Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

General Manager of Engineering Services in consultation with the Director of City Plans and the Director of Legal Services

SUBJECT:

Co-management Principles - Major Road Network

 

PLEASE NOTE: All appendices (A-D) on file in City Clerk’s Office.

RECOMMENDATION

COMMENTS

POLICY

Council has established a number of transportation policies which are summarized in the Background section of this report.

PURPOSE

The establishment of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (GVTA) provides a strong basis of regional governance and funding of the region’s transportation system. The road component of the regional transportation system is defined by the Major Road Network (MRN). This enables the region to play a role in the management of the overall road system, which has traditionally been under the jurisdiction of the Province and municipalities.

The provincial responsibilities for the management of its roads remains clear in that the remaining provincial highways system (after devolution of a substantial portion of the network to the municipalities) is solely under the jurisdiction of the Province. The management of the Major Road Network is less clear in that it involves a sharing of responsibilities and decision-making between the municipalities, which continue to own and operate the roads, and the region, through the GVTA, which has an interest in coordination.

The purpose of this paper is to outline some proposals developed by City staff which begin to define the co-management of the MRN in a manner which addresses both regional and municipal interests. There are two aspects to this proposal:

· a set of principles which define the co-management of the MRN

· a process which applies these principles

These principles have been reviewed by GVTA staff and there is general agreement.

BACKGROUND

There are several points of reference which provide a means of developing the co-management principles. These are outlined below:

Bill 36

Bill 36 is the legislation which establishes the GVTA. The legislation provides for the designation of a Major Road Network (MRN) comprised of “an integrated system of highways throughout the transportation service region”. This network was to be designated by the GVTA (by by-law) on or before December 31, 1998. Furthermore, the Authority must have the consent of a municipality to add a road to the MRN, but municipal consent is not required to remove it.

At its December 11, 1998 meeting, the Authority did establish an initial MRN. However, the Network was somewhat incomplete because several municipalities placed conditions on their designation. The City of Vancouver did not designate a Network but sought to better define the system of co-management principles prior to submitting a list of roads for designation (Appendix A).

The legislation further states that once in the MRN, a municipality must abide by the following:

· it must not, without the approval of the Authority, take, authorize, or permit any action that would reduce or limit the capacity of the Network to move people;

· it must comply with the management, operation, construction and maintenance standards established by the Authority; and,

· a municipality cannot unilaterally remove a roadway from the MRN.

With respect to the first point, the Authority has requested that the term “or limit” be removed from the legislation. The phrase “or limit” could be interpreted as giving the Authority more power than was intended by the parties. Provincial representatives have given assurances that an amendment will be made at the next sitting of the legislation to correct this concern. The specific proposed amendments are as follows:

1. Delete “or limit” from Section 21 (1)

2. Add a Section 21 (1.1) as follows:

These two amendments, once enacted, would bring the legislation in line with the governance principles approved by the GVRD Board early in 1998, and would give some greater certainty to the role of municipalities.

Transportation Funding and Governance - Major Road Principles

Another reference point for developing a set of co-management principles for the MRN is the twenty principles outlined in the GVRD Board Report dated February 13, 1998. A summarized version of the GVRD Principles is in Appendix B.

While these principles were adopted by the GVRD, there has not been a formal review of the legislation and approval by the GVTA Board except for some notable exceptions. These include:

· On October 19, 1998, the GVTA Board resolved: “Direct RAAC and MRTAC to give further investigation to, and, if necessary, develop a dispute resolution process recognized by all the local municipalities for those roads proposed by a municipality, but which have not achieved a consensus agreement for inclusion in the Major Road Network.”

· On December 11, 1998, the GVTA Board resolved: “That staff be directed to develop a process for GVTA - Municipal Review of proposals for changes to roads in the MRN which would affect people-moving capacity, to include:

· On December 19, 1998, the GVTA Board resolved: “The role of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, with respect to roads, should be limited to achieving overall co-ordination, planning and funding of the Major Road Network. GVTA funding will be conditional on meeting certain criteria, but the autonomy of the local municipality with respect to decisions concerning the 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.”

MRTAC Guidelines for Establishing the MRN

Section 17 of the GVTA Act stipulates that “The Authority must establish guidelines, consistent with the Authority’s purpose, for identifying highways in the transportation service region as major roads”. As a result, the Major Roads Technical Advisory Committee (MRTAC) developed a set of guidelines for establishing the MRN. These guidelines, outlined in Appendix C, were approved by the GVTA Board at its December 11, 1998 meeting.

Liveable Region Strategic Plan/Transport 2021

The legislation establishing the GVTA was very clear in its intent to provide a strong linkage between regional land-use planning (responsibility of the GVRD) and regional transportation planning (responsibility of the GVTA). The GVTA Act clearly expressed it in its purpose statement as follows: “The purpose of the Authority is to provide a regional transportation system that moves people and goods, and supports the regional growth strategy and, the air quality objectives and economic development of the transportation service region.”

Furthermore, the GVTA is required under the legislation to develop a transportation strategic plan within 2 years. This plan must be approved by the GVRD Board in order to ensure consistency with the regional land-use plans, including the Livable Region Strategic Plan. As a result, several related transportation principles in the strategic plan provide guidance in the co-management of the MRN. These include the following:

1. Pursue Transportation Demand Management as a fundamental transportation requirement for achieving the goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan.

2. Increase transportation choice by:

3. Place priority on walking, cycling, public transit, goods movement and then the automobile.

Transport 2021 notes that the region’s population will grow by 70% over the next 30 years (1.6 to nearly 3.0 million) and this will increase travel demand. This increase in travel demand will result in increases in all modes of transportation. For example, in the morning rush hour, car drivers will increase from 220,000 (1991 level) to 350,000 if the Plan is followed (410,000 drivers if we maintain current trends). Similarly, transit riders will increase from 50,000 (1991 level) to 130,000 under Transport 2021 (80,000 if we maintain current trends). Clearly, the MRN will need to play a greater role in meeting the transportation needs.

OTHER ISSUES

There are two other issues which are not well defined and require some further discussion. These include the concept of “people moving capacity” and “standards for the management, operation, construction and maintenance” of the MRN.

People Moving Capacity

A key component of the Act is a restriction on municipal actions that reduce 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, and congestion as measured by levels of service. People moving capacity is an important and positive direction in that it recognizes the true purpose of the MRN (or any transportation system) is to move people and goods, not just vehicles.

Because people moving capacity is a new concept, there is uncertainty as to how to interpret and measure the “capacity to move people”. For example, two possible ways to measure capacity include:

· people moving capacity could be a future value where the roadway is at capacity in the traditional vehicle sense and the mix of cars, buses, bicycles, etc. have all available seating fully occupied.

· people moving capacity could mean the volume of people carried on the current mix of cars, buses, bicycles, etc., at the time the roadway is designated as part of the MRN and using existing vehicle occupancies.

The conditions under the first definition are not acceptable in that vehicular congestion could rise to unacceptable levels. Under this interpretation, any introduction of new means to move people, such as adding LRT, would not necessarily allow for a reduction in vehicular capacity. It would merely increase the overall capacity to move people, and congestion would likely return to high (or higher) levels.

Similarly, the second definition is problematic in that it does not recognize the population growth projected for the region, and the increasing demands on the transportation system, including the MRN, to move people. It is unreasonable to give a municipality powers to limit the capacity to move people at current levels.

Neither definition is satisfactory and new concepts must evolve if we are to understand people moving capacity.

Land use is an important consideration in that rates of population and job growth in the region as well as travel demand will vary depending upon the geographic location and projected population and job targets. For example, the demands to move people and goods in the growth concentration area, will be different from those locations outside the area. Similarly, there is a greatly reduced ability of those municipalities within the growth concentration area to improve or expand the MRN to move vehicles. These municipalities must rely on accommodating growth through a significant increase in transit ridership.

It is also important that people moving capacity allow the implementation of a new bus service in an exclusive bus lane or on-street LRT on a segment of the MRN. Even though these measures decrease vehicle capacity, they would increase people moving capacity. However, should this increase in overall people moving capacity then allow for strategies which would enable decreases in the capacity to move vehicles? For example, should it be possible to remove a lane of general traffic, recognizing that this would not fully offset any large incremental transit increase in people moving capacity? Any principles of co-management need to address this potential.

The implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies also needs to be factored into the discussion on people-moving capacity. TDM are those actions which reduce the demand for transportation services through discouraging certain trips, changing trip-making behaviour, or increasing the occupancy of vehicle (van pooling). Clearly, certain TDM strategies give rise to actions which reduce vehicular usage, but do not decrease people moving capacity.

On the basis of the above, it is proposed that a new term be defined called the “maximum desired capacity”. This is the planned people moving capacity at any point in time which achieves the communities and regions land use and transportation objectives. Its calculated value along a corridor at any point in time would be based on the Region’s Livable Strategic Plan and the Municipal-Regional Context Statement.

The principles in the co-management of the MRN need to recognize that people moving capacity is a complex dynamic concept. It is a concept which should allow for increases in the ability to accommodate growth in travel, but in ways which keep congestion at acceptable levels. This gives rise to the term maximum desired capacity. In order to achieve this objective, people moving capacity may increase although there may be a reduction in vehicular volumes through the use of TDM strategies, roadway adjustments, improved goods movement strategies or transit priority measures.

Standards

The GVTA is required to establish standards for the management, operation, construction and maintenance of the MRN. The meaning of the terms, in particular “management” and “operation”, is open to interpretation. It is possible that these words could be interpreted broadly, thereby giving the GVTA broad policy to set standards on such things as parking restrictions, signal timing, etc. On the other hand, discussions to date suggest that the standards will be limited and general in nature. The approval of the GVTA Board of the December 19 principle establishing municipal autonomy clarifies this interpretation somewhat.

As a result, it is important to establish the co-management principles in a way that respects municipal authority to manage and operate the Major Road Network as long as it does not reduce people carrying capacity. Consistent with this principle, certain operating characteristics such as parking controls, general traffic signal timing patterns, roadway markings, pedestrian priority measures, etc. are under local control and should only be adjusted by the municipality (as long as people moving capacity is maintained or enhanced).

PRINCIPLES FOR CO - MANAGEMENT OF THE MAJOR ROAD NETWORK

In order to guide the co-management of the Major Road Network, it is recommended that the following overall objective be considered by the GVTA.

To develop a transportation system which supports the Livable Region Strategic Plan by providing required mobility and accessibility for a strengthened economy and planned growth, while preserving and improving livability and the environment.

The Major Road Network will play a strategic role in fulfilling this objective, provided that we can define how the MRN is to be managed in terms of meeting the needs for both the municipalities and the region.

It is clear that we have a strong basis of municipal control and management of the MRN based on the previous GVTA approved policy statement:

“The role of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, with respect to roads, should be limited to achieving overall coordination, planning and funding of the Major Road Network. GVTA funding will be conditional on meeting certain criteria, but the autonomy of the local municipality with respect to decisions concerning the municipally owned roads within its boundaries, should be absolute excepting only the case were a municipality wishes to decrease the person-trip capacity of an element of the Major Road Network.”

In support of this policy, it is proposed that the following principles be adopted by the City and ultimately by the GVTA as the basis of co-management of the Major Road Network:

1. The people moving capacity at any point in time is defined as the number of people moved along a corridor by all modes of transportation, and given the prevailing mix of traffic including transit riders, vehicle occupancies, pedestrians, and cyclists, etc.

2. So long as the people moving capacity is not reduced from levels current at the time of municipal action, the municipality may act reasonably to manage the impacts of transportation activity on its MRN streets as it sees fit.

3. The GVTA through its Strategic Transportation Plan should establish, at least every 5 years, in partnership with the municipalities, the maximum desired capacity at any point in time within the MRN transportation corridors in a manner which is consistent with the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the Municipal-Regional Context Statement.

4. The GVTA will be charged with the responsibility for establishing a monitoring plan to ensure that the measured growth in people moving capacity is consistent with the maximum desired capacity targets established in the GVTA Transportation Strategic Plan. These will be reported out on an annual basis.

5. The ability to move goods on the MRN should be preserved and enhanced, if possible, in order to achieve economic objectives.

6. Municipalities will be encouraged to plan, manage and operate the MRN within their boundaries in a manner which supports the maximum desired capacity targets established in the GVTA Transportation Strategic Plan.

7. In exercising co-management of the MRN, municipalities or the region may choose to limit the growth in a corridor which is in excess of the maximum desired capacity targets established in the GVTA Strategic Transportation Plan. This would be done in order to preserve the Regional Transportation Plan and/or the local community interests. The actions exercised by the GVTA would be through TDM measures, either applied within the corridor or regionally. The actions exercised by the municipalities could be through physical or operational adjustments to the MRN network.

8. The people moving capacity of the Major Road Network will be enhanced as a first priority through the improvement of pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and goods movement facilities, and single occupant vehicles as a lesser priority.

9. The GVTA cannot unilaterally impose a requirement for a municipality to increase the people moving capacity of the MRN.

10. At times when significant increases in people moving capacity are introduced along a corridor (eg. rapid transit), reductions in SOV capacity may be introduced as long as the overall capacity to move people in a given period before the actions are taken is the same or greater after the actions are taken.

11. A limitation in people moving capacity is measured at the time of the decision to limit. For example, increases in capacity through new transportation services may be offset by limitations at the time of the increase in capacity or at a later date, but if at a later date growth has occurred, people moving capacity will be that which exists at the time of the limitation.

12. The standards for the management, operation, construction and maintenance of the MRN shall be general in order to maintain the functionality of the network. The standards must also reflect municipal autonomy in these areas as long as municipal actions do not reduce the capacity of the MRN to move people.

13. Failure to operate and maintain a roadway within the MRN in accordance with the standards, will result in a loss of funding for that roadway within the MRN. Similarly, failure to construct a roadway in accordance with the standards will result in a loss of funding for the construction project.

An example on how these principles operate is shown in Appendix D.

PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTING CO-MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

There needs to be a defined process upon which the co-management principles of the MRN are implemented. This process is defined as follows:

1. GVTA to establish maximum desired capacity targets on at least a 5-year basis, consistent with the Livable Region Strategic Plan and Municipal Regional Context Statements, including the development of an annual monitoring plan.

2. The region, or a municipality, may signal its intention to limit the increase in capacity in a corridor at any time and the limitation shall be based on one of the following three criteria:

3. A municipality or region must indicate its intention to limit capacity in the corridor during planning of the new facility if it is to exercise this option (so it can be determined if it is worthwhile to proceed with the new facility).

4. When a municipality indicates its intention to limit capacity, it shall submit the proposal for limitation to the GVTA, including sufficient detail, that it can be technically evaluated. The GVTA and the municipality will jointly obtain public input on the proposal to limit capacity. Following review of the proposal, the parties will seek to obtain agreement on its impact and to evaluate it against the principles for co-management of the MRN as outlined above. The GVTA will then advise the municipality whether it agrees with the proposal.

5. If agreement is not reached, the proposal will be evaluated by a third party who will make recommendations to both the GVTA and the municipality.

The same general process will apply to the GVTA when it seeks to limit capacity to move people system-wide or within a corridor through Transportation Demand Management measures. Again, the parties will document the information, seek public opinion, evaluate the proposal and to seek agreement. If agreement is not obtained, the proposal will also be evaluated by a third party who will make recommendations to both the GVTA and impacted municipalities.

SUMMARY

The proposed Principles of Co-management, including the process for application of the principles, lend greater definition to “people moving capacity” and the management of the MRN. Municipalities will be allowed to manage their roadways as long as they don’t reduce the people moving below the maximum desired capacity targets established jointly with the GVTA. Similarly, municipalities can take steps to reduce people carrying capacity if growth exceeds the targets or if a large increment of new capacity is added to a corridor, eg. LRT.

These are principles developed by City staff and, if approved by City Council, should be submitted to the GVTA Board for approval. This same agreement should be offered to all other municipalities who have an interest.

* * * * *

ag990126.htm

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

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver