into force, this would require GVTA approval. The deletion of Grandview Highway North as a truck route is worthy of careful consideration but cannot be recommended at this time without an alternative. This matter should continue to be studied including the diversionary effect of the new Port Roadway. Council will have the opportunity to review this and other proposals and submit revisions to the GVTA.

Diesel Emissions

On July 28, 1998 in dealing with Richmond Rapidbus, Council moved:

A submission on this subject has been received by the Director of Environmental Health in consultation with BC Transit and is attached as a companion report.

Generally, while the health effects of small particulates are being studied with some concern by health professionals, the following points could be made:

· emission of particulates (PM2.5) from mobile sources is small; in particular, heavy duty vehicles account for 5 percent of total PM2.5 emission in 1997
· most of these mobile source emissions emanate from older trucks with transit accounting for a small proportion
· transit vehicles have much greater passenger carrying capacity than automobiles, so that on a passenger-kilometre basis, pollution from transit is very low
· half the transit trips in the region are on zero-emission vehicles (trolley and SkyTrain)
· new diesel buses emit one-fifth the mass of the particulates (PM10) of older buses
· a heavy-duty vehicle testing program is nearing implementation

The Director of Environmental Health has provided a series of recommendations in his companion report to address ongoing concerns over particulates.

CONCLUSIONS

This report has described the Major Road Network (MRN) and the reaction of the public to it. The GVTA is required by the Act to establish the MRN by the end of this year.

There are arguments for and against designating city streets as part of the MRN at this time. By far the most serious objection raised is that the Act does not accurately reflect the GVRD Principles established by the Board in February, 1998. A request has been made by the City and the GVTA Board to amend section 21 of the Act. The City’s participation should be conditional on a commitment to this amendment at the ministerial level of the Provincial Government.

As well, the City will lose certain powers with respect to streets that are included in the MRN.

GVTA will have a co-ordinating function for the MRN, which will allow it to provide for economic activity in the region and to co-ordinate introduction and use of technology for the benefit of the transit system, for example. The GVTA will also set standards for the MRN. It will be for local Councils to decide on whether to comply with those standards in order to receive GVTA funds. Municipalities cannot be required to adopt standards set by GVTA or to undertake works such as road widenings.

Upon designation , the City would realize a new funding source for the maintenance of Major Streets to the full total of up to $5.8 Million by 2002. This funding is built more on a user-pay principle in that, for the first time, regional users pay for the use of Vancouver streets.

* * * * *

ag981208.htm

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.

Ceb:council\11C018RH.WPD

APPENDIX B
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING MAJOR ROADS

INTRODUCTION

This appendix describes the method chosen for selecting Major Roads by the Network Definition Subcommittee of the Major Roads Technical Advisory Committee of the GVTA. This work was undertaken through 1998.

In 1996 the Province first indicated its intention to download selected Provincial Highways. The Regional Engineers Advisory Committee of the GVRD undertook the first look at what would constitute an integrated regional road network which was reported to the GVRD in April, 1997. Figure B.1 shows the network developed by REAC with the downloaded Provincial Highways highlighted. The result of this work was reported to Council in a Manager’s report dated July 20 for the July 28 Council meeting. (Network shown as Figure 2) This appendix describes the most recent work which reviews of the REAC methodology.

The overarching concept guiding the new exercise is that major regional attractors should be connected by an efficient road system. The first question then is to define a “regional attractor”.
The following activities were identified in this category:
· Downtown (including central Broadway) and the Regional Town Centres
· Post Secondary Education Sites
· Industrial Areas
· Regional Gateways

These activities are plotted in Figure B.2.

Second, a “Major Road” must also demonstrate one of the following characteristics:
· that it is being used to support regional transit objectives;
· that it performs a role in supporting economic development; or
· that it is serving “regional” or long-distance traffic (as opposed to short municipal trips)

Transportation simulation models and traffic counts were used to operationalize the above criteria to a morning rush hour in 1996. Transportation models are calibrated from regional origin destination surveys so that they mimic travel behaviour observed. It is therefore possible to determine characteristics of travel without the need to do further survey work. Accordingly, the three objectives stated above can be operationized respectively as:
· the number of “intra-regional” bus trips is greater than 10 per hour (Figure B.3)

· the number of truck trips is greater than 800 per day (Figure B.4)

· the proportion of trips on a link that travel greater than 10 kilometres is 70 percent or more AND the volume is greater than 800 vehicles per hour (Figure B.5)

The roadway segments in Vancouver which meet the respective criteria are shown in Figures B.6 to B.8.
The third check was that the overall network must be seen to be reasonably complete or “connected”. Forexample, Oak Street north of 41st does not meet any of the above criteria. However, it must “connect” the Oak Street Bridge to the central Broadway activity centre, and so has been included.
In combining these criteria, the resulting network is shown in the main report as Figure 1 and the Vancouver portion is shown as Figure 2.

Sensitivity

The first two criteria are reasonably straightforward. The last, the definition of regional trips, requires some sensitivity testing on two dimensions:
· the length of the trips
· the proportion of “long” trips

In terms of length, the choice of distance was found to be insensitive. No matter what length was chosen from 8 kilometres up to 13 kilometres (the average regional trip length), many of the same links appear.

In terms of the “proportion” of longer trips some sensitivity was found. This is illustrated in Figure B.9 where proportion of all trips greater than 10 kilometres of 50, 70 and 90 percent were chosen. Note that where a high threshold is chosen only the freeway and Southwest Marine Drive appear. This means that these routes serve regional traffic almost exclusively. At the low, 50 percent threshold, many more routes appear. For example, 4th Avenue, greater lengths of 12th Avenue, the western end of 16th Avenue and the Denman Beach routing to the Burrard Bridge appear.

Note also that Powell Street has met the long distance criteria but was not nominated as a Major Road at this time. New Major Road submissions will be reviewed annually by the GVTA.

Ceb:council\11C018RH.WPD

APPENDIX D: MEETINGS

Date Group Page #

23/09/98 Southwest Marine Ratepayers 1
24/09/98 Granville Community Association 4
06/10/98 General Meetings (Plaza 500) 7
08/10/98 General Meeting (The Atrium) 12
14/10/98 Broadway Station Community Crime Prevention Office 15
21/10/98 Vancouver City Planning Commission
03/11/98 Vancouver School Board (Facilities) 17
04/11/98 Stratchcona Community Association 18

Estimated attendance at all of the above meetings (excluding Board and Commissioners) was approximately 100 people.

klk:council\11C018RH.WPD

Notes from a September 23, 1998 Meeting on the Major Road Network Proposal with Representatives of the South West Marine Drive Property Owners Association

Major Messages: the loss of City authority over road decisions far outweighs the benefit of designation, designations must not be made without a more comprehensive public process and the resolution of questions surrounding the interpretation of Bill 36, several characteristics of SW Marine make it unsuitable for designation.

A. Major Concerns Which Apply to All Major Roads

B. Questions Relating to the Interpretation of the Legislation

C. Specific Reasons for Not Designating SW Marine Drive

D. Longer-term Concerns Yet to be Addressed

Notes from a September 25, 1998 Meeting with Representatives of the
Granville Coalition on the Major Road Network Proposal

Major Messages: Council must have a legal interpretation of Bill 36 (Greater Vancouver Transit Authority Act) prior to making its decision on designations, the impact of designations on adjacent neighbourhoods must be recognized, the control of Vancouver roads must not be sold for a small sum, we cannot assume the GVTA Board will be benevolent.

A. Major Concerns Which Apply to All Major Roads

B. Questions Relating to the Interpretation of the Legislation

C. Specific Reasons for Not Designating Granville Street

Notes from a October 6, 1998 Open Meeting on the
Major Road Network Proposal (Plaza 500 Ballroom)

Major Messages: the impact of designation will be significant, additional consultation which includes notification of all adjacent property owners is required, low representation on GVTA Board requires clarification of all legal and financial uncertainties prior to designation, transfer of truck regulations to GVTA is undesirable, criteria and designations require periodic revue, use “savings” for mitigation.

