Pondering TransLink
I spent the weekend reading and digesting the TransLink governance review. First off, I can guarantee you that Marlene Grinnell did indeed write this report with her own hand--Langley City mayors are the only people who refer to Langley Township and City as "the Langleys." Everyone else just calls it "Langley." But I digress.The review is interesting, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. Top of my list is the relationship between the provincial Minister of Transportation and TransLink. As we have seen in recent years, things get complicated when a Minister disagrees with the TransLink Board. I think the review needs a clear statement on that relationship. Ultimately, the transportation buck in this province stops with the Minister, and that should be reinforced. He should have the power to mediate in any disagreement between the mayors and the board.
That being said, the call for a 30-year transportation vision is shortsighted, in my opinion. I'd like to see a 50-year vision. The rolling ten-year plans are great, but we need to look further down the road. At a recent Langley Township Council meeting, TransLink staff presented their draft South Fraser plan, which looked out to 2031. By the time that plan is adopted, there will be just 20 years until it's completed. We cannot be shortsighted in this area. In fact, Grinnell herself writes, "our economic, social and environmental health depends on whether we have the foresight to anticipate and serve significant transportation needs over the next 30 to 60 years and beyond." That 30-year view is too short.
I have concerns about how disagreement between the Council of Mayors and TransLink Board will be remedied. Grinnell's plan calls for a 90-day window where mayors will have to read, understand, digest, and ultimately choose among whatever options the TransLink Board comes up with.
First, a practical suggestion: that 90-day debate period needs to be in the second half of the year. Mayors and councils get busy with municipal budgets, and this will consume a lot of attention.
Don't underestimate the political ramifications that will come out of this. I suspect a number of mayoralty candidates will seize on an incumbent's TransLink record in the next campaign.
Second, 90 days does not leave much time for public consultation. From reading the report, I glean that the unelected Board will handle open houses on plan options. This is a bit odd; an unelected group dealing with the public. That will need to be worked out.
Third, 90 days on something as complicated as a billion dollar transportation plan is a short time to get approval. It'll feel even shorter once the reality of having 30 mayors sitting at the table kicks in.
There has been much gnashing of teeth among municipal leaders on the suggestion that TransLink should have the right to "ensure timely implementation of major capital projects, without being captive to municipal zoning or permitting approvals."
I suspect this would be a rarely used clause. To be honest, most of the elected officials bristling at this idea would admit that there are certain places (in other communities, naturally) where regional transportation good has been sacrificed for parochial concerns. We'll need to keep a close eye on how this recommendation proceeds.
Municipal politicians also worry about a recommendation that TransLink "should be given the authority to generate revenue through development of property along its transit lines."
It's too early to know the full impact of this. The theory is that TransLink could generate revenue by developing land around (and above) its rapid transit stations. That's almost back to British Columbia’s frontier days, when rail companies were given thousands and thousands of acres of land in return for building lines. It's a classic form of funding transportation infrastructure. We'll definitely need to keep an eye on this: I think we all want TransLink to find non-tax revenue, but whether this is the best way will remain to be seen. Certainly, TransLink's development process must be subject to the same municipal standards and zonings as any other development.
Scrapping the parking stall tax sounds good, although it will be more than made up by higher property tax. What I'd really like to see is a system where areas that have poor access to TransLink services pay less than those who have a lot of service. This would bring it closer to a user-pay model. Why should Chilliwack taxpayers, which will be lucky to see a few buses a day, pay the same as Vancouver?
This may sound negative, but they are merely suggestions as we go forward. The plan itself is an intriguing one--I certainly didn't support the previous governance model, which had communities like Langley, Delta, and White Rock sharing a TransLink Board rep, while Surrey and Vancouver had multiple appointees. Something had to change.
Grinnell makes one key point that we need to remember in transportation: "Everything we do in our economy can be done by a competitor. So, we must be competitive. Transportation networks… are all necessary to ensure our economy is efficient."
I look forward to rolling up my sleeves and, as a municipal leader, being as helpful in this reorganization process as possible.
2 Comments:
We all know that too many cooks spoil the broth, so is thete really any difference in having such a large group of mayors involved. We have already learned that they are screw ups from the history of translink to date.
If you check the Gateway Program website it states that the Port Mann Bridge is congested for 13 hours per day. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon has now inflated that figure to "more than 14 hours per day". The Vancouver Sun has parroted this information in their Gateway editorial. At a Ministry of Transportation open house I questioned the origin of the congestion figure and asked how much of the congestion is attributable to stalls or accidents. The MOT engineers were unable to provide me with an answer.
I live in the immediate vicinity of Highway #1 and the bridge and see traffic conditions often. Outside of traditional rush hour times the traffic is frequently free flowing unless there is an accident. In the last twelve days I have used the bridge three times during the middle of the day and have traveled from Surrey to Coquitlam at 20 km/hr above the the posted speed limit each time.
At MOT open houses and meetings it has been publicly stated by MOT officials that the expanded Port Mann capacity "will become congested within 10 years". Deputy Project Director Ian Rokeby has said publicly "we know we can't build our way out of congestion".
In the case of the South Fraser Perimeter Road the present Gateway solution is fraught with dangers to the public, to neighbourhoods and to the environment.
In the MOTs' submission to the Environmental Assessment Office the government has stated there is increased risk of mortality, respiratory disease, decrease in lung function and possible increase in lung cancer with increased exposure to diesel particulate matter. There are more than 15 elementary schools in close proximity to the SFPR.
The MOT submission also states the road will cross 110 streams and watercourses but there are no mitigating measures proposed for storm water run-off, no cumulative effects assessment (CEA) and direct footprint impact assessment has been limited to a 60m wide corridor, yet many thousands of trucks per day are proposed to use the road.
In addition there are property expropriation and noise issues.
Alternative solutions have been proposed. They include ideas such as expanding existing truck routes to connect truck traffic to the US border and to eastern Canada through highway #15. Increasing train use for container movement is cost effective and would reduce the need for trucks. A skytrain connection between the Expo line and Evergreen line through Guildford and across the Fraser River to Coquitlam Centre would service the huge number of commuters between the two areas. Increase transit to business parks which employ about 8 percent of all workers in the lower mainland.
Mr. Falcon thinks the Gateway Program meets the needs of the region and the governments' environmental goals. Gateway, in its' present form will be a damaging and short term solution. He need only talk to his staff and read the Ministry reports to know that.
Post a Comment
<< Home