9 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Translink is on the way out, though, with a Victoria model (single transit panel lead by mayors and a few "experts") being the best option. I'm not 100% on that but I believe that's what I heard.

[UrbanRail]

In regards to a new transit entity.
I feel that the board members shouldnt just be made up of politicans (the current model isnt working well).

You need representatives from community groups (like the environment, social and transportation), the business community, the media, perhaps developers, local experts (transportation planning for example), key members of our various councils, provincial government etc.

Non of the transit commission members take transit, so any discision made wont affect them (except when it comes to election time).

This may sound far fetched, but I feel it could work.

Aaron

[Mike K.]

I believe the new transit board in Vancouver will have mayors from some of the munis in the GVRD and then a group of "experts," which could mean legal experts, planning experts, economics experts, etc.

[renthefinn]

I don't entirely understand the provinces decision to re-shape Translink, as they have held two positions on translinks board, but never filled them. Now they are transgressing in some sense by having a provincially appointed "expert Panel" and mayors. That sort of sounds kinda like what we have in Victoria, though maybe not as extreme. What the province should have done is fill their positions in the board, and then decisions would've automatically favoured the provincial interest. This could be followed in other cities in the province after proven. Falcon is just upset that there is so much opposition to expanding highways to his riding, and hence, devaluing his profits from his large land ownership in Cloverdale, that he's disbanding translink to further his profits. Cloverdale's a shithole, and why should the province be pumping money in to make it a suburban waste of land shithole!

[Galvanized]

Translink Changes Announced
Mar, 08 2007 - 1:00 PM

VANCOUVER - A report on the future of Translink recommends sweeping changes.
It says the current model is no longer effective.
A new governance and funding model to better serve the Lower Mainland is now being called for.
As we have have been reporting, there will be a council of mayors to focus on big picture issues over the course of a ten year plan.
There will be a seperate Translink board of professionals with the expertise to oversee planning, construction and operation of the regional transporation system.
The report says a sustainable funding network should be put in place.
The report recommends axing the hated parking site tax, but also giving the council of mayors the authority to increase fuel taxes within the Translink service area by up to three cents per litre "in the coming years"

- CKNW

[Galvanized]

From what I've read so far they are going back to a similar system prior to Translink. That's where BC Transit prepared reports for the politicians to vote on, essentially a rubber stamping process. They've made the old system better two ways. One, each mayor is on the board ensuring each municipality has a voice and two given the board broader powers in terms of funding. These two changes are exactly what needs to been done here in Victoria.

[obscurantist]

I don't really see any improvements in the plan announced this week. TransLink already did have broader funding powers than BC Transit, but it needed provincial approval to exercise those powers, and the province turned down in early 2001 a vehicle levy that TransLink had passed in late 2000, and only reluctantly approved a parking stall tax more recently.

Worth noting in relation to the "council of mayors" is the potential extension of TransLink's mandate to municipalities going out into the Fraser Valley (Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Hope) and north (Squamish, Pemberton, Whistler). There's 21 mayors in the GVRD, but as many as 30 mayors proposed for the "council." The main purpose of this seems to be to water down the influence of the core municipalities like Vancouver, Burnaby, and New West -- to ensure more certainty in transit decision-making by ensuring that the suburbs will always get the upper hand. Sort of a stealth mega-merger.

As you say, Galvanized, the council of mayors is a rubber-stamp process, made more so by the fact that there will be two separate boards, the mayors confining themselves to broad long-term planning and the board of "experts" (presumably appointed by the province, although only on the basis of their "expertise," of course :roll: ) making the more concrete decisions of how to carry out the long-term plans.

It's a question of how much real autonomy the province is prepared to give to the authority, and we don't know how well a transit authority would function if it had true autonomy, because every time it's tried to assert itself (with the levy, with RAV, and with Gateway) the province has come down on it like a ton of bricks. We're seeing a repetition here of what happened when the Vancouver region started planning a light rail line in the early '80s.

[G-Man]

Yes there will be a council of mayors but the voting is waited by population do Squamish will not out vote Vancouver.

[obscurantist]

Yes, it apparently will be weighted by population, but the addition of Whistler-area and Fraser Valley municipalities still has the effect of reducing the core municipalities' influence.

It'd be a bit like adding the Cowichan Valley regional district and Gulf Islands (the latter of which I realize are already within the CRD, although not the Victoria transit service area) as voting members of a Greater Victoria transit authority. Only much more so, given the larger population figures of the Fraser Valley municipalities relative to the Cowichan Valley ones.

In either example, you could certainly make the case for such an expansion on the basis that many people already commute between the CRD / CVRD / Gulf Islands and FVRD / GVRD / Whistler area. But in either example, I would expect to see more of an emphasis on long-range inter-city (and inter-regional) transit than exists at present, and (even) less of an emphasis on improving transit in the urban core.

As I mentioned elsewhere, Richard Campbell observes on the Livable Region listserve that according to the funding scenario proposed by the [url=http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/translinkreview/documents/TranslinkReport_070126.pdf:16469]governance review[/url:16469] (this document is a 60-page PDF file -- you can also access it through [url=http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/translinkreview:16469]this[/url:16469] page), the start date for building the Burnaby / Coquitlam / Port Moody light rail line would be delayed from 2007 until 2010. The start of the construction of the Millennium Line extension along Broadway would be delayed from 2014 to 2018. There's nothing about when the badly needed 500 or so buses would be on the road.

Pg. 50:

For the period through 2013, the total expenditure projection is comparable to that in TransLink’s 10-year outlook, with the exception of the start of construction on the Evergreen Line being delayed to 2010, the provincial contribution towards the project remaining at the $170 million already announced, and lower debt servicing charges as a result of maintaining a lower reserve in the initial years. A reserve requirement based on maintaining an amount equal to one year’s interest and principal repayment is assumed. This would be a typical reserve requirement for an entity like TransLink. After 2013, total expenditures – except for those associated with the Evergreen Line and an extension of the Millennium Line – are assumed to increase by an average of 3.3% per year. Expenditure projections also assume that a 6 km Millennium Line extension (westward) would be built between 2018 and 2021 at a cost of approximately $850 million, of which TransLink would be responsible for 40%, with the balance coming from senior governments. It is further assumed that any replacement of the Pattullo Bridge would be paid for through tolls.

This is just the report, of course, and doesn't necessarily reflect how the province will act on it. It could be that the federal government will have additional money for one or both of these projects when they make a "Canada Ecotrust" funding announcement in Vancouver tomorrow.

Anyway, hopefully working back toward the topic of how this is relevant for Victoria, another facet of the changes to TransLink is that they appear to cut the regional district out of its governance. Previously, major decisions had to be approved by the GVRD board, and there was some effort to make decisions in line with the region's growth strategy.

While the inclusion of some land-use powers (e.g. overriding municipal zoning, and developing land around rapid transit stations) is a step toward harmonizing land-use and transportation policy, I would prefer to see those powers under the control of a regional government, whether it's the current regional district or a merged mega-city, rather than the quasi-privatized hybrid that TransLink seems to be evolving into. And I think that would go for the CRD as well as for the GVRD.

[renthefinn]

^What! You don't like the idea of provincially appointed sim-city players planning our cities?

Maybe if you were a more outstanding sim-city player, you could have had your job shifted to the provincial city planning division (I made that up).