Each of the following sections identifies a major concern which includes a summary followed by a list of specific public comments.

A. Impacts are Significant

B. Process Too Short, Notification Inadequate

C. GVTA Board Will Respond to Suburban Concerns

D. Legal Uncertainties

E. Funding Uncertainties

F. Loss of Control Over Truck Regulations Significant

G. No Flexibility to Respond to Changing Circumstances

H. Criteria Inconsistent and Inconsistently Applied

I. Defer Designations

J. Do Not Designate Any Roads

K. Use “Savings” for Mitigation

L. Other

Notes from a October 8, 1998 Open Meeting on the
Major Road Network Proposal (Atrium Inn)

Major Messages: additional consultation and wider notification are required prior to adoption, making designations prior to clarification of legal/financial impacts makes little sense, the transfer of truck route regulation to GVTA creates concern, use “savings” to mitigate the impacts of busy roads, the permanence of designations is out of vsynch eith a changing city.

Each of the following sections identifies a major concern, it includes a summary followed by a list of specific comments made by members of the public.

A. Process

B. Legal Uncertainties Need to be Resolved Before Designation

C. Use “Savings” to Mitigate Road Impacts

D. Concerned About Transferring Authority over Trucks to GVTA

E. Designation Will Lead to Increased Traffic

F. Permanence of Designation Inconsistent with Changing Circumstances

G. A Funding Benefit to the City May Be a Cost to Residents

H. Defer a Decision Until More Clarity About Roles/Functions

I. Suburban Dominance of GVTA Will Produce MR Decisions That Increase Traffic

J. Criteria Are Not Consistently Applied

K. Other

Notes from a October 14, 1998 Open Meeting on the Major Road Network At the Broadway Station Community Crime Prevention Office

Major Messages: the impact of trucks on the development of neighbourhood centre at Broadway and Commercial is a primary concern, giving GVTA control of truck regulations will make removal of this truck route more difficult, the impacts of existing roads need to addressed, the impact of designations are unclear but unlikely to be positive for neigbourhoods.

Each of the following sections identifies a major concern, it includes a summary followed by a list of specific public comments.

A. GVTA Control of Trucking Makes A Needed Change in Truck Routes Harder

B. The GVTA Board Will Not Care About City Issues

C. Impacts of Designation Are Unclear

D. Funding Is Attractive But Taxes Levels Will Not Decrease

Notes on a Meeting with the Vancouver School Board
Facilities Committee, November 3, 1998
(one item on a regular agenda)

Concerned that roads now create barriers between schools and residences. This proposal would seem to have the potential to make it worse.

Our intent is to look at parking “bubble zones” around schools to improve safety. This may include having drop off areas on major roads which this proposal would not allow.

If it is not possible to reduce capacity then you are bound for all time with the roads which you have either as they are now or worse. Concerned about ability to put in more pedestrian facilities for students.

Seems that transit is not helped by keeping roads at their current capacity, seems like a blow to public transit.

There may be a range of approaches to improving pedestrian safety and access (from painted cross walks to free standing overpasses) but I certainly want to retain the authority to add pedestrian signals and ensure that their crossing time is adequate for little kids.

Agreed to recommend that the full Board adopt a motion reflecting the committee’s discussion.

Notes on a Meeting with the Strathcona Community Association
November 4, 1998 (one item on a regular agenda)

The network is a snapshot of what is important now yet there is no mechanism for recognizing changes in the demand for roads., nor the opportunity for us to give input on what we may decide we want these roads to become.

If there is increased density in the city won’t we be looking at more roads in the future?

Will this result in more truck routes? Seem to be too many now.

Don’t want to be forced to remove parking from Hastings when and where it is currently allowed.

Should include some criteria for neighbourhood use. May want to create safe pedestrian crossing that recognize people are not comfortable crossing more than a couple of lanes at a time.

Streets are too busy now shouldn’t do anything to make them worse.

* * * * *

ag981208.htm

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

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver