Calgary Regional Partnership Workshop

BC Transit Governance and Funding Experience

Bill Lambert, Manager, Transportation Solutions,

April 16, 2013

BC Transit EvolutionTransit service in BC and involvement of the province has a long history

(unlike Alberta province today with limited exposure):

•1890’s- 1890’s-streetcar service in Vancouver & Victoria as well as interurban

connectors by BC Electric. 1899-streetcar in Nelson-private takeover

•1962- BC Hydro takes over Victoria & Vancouver transit systems from BC Electric

•1972- Province provides subsidy for community transit systems already in existence

•1970’s - Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Bureau of Transit Services-creates Crown

Corporation (Urban Transit Authority(1978) & provincial operating companies (Metro

Transit Operating Company)

•1980’s - BC Transit created as single transit entity covering the province

•1986 - Province involved early in rapid transit--first SkyTrain opened with EXPO 86

being the impetus

•1998 - Separate Transportation Authority and legislation set up for Metro Vancouver in

-TransLink

BC Transit Evolution

• Victoria and Vancouver - Local government responsibility introduced in 1978 with regional transit commissions with provincially-appointed municipal representatives

• Small Systems - Transit Partnership Program established between UTA/BC Transit, local governments and private operating companies (except 5 municipally run systems)

• BC Transit Board of Directors with political and appointed representatives from across province

• Capital infrastructure and vehicles -bulk purchase and design) funded by province and municipalities pay an annual cost for these over life of assets

BC Transit Evolution

• Fares and bus stops set by local municipalities and transit services determined by service plans prepared by BC Transit with local input

• Municipalities pay 54% of operating costs from fares and property taxes

• Marketing, planning, scheduling and operations, contract administration and management functions undertaken by BC Transit with municipalities contributing towards these annual costs

BC Transit Evolution

• Economies of scale with transit functions, specialized services and transit facilities (i.e. structures and designs)provide efficient and effective transit to communities

• Provide range of appropriate level of type of transit services to over 80 communities & greatly ease burden of capital and operating costs

• Integrate transit with other ministries and crowns e.g. Ministry of Transportation in design of roads-transit priority measures and park and ride lots

• Significantly improved mobility and inter-municipal connections in province and related economic development

• Advanced introduction of transit service more quickly and related benefits GHG reductions, economic development etc.

• Earliest systems in Canada to provide transit accessibility, fuel cells

• Developed funding partnerships with regional hospitals

• Improved integration of land use and transit at the regional level

Successes

BC Transit Evolution

• At times local municipalities and /or province have not been able to match desires financially for improved service

• Larger municipalities are seeking more autonomy from provincial control , and want transfer of functions with funding –Victoria, Kelowna, and Nanaimo in particular

• Can allow small municipalities to enter transit without understanding long term impact of costs on a localized budget

Risks

BC Transit EvolutionLearnings for CPR

• Provincial involvement and funding is essential for transit service growth and achieving its benefits –land use integration, economic development, highway transit priority measures, GHG reductions etc.,

• Need to carefully balance provincial, regional and municipal roles

• Great efficiencies can be achieved in joining services regionally-infrastructure and operating savings, improved connectivity, quicker transit service starts, efficiency in functions

• Planning, scheduling, marketing, contract administration, monitoring done together at region versus in individual municipalities

• Municipalities have to have significant financial contributions(i.e. “Skin in the game) of transit systems to act responsibly in terms of service type and growth

• Significant provincial involvement has aided in obtaining federal funds-”BC is first and most successful at the table”

Calgary Regional Partnership Workshop

Example of Work Completed for Increasing Mobility Connections with Same Resources –Scenario 1 to Scenario 2, and Other Analysis

Bill Lambert, Manager, Transportation Solutions, April 16, 2013

Creating a transit system

A B C

CAStep 1Identify connecting points

A B C

CA

Step 2Determine Basic Route, and connecting patterns

Creating a transit system

29.5 km

19.5 km10 km

Step 3Determine Distance of Route

A B C

CA

Creating a transit system

39.3 kph

33.4 kph24 kph

Step 4Determine Running Speed which allows calculation of a round time A B C

CA

Some local roads, some highway

Mostly highway with some local road

Mostly highway

Creating a transit system

45 min

35 min25 min

Step 5Determine Round Trip Time based on average speed estimate A B C

CA

Creating a transit system

Step 6Create a basic running

sheet that shows the number of buses needed to run a service.

Step 7Calculate the daily

running times per bus and multiply by days of the year to get annual service hours

OkotoksCHINOOK 1 - Route A 1:30 Bus 1Lv. Downtown Okotoks 0:05 6:00 7:30 9:00 10:30Ar. Shawnessy LRT 0:40 6:40 8:10 9:40 11:10Lv. Shawnessy LRT 0:05 6:45 8:15 9:45 11:15Av. Downtown Okotoks 0:40 7:25 8:55 10:25 11:55CHINOOK 2 - Route B 1:30 Bus 2Lv. Downtown Okotoks 0:05 6:30 8:00 9:30 11:00Ar. Shawnessy LRT 0:40 7:10 8:40 10:10 11:40Lv. Shawnessy LRT 0:05 7:15 8:45 10:15 11:45Av. Downtown Okotoks 0:40 7:55 9:25 10:55 12:25CHINOOK 3 - Route B 1:30 Bus 3Lv. Downtown Okotoks 0:05 7:00 8:30 10:00 11:30Ar. Shawnessy LRT 0:40 7:40 9:10 10:40 12:10Lv. Shawnessy LRT 0:05 7:45 9:15 10:45 12:15Av. Downtown Okotoks 0:40 8:25 9:55 11:25 12:55

Start FinishExample for Bus 3•7:00 – 12:55 equals 5:55 hours of service•This equals 5.917 hours of service•Multiplied by 251 average weekdays per year•Equates to 1,485 annual service hours

Creating a transit systemStep 8Create a public

timetable version as a base

Lv. D

ownt

own

Oko

toks

Ar. S

haw

ness

y LR

T

Lv. S

haw

ness

y LR

T

Av.

Dow

ntow

n O

koto

ks

6:00 6:40 6:45 7:256:30 7:10 7:15 7:557:00 7:40 7:45 8:257:30 8:10 8:15 8:558:00 8:40 8:45 9:258:30 9:10 9:15 9:559:00 9:40 9:45 10:259:30 10:10 10:15 10:5510:00 10:40 10:45 11:2510:30 11:10 11:15 11:55

Commuter Route BOkotoks

Step 9Alternatives Analysis – Revise timetable based on potential demand to create trip scenarios

Dea

dhea

d to

S

omer

set L

RT

Lv. D

ownt

own

Oko

toks

Ar. S

omer

set-

Brid

lew

ood

LRT

Lv. S

omer

set-

Brid

lew

ood

LRT

Dea

dhea

d to

O

koto

ks

Av.

Dow

ntow

n O

koto

ks

- 6:35 7:15 7:20 7:50 -- 7:05 7:45 7:50 8:20 -- 7:35 8:15 8:20 8:50 -- 7:55 8:35 8:40 9:10 -- 8:25 9:05 9:10 9:40 -- 8:55 9:35 9:40 10:10 -

14:30 - 15:00 15:05 - 15:4515:00 - 15:30 15:35 - 16:1515:30 - 16:00 16:05 - 16:4515:50 - 16:20 16:25 - 17:0516:20 - 16:50 16:55 - 17:3516:50 - 17:20 17:25 - 18:05

OkotoksRoute to LRT

Step 10Create Trip and Schedule Alternatives

Dea

dhea

d to

S

omer

set L

RT

Lv. D

ownt

own

Oko

toks

Ar. S

omer

set-

Brid

lew

ood

LRT

Lv. S

omer

set-

Brid

lew

ood

LRT

Dea

dhea

d to

Oko

toks

Av.

Dow

ntow

n O

koto

ks

- 6:35 7:15 7:20 7:50 -- 7:05 7:45 7:50 8:20 -- 7:35 8:15 8:20 8:50 -- 7:55 8:35 8:40 9:10 -- 8:25 9:05 9:10 9:40 -- 8:55 9:35 9:40 10:10 -- 9:45 10:25 10:30 11:00 -- 11:05 11:45 11:50 12:20 -- 12:25 13:05 13:10 13:40 -- 13:45 14:25 14:30 15:00 -

14:30 - 15:00 15:05 - 15:4515:00 - 15:30 15:35 - 16:1515:30 - 16:00 16:05 - 16:4515:50 - 16:20 16:25 - 17:0516:20 - 16:50 16:55 - 17:3516:50 - 17:20 17:25 - 18:05

Added

to LRT OnlyOkotoks

Other Research for Service Scenarios-Comparison

Scenario 2 versus 1Capital Costs •Able to save in maintenance facilities and exchanges –e.g. common design, one heavy maintenance facility•Bulk bus purchases , bus stops and exchanges/terminals

• Administrative Costs•Planning ,contract management, marketing/branding, scheduling, performance monitoring•Stronger force-addressing railways, City of Calgary, provincial and federal funding, fare integration

• Enhanced Planning –issues like regional commuter rail service

• Consistent private sector contracting and performance monitoring

Other Research for Service Scenarios-Comparison

Scenario 2 versus 1

• Expanded Service Growth and related benefits-economic development, community connectivity, environment, mode share and ridership

• Operating Costs-greater efficiency-savings, more service in terms of connections, trips, and frequency

• Increased seamlessness for customers

• Smart Growth and TOD and overall land use integration

Other Research for Service Scenarios-Financing Principles

• Considers direct and indirect benefits

• Understandable and comprehensive

• Applies to all

• Existing transit investments

• Likely provincial and federal funding

• Short and long term plans

• All capital and operating costs

• Municipal ability to pay

• Municipalities leaving and entering

• Everyone makes some contributions

Other Research for Service Scenarios-Governance Options

• Enhanced municipal cooperation

• Inter-municipal partnership

• Regional controlled agency

• Controlled corporation

• Regional transit services commission

Other Research Required-Governance and Funding options

• More research and work required to move forward on implementation of regional Governance and Financing models

• Bow Valley-even after had determined regional transit commission

• Needed to answer questions • Details of governance structure• Particulars of financing• Operating bylaw• How handle new members