gvrd board meeting agenda package - october 12, 2012 - revised · resume the process of evaluating...

October 10, 2012

Sequence of Board Meetings Board meetings generally occur in the following order, up to a maximum of eight. Not all meetings may be scheduled. 1. GVRD open meeting for parks items 2. GVRD closed meeting for parks items 3. GVRD open meeting for non-parks items 4. GVWD open meeting 5. GVS&DD open meeting 6. GVRD closed meeting for non-parks items 7. GVWD closed meeting 8. GVS&DD closed meeting.

NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT (GVRD)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

9:00 a.m. Friday, October 12, 2012

2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

R E V I S E D A G E N D A Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable. A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. October 12, 2012 Regular Meeting Agenda

That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for October 12, 2012 as circulated.

B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. September 21, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held September 21, 2012 as circulated.

C. DELEGATIONS D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS E. CONSENT AGENDA

Note: Directors may adopt in one motion all recommendations appearing on the Consent Agenda or, prior to the vote, request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for debate or discussion, voting in opposition to a recommendation, or declaring a conflict of interest with an item. 1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

1.1 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum:

Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy Without Waste That the Board forward the report dated July 4, 2012 and titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum: Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy Without Waste” to member municipalities, and other related agencies for their information and comment.

Section A 1

1.2 Proposed Metro Vancouver Pre-Election Advocacy Strategy

That the Board support the development of a website as a means of advocating for political action/support in specific Metro Vancouver priority areas prior to the May 2013 provincial election.

1.3 Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations That the Board endorse the strategies and actions outlined in the report titled “Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations” dated September 7, 2012

2. ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS REPORTS 2.1 Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study Results

That the Board authorize staff to: a) initiate a review of Metro Vancouver’s ambient air quality objectives for

sulphur dioxide (SO2), and b) work with Port Metro Vancouver and other partners to establish a network of

key SO2 monitoring sites to assess the effectiveness of the Emission Control Area for ships and inform the SO2 objective review.

3. REGIONAL PLANNING AND AGRICULTURE REPORTS 3.1 Comments on Translink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook

That the Board: a) Advise the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation

that: i. the development of alternative mechanisms to fund the remaining

elements of the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan should remain a high priority, and the Mayors Council should be asked to conduct the development of these alternatives jointly with Metro Vancouver;

ii. a new supplemental plan which contemplates rescinding the two-year time-limited property tax increase without the inclusion of a corresponding replacement revenue source will have detrimental effects on the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy and the achievement of regional environmental objectives, and may adversely affect the movement of goods and the sustained economic development in the region;

b) Request that the Provincial Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure resume the process of evaluating all feasible funding sources for regional transportation jointly with Metro Vancouver and TransLink, including the option of directing a portion of any new incremental BC Carbon Tax revenues to Metro Vancouver and TransLink to advance regional climate change and transportation priorities;

c) Establish a memorandum of understanding for Metro Vancouver to work with TransLink on the following initiatives:

i. Joint preparation of the new Regional Transportation Strategy to fully integrate transportation investments and policies with the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and the movement of goods and services for a sustainable economy;

Revised Recommendation

ii. Joint preparation of a regional road pricing strategy with the objectives of generating sustainable revenues and supporting, and not detracting from, the land use shaping and modal choice objectives of the Regional Growth Strategy, and air emissions objectives of the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan;

d) Request that the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation collaborate with Metro Vancouver in the investigation of optimal regional land use and transportation governance models.

3.2 2012 Board Approval of Translink Strategic Priorities Fund Application

That the board: a) endorse the 2012 list of projects that TransLink intends to forward to the

Strategic Priorities Fund Management Committee for approval as Approved Eligible Projects under the Strategic Priorities Fund agreement; and

b) encourage municipalities to write to their local Members of Parliament to include bike lane funding as an eligible project under the Strategic Priorities Fund.

3.3 Consideration of Regional Growth Strategy Compliance - Corporation of

Delta Request to Expand the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area within the Agricultural Designation (Delta Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery, Hawthorne Grove Park) That the Board resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to the subject properties, Delta Engineering Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery and Hawthorne Grove Park sites is consistent with the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy, and that the requested FSA expansion applications proceed for consideration by the GVS&DD Board.

3.4 Regional Growth Strategy - Defining Regional Significance

That the Board endorse the procedure for maintaining consistency and clarity around the application of the concept of “Regional Significance” in implementing the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy, as proposed in the report titled “Regional Growth Strategy - Defining Regional Significance”, dated September 14, 2012.

4. MAYORS’ COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Proposed All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations

That the Board endorse the principles, rationale and next steps for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations, as presented in the report dated September 18, 2012, titled “Proposed All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations”.



5. OTHER REPORTS

5.1 Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – September

2012 That the Board receive for information the report dated October 3, 2012 titled Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – October 2012 containing summaries received from the following delegates:

A. Pamela Zevit, South Coast Conservation Program

5.2 International Regions Benchmarking Consortium (IRBC) Fifth Annual

Conference That the Board authorize the Chair to appoint a Metro Vancouver Director to participate in the Fifth Annual International Regions Benchmarking Consortium (IRBC) conference in Helsinki, Finland, November 27-30 2012, in accordance with the approved 2012 budget and current travel policy.

F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT AGENDA H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

I. OTHER BUSINESS J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Board must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item the basis must be included below.

That the Board close its regular meeting scheduled for October 12, 2012 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) ( k) as follows “90 (1) A part of a board meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter

being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed

provision of a regional district service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the board or committee, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district if they were held in public.”

K. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION

That the Board adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of October 12, 2012.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held on Friday, September 21, 2012 Page 1 of 7

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Board of Directors held at 9:09 a.m. on Friday, September 21, 2012 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Vice Chair, Director Raymond Louie, Vancouver Director Heather Anderson, Anmore Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Brenda Broughton, Lions Bay Director Mike Clay, Port Moody Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Heather Deal, Vancouver Director Sav Dhaliwal, Burnaby Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Helen Fathers, White Rock Director Jack Froese, Langley Township Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Director Linda Hepner, Surrey Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey Director Lois Jackson, Delta Alternate Director Dan Johnston, Burnaby for Derek Corrigan Director Colleen Jordan, Burnaby Director Gayle Martin, Langley City (arrived at 9:10 a.m.) Director Geoff Meggs, Vancouver Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Alternate Director Barinder Rasode, Surrey for Judy Villeneuve Director Mae Reid, Coquitlam Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Michael Smith, West Vancouver Alternate Director Barbara Steele, Surrey for Dianne Watts Director Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Director Harold Steves, Richmond Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Andrew Stone, Bowen Island Director Deb Walters, Pitt Meadows Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster

MEMBERS ABSENT: vacant, Tsawwassen

STAFF PRESENT: Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Administrative Officer’s

Department

Section B 1

Greater Vancouver Regional District - 5


STAFF PRESENT (Continued): Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information

Department Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary/Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information

Department A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1. September 21, 2012 Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for September 12, 2012.

CARRIED

9:10 a.m. Director Martin arrived at the meeting.

Suspension of the Rules The Board was requested to suspend its procedural rules for hearing board delegations. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board temporarily suspend its rules of procedure relative to board delegations at its meeting scheduled for September 21, 2012.

CARRIED Director Deal absent at the vote.

Agenda Order Varied The order of the agenda was varied to consider Section C Delegations at this point. C. DELEGATIONS

4.1 Anticipated Impacts of the Canadian Coast Guard Kitsilano Base Closure Sadhu Johnston, Deputy City Manager, City of Vancouver, on behalf of the Regional Administrative Advisory Committee, provided members with a presentation regarding anticipated impacts of the Canadian Coast Guard Kitsilano Base closure, highlighting the following: · Proposed changes to Canadian Coast Guard service in Vancouver in 2013 · Overview of the current maritime emergency response in Lower Mainland · Key agencies in maritime emergency response; key areas of activity · Vancouver Police Department Marine Unit · Legislative framework for search and rescue in maritime environment · Vessel of opportunity” obligation under the Canada Shipping Act · Coast guard emergency response call types · Kitsilano Canadian Coast Guard Base call statistics · 2011 Coast guard marine and humanitarian incidents · Average annual emergency priority 1& 2 search and rescue calls by

agency



· Staffing and rescue assets and services provided by Kitsilano and Sea Island Canadian Coast Guard; Sea Island’s and Kitsilano’s Canadian Coast Guard Base service areas

· Volunteer rescue services · The proposed federal plan and assessment of the impact of the federal

proposal in the Vancouver area · Conclusions:

o Kitsilano Canadian Coast Guard base closure creates a significant gap

o Current activities of Kitsilano Canadian Coast Guard base are within legislated mandate of Government of Canada and Canadian Coast Guard

o People’s safety will be at risk as a result o The City of Vancouver does not have the resources nor is it the

City’s mandate to fill this gap

Presentation material titled “Anticipated Impacts of the Canadian Coast Guard Kitsilano Base Closure” is retained with the September 21, 2012 GVRD board agenda. Request of staff Staff was requested to email a copy of the presentation to Board members. Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board write a letter to the federal government expressing collective concerns from Metro Vancouver member municipalities, regarding implications to local government from reduced services and advocate to the federal government to: a) take reasonable actions to ensure services being delivered by way of the

Canadian Coast Guard in the Metro Vancouver region, are consistent with regional demands; and

b) develop a broader strategy before consideration is given to reducing services.

It was suggested that the motion be strengthened by requesting the Federal Government preserve the Kitsilano Canadian Coast Guard Base.

Amendment the Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board amend the Main Motion by replacing in section b) the phrase “before consideration is given to reducing services” with the phrase “leaving the Kitsilano Canadian Coast Guard Base station open as a component.”

CARRIED

Question on the Main Motion as Amended Question was called on the Main Motion as amended and it was

CARRIED Director Stewart absent at the vote.



Agenda Order Resumed The order of the agenda resumed. B. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

1. July 27, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the minutes for its regular meeting held July 27, 2012 as circulated.

CARRIED C. DELEGATIONS

This item was previously considered.

D. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.

E. CONSENT AGENDA At the request of Directors, the following item was removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration under Section F Items Removed from Consent Agenda: 2.1 Township of Langley – OCP Amendment for University District It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adopt the recommendations contained in the following items presented in the September 21, 2012 GVRD Board Consent Agenda: 1.1 Greater Vancouver Regional District Air Quality Management Bylaw

No. 1082, 2008 - Staff Appointments; and 3.1 Attendance at the 2012 Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM)

Annual Convention. CARRIED

Director Rasode absent at the vote. The items and recommendations referred to above are as follows:

1.1 Greater Vancouver Regional District Air Quality Management Bylaw

No. 1082, 2008 - Staff Appointments Report dated August 17, 2012 from Ray Robb, Environmental Regulation and Enforcement Division Manager, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, updating staff appointments under the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Regional District Air Quality Management Bylaw No. 1082, 2008.

Recommendation: That the Board, pursuant to the Environmental Management Act and Greater Vancouver Regional District Air Quality Management Bylaw No. 1082, 2008: a) Appoint the following as Officers: Dennis Klick, Natasha Markovic-Mirovic

and Susy Marble; b) Appoint Darrell Wakelin as Assistant District Director; and



c) Rescind Silvano Padovan as Assistant District Director and Officer. Adopted on Consent

3.1 Attendance at the 2012 Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM)

Annual Convention Report dated August 2, 2012 from Gaëtan Royer, Manager, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, seeking Board authorization for Director Maria Harris to attend 2012 Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Annual Convention, being held on September 24 - 28, 2012 at the Victoria Conference Centre in Victoria, BC. Recommendation: That the Board approve the attendance of Director Maria Harris at the 2012 Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) Annual Convention, being held September 24 - 28, 2012 in Victoria, BC; at the estimated costs outlined in the report dated August 2, 2012, titled “Attendance at the 2012 Union of British Columbia Municipalities Annual Convention”.

Adopted on Consent F. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

2.1 Township of Langley – OCP Amendment for University District Report dated August 27, 2012 from Gaëtan Royer, Manager, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, recommending a course of action regarding the Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment proposed by the Township of Langley that permits urban development in the Green Zone as defined in the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) and outside the Urban Containment Boundary as defined in the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) ask the Township of Langley to postpone the site-specific Official

Community Plan amendment Bylaw No. 4947, a bylaw to expand the University District, until completion of its new Township-wide Official Community Plan and submission of a new Township-wide Regional Context Statement, along with concurrent Regional Growth Strategy amendment if necessary, to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance;

b) should the Township of Langley decide to proceed with its site-specific Official Community Plan amendment for the University District at this time, ask that the municipality submit a Regional Context Statement amendment and concurrent Regional Growth Strategy amendment to the Metro Vancouver Board.

CARRIED Director Froese voted in the negative.

G. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF NOT INCLUDED IN CONSENT

AGENDA



1. City of Coquitlam Regional Growth Strategy Amendment – Bylaw Adoption Report dated August 14, 2012 from Jason Smith, Regional Planner, Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department, seeking adoption of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012, which would remove reference to “Conservation and Recreation lands utilized for commercial extensive recreation facilities” from the minor amendment process. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board give third reading to Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012.

CARRIED Directors Meggs and Reimer absent at the vote.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board reconsider, pass and finally adopt Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw No. 1160, 2012.

CARRIED Directors Meggs and Reimer absent at the vote.

2. GVRD Representative on the 2012 – 2013 Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) Executive

Report dated September 4, 2012 from Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary/Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department, seeking election of a member of the GVRD Board of Directors to serve as an appointed member on the Union of British Columbia Municipalities Executive. Chair Moore called for nominations for the position on the 2012 – 2013 Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) Executive. Director Hepner was nominated. Director Hepner consented to the nomination. Chair Moore called a second time and a third time for nominations. Given that no further nominations were received, the call for nominations was closed, and Director Hepner was acclaimed to the position of GVRD representative to serve on the 2012 - 2013 Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) Executive.

H. MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN No items presented.

I. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

J. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

No items presented.



K. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board adjourn its regular meeting of September 21, 2012.

CARRIED (Time: 9:53 a.m.)

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Paulette A. Vetleson, Corporate Secretary

Greg Moore, Chair


6334107

Zero Waste Committee Meeting Date: July 12, 2012

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting Date: September 19, 2012

To: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee From: Simon Cumming, Division Manager, External Outreach and Intergovernmental

Relations, Corporate Relations Department Denise Philippe/Joanne Gauci, Policy Advisors, External Outreach and

Intergovernmental Relations, Corporate Relations Department Date: July 4, 2012 Subject: Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum:

Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy Without Waste That the Board forward the report dated July 4, 2012 and titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum: Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy Without Waste” to member municipalities, and other related agencies for their information and comment. 1. PURPOSE To provide an update on the Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum held throughout the region in March and June 2012 respectively, on the topic of Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy Without Waste. 2. CONTEXT Metro Vancouver’s Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues, hosted in collaboration with local Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade, are high-profile discussions intended to help decision-makers shape the future of the region by presenting a range of views to stimulate fresh thought on regional issues. The post-dialogue forums aim to move from dialogue to action by convening a small group of dialogue participants, subject matter experts and appropriate Metro Vancouver staff and directors to reflect on the outcomes of the dialogues and identify action areas for the consideration of the Metro Vancouver Board and other community organizations. In March, Metro Vancouver hosted a dialogue series on the topic of dematerialization, in which dialogue participants were presented with the following scenario:

Economic growth brings challenges as we attempt to reconcile the consumption of materials with the finite limits of resources extracted from the earth. There is a growing need to increase resource productivity, improve quality of life, and ensure continued economic prosperity that is not based on increased consumption of materials and energy throughput. This need signals significant changes to our current economic system – changes that mark the transition to an economy without waste. What would such a

Section E 1.1


Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy without Waste Zero Waste Committee Meeting Date: July 12, 2012 Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 Page 2 of 6

transition look like? What societal impacts might such a transition entail? What is the role for businesses and organizations, for producers and consumers, in transitioning to a new economic system?

Dialogues were hosted in Surrey (March 6), Vancouver (March 7), the Central Northeast (March 27) and the North Shore (March 28), followed by a post-dialogue forum (June 8). Dematerialization was one of the key themes of Metro Vancouver's 2011 Sustainability Congress, and is an area that congress participants expressed an interest in discussing further. It is also a topic that will figure prominently in the upcoming Metro Vancouver 2012 Zero Waste Conference and the efforts to establish a National Zero Waste Marketing Council. This dialogue series took advantage of an international conference “Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative (SCORAI)” on dematerialization held in Vancouver, securing two international speakers for the March 6 and March 7 panels: Maurie Cohen with the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Peter Victor with York University. The dialogue series also aligned with a special breakfast presentation that featured a panel of international experts, again all visiting Vancouver for the SCORAI conference. In total, 10 subject matter experts were engaged as panelists, and were selected to provide a range of perspectives ranging from macroeconomic analyses to detailed, on-the-ground best practices. Approximately 256 people participated in the dialogues, reflecting a cross-section of key stakeholders and community interests. This included the participation of five Directors and eight elected officials. The March 7 dialogue was webcast – our first live streamed dialogue – and secured 56 additional viewers/participants, with another 157 people viewing the session from the dialogue homepage in the weeks following. A cross-section of 20 key stakeholders and thought leaders joined with key Metro Vancouver staff directors at the post-dialogue forum to reflect on dialogue outcomes and consider ways forward. A summary of the dialogues, which formed the basis for discussions at the post-dialogue forum, can be found attached. A comprehensive transcript of each dialogue (i.e., the Issues Summary Notes) is available on the Metro Vancouver website. 3. KEY THEMES This set of dialogues raised public awareness around what dematerialization is and why it is an important concept for individual citizens, businesses and local governments to consider in their path towards sustainability. Dematerialization and its linkages with concepts such as sustainable materials management and zero waste were also considered, particularly by participants at the post-dialogue forum. A large part of the discussions focused on identifying ways to better align practices, policies and procedures with “closed-loop” principles, where materials are better managed throughout their life cycle. Participants expressed the need to shift perceptions and focus away from “waste management” to “materials management”, to raise awareness around the inefficient use of materials and begin to target reductions in waste generation.


Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy without Waste Zero Waste Committee Meeting Date: July 12, 2012

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 Page 3 of 6

Barriers The dialogues and post-dialogue forum engaged participants in a robust discussion of the complex challenges facing a region striving to transition to an economy without waste. Time was spent discussing the high-level challenges related to creating a societal shift in how we view and manage waste and materials, as well as the real challenges being faced by "on-the-ground" practitioners trying to grow best practices and implement innovative solutions. With respect to facilitating a broader societal shift, the following challenges were identified. Focusing largely on “end of pipe” waste management solutions without regard for

broader sustainable materials management that consider the full life cycle of materials, or waste prevention strategies that address the generation of waste.

Lack of support for alternate models of economic development and well-being (i.e., “the public demands green solutions, but generally don’t want to pay more for those solutions”).

Pricing systems that do not account for externalities or true market price, specifically the cost of pollution and waste management.

A focus on efficiency as a goal without regard for reinvesting efficiency gains in the transition to a more sustainable economy.

Not placing enough value on resources - materials are not valued high enough to keep them in our system longer and products are not designed to last, or for re-use or repair.

Lack of adequate markets for materials currently recovered and available for re-use.

A disconnect between what is happening on the ground within the business community and what policies are in place (or not in place) to support businesses in looking more closely at the sustainability of their operations.

Areas for Action and Collaboration The dialogues generated ideas for action and collaboration in four key areas: advocating for design change; maximizing local material recovery and re-use; influencing production and distribution systems; and encouraging a broad societal shift in consumer and corporate behavior and lifestyle choices. 1. Advocating for design change

1.1. Advocate for product redesign that minimizes waste generation throughout a product’s life cycle and maximizes its durability, adaptability, recyclability, and deconstruction.

1.2. Lobby for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold individual producers responsible for the end-of-life costs associated with their own products.

1.3. Implement an “ideas competition” to encourage product re-design.

1.4. Apply stricter controls to regulate toxicity and, in turn, drive broader design change.


Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy without Waste Zero Waste Committee Meeting Date: July 12, 2012 Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 Page 4 of 6 2. Maximizing local material recovery and re-use

2.1. Target overall reductions in material use and material recovery in specific sectors, e.g., the construction industry; electronics; food packaging and distribution; retail; other?

2.2. Work with the business community to create local space and networks for repurposing, re-use and entrepreneurship, e.g., Maplewood Industrial Park and Strathcona BIA’s Resource Exchange and Resource Park.

2.3. Identify and promote the business and entrepreneurship opportunities related to dematerialization and "closing the loop" (e.g., deconstruction; re-use; recovery).

2.4. Work with the business community to build knowledge around sustainable purchasing and to expand sustainable purchasing practices and waste reduction.

3. Influencing production and distribution systems 3.1. Implement sustainable procurement policies with criteria consistent with

sustainable materials management.

3.2. Explore the opportunities for sharing equipment and joint purchasing between local governments.

3.3. Conduct a product life cycle or material flow assessment for a specific material/product and work with businesses along the supply chain to address inefficiencies.

3.4. Use stricter regulatory and pricing controls to shift the cost of waste management to the manufacturer, possibly targeting industry packaging.

3.5. Consider mechanisms for taxing those that produce and transfer large amounts of waste (transferring burden of waste back to producer).

3.6. Identify and address bylaws and regulatory frameworks that act as barriers to businesses, non-profits and individuals pursuing dematerialization strategies and business opportunities.

3.7. Establish materials reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery targets in capital projects.

3.8. Explore the opportunities to align EPR and other waste minimization programs from other jurisdictions to drive design change.

4. Encouraging a broad societal shift in consumer behaviour and lifestyle choices 4.1. Consider campaigns aimed at changing perceptions around waste, emphasizing its

value as a resource.

4.2. Create an enabling environment for collaborative consumption (e.g., car sharing, resource sharing, eco-industrial hubs and networks) through bylaws and other mechanisms.

4.3. Host public dialogues and other engagement activities to communicate the non-material aspects of well-being.

4.4. Pursue smart growth land use and transportation planning and mobility opportunities that reduce fossil-fuel consumption and lower the carbon footprint of consumers (e.g., Portland “Small House” Initiative).


Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy without Waste Zero Waste Committee Meeting Date: July 12, 2012

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 Page 5 of 6

4.5. Implement a broader system of eco-labeling that communicates the externalities

related to products.

4.6. Include social capital as a key component of corporate reporting.

Encourage broader adoption of zero waste campaigns and waste prevention strategies by sharing information and best practices across municipalities, the business community and other key stakeholders. 4. POST-DIALOGUE FORUM – KEY CONCLUSIONS/NEXT STEPS

A summary of the dialogues was presented to participants at the post-dialogue forum, with the goal of prioritizing actions and exploring roles and projects for Metro Vancouver to pursue in collaboration with others. Participants generally agreed on the four areas for further action noted in the section above (and described in Attachment 1). Participants expressed a need to focus on encouraging a broad societal shift in the way we perceive waste, including a parallel shift from a focus primarily on waste management to integrated approaches that include waste prevention and sustainable materials management, better address the upstream generation of waste. Advocating for design change was viewed as a critical waste prevention strategy to achieve significantly larger waste diversion rates – and an area where collaboration across sectors and stakeholders locally, nationally and internationally is needed. The economic and business opportunities associated with a shift in approaches was also an area of emphasis, particularly opportunities related to local recovery and re-use of materials, re-manufacturing, deconstruction, and influencing production and distribution systems. There was a suggestion to give greater consideration to the use of incentives to alter the consumption of materials. Similarly, some participants from the business community noted the need for policies and regulations that encourage businesses to look at their operations from a sustainability perspective, noting there is currently a disconnect between what is happening on the ground and what policies are in place (or not in place) to support change. Participants also identified specific opportunities for Metro Vancouver to lead. Participants supported an expanded convening and leadership role for Metro Vancouver in facilitating a societal shift, with initiatives such as the annual Zero Waste Conference and the National Zero Waste Marketing Council. There was significant interest in Metro Vancouver leading a design challenge to raise awareness around the need for product re-design – an initiative that is now being considered for the 2012 Zero Waste Conference in September. Other ideas for Metro Vancouver included:

developing and implementing a joint purchasing policy amongst municipalities for large scale materials procurement;

hosting a collaborative consumption website to promote a culture of sharing and re-use (i.e., that identifies what, and where, people could share in the ownership of assets/materials); and

providing kiosks at Waste Transfer Stations where people can leave materials and recover viable materials for re-use/re-sale.

As staff move forward with the implementation of Metro Vancouver’s solid waste management plan, a number of the areas identified for action and collaboration will inform


Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy without Waste Zero Waste Committee Meeting Date: July 12, 2012 Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 Page 6 of 6 important milestones for the 2013 program planning and budget process, including 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.3, 3.4, 3.8, 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4. 5. ALTERNATIVES The Board may:

a) Forward the report dated July 4, 2012 and titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues and Post-Dialogue Forum: Dematerialization: Transitioning to an Economy Without Waste” to member municipalities, and other related agencies for their information and comment.

OR b) Receive this report for information and take no further action. 6. CONCLUSION A key objective of the dematerialization dialogues was to inform and engage on a complex topic – a topic that speaks to the key objectives of Metro Vancouver’s solid waste management plan and our commitment to building a sustainable region. The dialogues and post-dialogue forum identified significant challenges; however, they also successfully illustrated local opportunities and best practices for transitioning to an economy without waste. The series also laid out the evolving international, economic context within which dematerialization is taking place. The best practices that were explored created a shared understanding amongst participants that suggests dematerialization is both possible and potentially profitable. The dialogues and forum also identified a need for greater public adoption of dematerialization practices and behavior, and the need for greater policy support. Important areas for action and collaboration were identified and a number of these will inform key milestones in the implementation of Metro Vancouver’s solid waste management plan. The dialogues and forum discussions will also play a key role in the planning for the Metro Vancouver 2012 Zero Waste Conference and the efforts to establish a National Zero Waste Marketing Council. Attachment: Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues – Summary of Dialogues and

Post-Dialogue Forum. (Orbit # 6334217)


Metro Vancouver Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues

DEMATERIALIZATION: TRANSITIONING TO AN ECONOMY WITHOUT WASTE

SUMMARY OF DIALOGUES

Metro Vancouver hosted four dialogues on the topic of dematerialization: South of the Fraser on March 6, Vancouver on March 7, Central Northeast on March 27 and the North Shore on March 28. This is a summary of the dialogues, including a snapshot of challenges and possible areas for action and collaboration as suggested by dialogue panellists and participants. This summary formed the basis for discussions at the post-dialogue forum held on June 8. Dialogue Panelists:

Maurie Cohen, Associate Professor & Director, Program in Environmental Policy Studies and \ Program in Science, Technology & Society, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and Associate Fellow, Tellus Institute (Mar 6, 7)

Richard Lipsey, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University (Mar 6, 7)

Joji Kumagai, Executive Director, Strathcona Business Improvement Association (Mar 6 and 7)

Juergen Baumann, Director, Environmental Programs, Port Metro Vancouver (Mar 6 and 28)

Peter Victor, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University (Mar 7) Tracy Casavant, Executive Director, Light House Sustainable Building Centre (Mar 7) Vanessa Timmer, Consultant and Executive Director, One Earth Initiative

(Mar 27 and 28) Marc Lee, Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (Mar 27 and 28) Werner Antweiler, Associate Professor, Strategy and Business Economics Division, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia (Mar 27) Sumeet Gulati, Associate Professor, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of

British Columbia (Mar 28) Attendance: Date and Location Participants Opening and Closing Remarks South of the Fraser

March 6, 2012 Eaglequest Coyote Creek Golf Club, Surrey

40 Director Gayle Martin, Councillor, City of Langley Ray Hudson, Communications Manager, Surrey Board of Trade

Vancouver March 7, 2012 Wosk Centre for Dialogue, Vancouver

105 Director Geoff Meggs, Councillor, City of Vancouver

Central Northeast

March 27, 2012 Inn at the Quay, New Westminster

58 Director Mike Clay, Mayor, City of Port Moody Cori Lynn Germiquet, Executive Director, New Westminster Chamber of Commerce

North Shore March 28, 2012 Hollyburn Country Club, West Vancouver

53 Director Michael Smith, Mayor, District of West Vancouver Leagh Gabriel, Executive Director, West Vancouver Chamber of Commerce

Post-Dialogue Forum

June 8, 2012 Metro Vancouver Head Office

28

Attachment 1


2

Challenges Focusing on “end of pipe” waste management solutions without regard for broader

sustainable materials management approaches that consider the full life cycle of materials.

Pricing systems that do not account for externalities or true market price, specifically the cost of pollution and waste management.

A focus on efficiency as a goal without regard for reinvesting efficiency gains in the transition to a more sustainable economy.

Lack of support for alternate models of economic development and well-being (i.e., “the public demands green solutions, but generally don’t want to pay more for those solutions”).

Not placing enough value on resources - materials are not valued high enough to keep them in our system longer and products are not designed to last, or for re-use or repair.

Rising populations, and greater proportion of populations achieving middle-class standards, resulting in increased consumer consumption and greater material and energy output.

Lack of adequate markets for materials currently recovered and available for re-use.

Areas for Action and Collaboration 1. Advocating for design change

1.1. Advocate for the redesign of products that minimizes waste generation throughout a product’s life cycle and maximizes its durability, adaptability, recyclability, and deconstruction.

1.2. Lobby for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold individual producers responsible for the end-of-life costs associated with their own products.

1.3. Implement a design competition to encourage product re-design.

1.4. Apply stricter controls to regulate toxicity and, in turn, drive broader design change.

2. Maximizing local material recovery and re-use 2.1. Target overall reductions in material use and material recovery in specific sectors, e.g.,

the construction industry; electronics; food packaging and distribution; retail; etc.

2.2. Work with the business community to create local space and networks for repurposing, re-use and entrepreneurship, e.g., Maplewood Industrial Park and Strathcona BIA’s Resource Exchange and Resource Park.

2.3. Identify and communicate the business and entrepreneurship opportunities related to dematerialization and closing the loop (e.g., deconstruction; re-use; recovery).

2.4. Work with the business community to build knowledge around sustainable purchasing and to expand sustainable purchasing power and waste reduction efforts.

3. Influencing production and distribution systems 3.1. Implement sustainable procurement policies with criteria consistent with sustainable

materials management.


3

3.2. Explore the opportunities with other local governments for sharing equipment and joint purchasing.

3.3. Conduct product life cycle assessments for targeted products and work with businesses along the supply chain to address inefficiencies.

3.4. Use stricter regulatory and pricing controls to shift the cost of waste management to the manufacturer, possibly targeting industry packaging.

3.5. Consider mechanisms for taxing those that produce and transfer large amounts of waste (transferring burden of waste back to producer).

3.6. Identify and address bylaws and regulatory frameworks that are acting as barriers to businesses, non-profits and individuals pursuing dematerialization strategies and business opportunities.

3.7. Establish materials reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery targets in capital projects.

3.8. Explore the opportunities to align EPR and other waste minimization programs from other jurisdictions to drive design change.

4. Encouraging a broad societal shift in consumer and corporate behaviour 4.1. Develop campaigns to change perceptions of waste, emphasizing its value as a

resource.

4.2. Encourage broader adoption of zero waste campaigns by sharing information and best practices across municipalities, the business community and other key stakeholders.

4.3. Give greater consideration to incentives that would reduce the consumption of materials.

4.4. Nurture collaborative consumption (e.g., car sharing, resource sharing, eco-industrial hubs and networks) through bylaws, information sharing and other mechanisms – consider the establishment of a website to encourage sharing/rental of materials.

4.5. Host public dialogues and other engagement activities to communicate the non-material aspects of well-being.

4.6. Pursue smart growth land use and transportation planning and mobility opportunities that reduce fossil-fuel consumption and lower the carbon footprint of consumers.

4.7. Implement a broader system of eco-labelling that communicates the externalities related to products.


6538266

GVRD Board Meeting Date: October 12, 2012

To: Board of Directors From: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Date: September 19, 2012 Subject: Proposed Metro Vancouver Pre-Election Advocacy Strategy Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Recommendation: That the Board support the development of a website as a means of advocating for political action/support in specific Metro Vancouver priority areas prior to the May 2013 provincial election. At its September 19, 2012 meeting, the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee considered the attached report titled “Proposed Metro Vancouver Pre-Election Advocacy Strategy”, dated September 12, 2012. The Committee requested that the report be forwarded to the Board for consideration. The proposed Metro Vancouver pre-election advocacy strategy described in the attached report would be fashioned after a very successful approach developed by the City of Calgary in advance of the April 2012 Alberta provincial election. In that instance, Calgary Naheed Mayor Nenshi’s office created a website, “Cities Matter”, that was positioned as “…a site that is the home for to the responses from Alberta's provincial political parties about the issues facing our cities today.” Metro Vancouver could adopt the same basic web platform as the version used by Calgary, and change the name slightly to “Local Government Matters” to capture the range of local government services provided in BC (Metro Vancouver has already reserved the web domains “localgovernmentmatters.com” and “localgovernmentmatters.ca” in anticipation of the implementation of this strategy). The layout of the website would be very similar to the Calgary page: a central message from Board Chair Greg Moore, and two cross-referenced lists of subjects and responses by political party that would be hyperlinked to separate web pages. The intent would be to develop and distribute to the four main political parties in BC (BC Liberals, BC NDP, BC Conservatives, Green Party of BC) a questionnaire on specific current issues that are particularly relevant to local governments in BC, then collate and post the responses on the web. Both the launch and the eventual posting of questionnaire responses would be supported by a robust communications campaign that could comprise news releases, media conferences, social media updates, and third party endorsements as appropriate. The topics from which the questionnaire to political parties would be developed would be similar to those used in Calgary; a proposed draft list of potential Metro Vancouver issues (and from which specific questions would be developed by Metro Vancouver staff) is as follows:

Section E 1.2


1. Building a new relationship (cultivating a relationship that provides local governments in

BC with a broader authority to effectively deal with the scale, scope, and complexity of their mandated responsibilities);

2. Municipal financing (developing a system that will enhance local governments’ financial capacity and sustainability, including the provision of flexible and secure means by which to fund the range of services and infrastructure that local governments currently provide);

3. Encouraging affordable housing (assisting Metro Vancouver and its Canadian Rental Housing Coalition partners in securing federal commitments for a regulatory/tax/financing regime that facilitates the expansion of affordable rental housing stock throughout the province);

4. Protecting the environment (ensuring that all local governments have the appropriate authority to monitor and where appropriate, levy sanctions against violators of environmental laws and/or regulations);

5. Improving public transit (committing to a predictable and stable source of funding for Translink, and implementing a governance structure at Translink that more closely aligns the transportation and land-use requirements of the Metro Vancouver region);

6. Supporting regional planning (ensuring collaboration between municipalities, regional governments and the Province – as it relates to land use – that results in more efficient use of a limited land supply, and that helps local governments capitalize on major investments in water mains, trunk sewer lines, public transit, etc.);

7. Providing services to federal Reserve lands (addressing the existing legislative and jurisdictional barriers that restrict local governments’ ability to enter into successful utility service agreements with neighbouring First Nations);

8. Strengthening community supports (ensuring that provincial funding levels meet the needs of the most vulnerable citizens).

Note that the intent of this list is to broaden the range of issues covered so that they are relevant to all local governments, and not just Metro Vancouver; this will help enhance the appeal of the website (and the overall advocacy strategy) beyond Metro Vancouver’s traditional reach. Link to “Cities Matter”: www.citiesmatter.ca Attachment: Report titled “Proposed Metro Vancouver Pre-Election Advocacy Strategy”, dated September 12, 2012


6517247

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee meeting: September 19, 2012

To: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee From: Heather Schoemaker, Corporate Relations Department Manager Simon Cumming,

External Outreach and Intergovernmental Relations Division Manager Date: September 12, 2012 Subject: Proposed Metro Vancouver Pre-Election Advocacy Strategy Recommendation: That the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee support the development of a website as a means of advocating for political action/support in specific Metro Vancouver priority areas prior to the May 2013 provincial election. 1. PURPOSE To provide the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee with a proposed strategy for advancing Metro Vancouver’s strategic priorities with political parties in BC prior to the May 2013 provincial election. 2. CONTEXT Metro Vancouver had previously developed and distributed a document titled “Metro Vancouver Board of Directors’ Position Paper on Needed Provincial Action to Improve Regional Governance in Metropolitan Vancouver” during the leadership contests for both the New Democratic and Liberal parties in BC in the spring of 2011. In that document, Metro Vancouver described a number of challenges that it was facing related to governance and finance, and for which it was requesting a response from the two main political parties in BC. While that document did a good job of outlining those challenges and the strategies proposed by Metro Vancouver to address them, the response to the document from the main political parties in BC was muted. In researching the potential structure of a new advocacy strategy for the impending provincial election in BC in 2013, Metro Vancouver staff was referred to “Cities Matter” www.citiesmatter.ca, a website developed by the City of Calgary in advance of the Alberta provincial election held in April 2012. “Cities Matter” is branded as “Asking provincial politicians about our cities”, and it essentially describes “…the responses from Alberta's provincial political parties about the issues facing (Alberta’s) cities today.” The process used by City of Calgary staff to develop the website was very straightforward: they developed questions related to ten specific areas of interest to the residents of Calgary, sent those questions to the six main political parties in Alberta for response, and then posted those responses on the “Cities Matter” webpage. Anecdotally, the public reaction to the site has been very positive and, according to staff in the Mayor’s office with the City of Calgary, the

Attachment


Proposed Metro Vancouver Pre-Election Advocacy Strategy Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting Date: September 19, 2012 Page 2 of 2 process was also enthusiastically supported by each of the political parties asked to respond to the questions originally posed by staff. The ten subject areas for which the City of Calgary was seeking input from the political parties involved certainly included some that are very specific to Calgary, but there are others that would be relevant to any urban centre in Canada, such as:

1. New relationship (cultivating a relationship that “provides broader authority to effectively deal with the scale, scope, and complexity of cities’ responsibilities”);

2. Municipal financing (developing a system that will “improve the large cities' financial capacity and sustainability, including providing more flexible means to finance the range of services and infrastructure that the cities now provide”);

3. Community supports (ensuring “that future provincial funding levels are sufficient to meet the needs of the most vulnerable citizens”);

4. Encourage affordable housing; 5. Environment (managing “competing interests for water resources”); 6. Regional planning; 7. Funding public transit (creating “a new financial framework that provides the large

cities the capacity and long term predictable funding sources to build major transit infrastructure”).

The advantage of using a public space such as a website for reporting out on the results of the survey conducted by the City of Calgary is that it undoubtedly increased the response rate from survey target groups, and it represents a very cost effective way of raising public awareness about the challenges facing local governments in the current uncertain economic times. There would be no hard costs involved if Metro Vancouver decided to create a similar webpage in advance of the 2013 BC provincial election, except for staff time to develop the site, generate and distribute the questionnaire to political parties and then collate the results. 3. ALTERNATIVES The Intergovernmental and Administration Committee could:

a. Support the development of a website as a means of advocating for political action/support in specific Metro Vancouver priority areas prior to the May 2013 provincial election;

b. Direct staff to develop an alternate strategy as a means of advocating for political action/support in specific Metro Vancouver priority areas prior to the May 2013 provincial election;

c. Receive the report and take no further action at this time. 4. CONCLUSION The development of a political advocacy strategy in advance of the 2013 BC provincial election would provide Metro Vancouver with both a public platform by which to raise awareness about the challenges and issues currently facing the region, and a means by which to gauge the responses to each issue from the main political parties in BC. A web presence modelled after the successful “Cities Matter” site developed by the City of Calgary would be a cost effective and straightforward method of delivering on those objectives for the region.


6601375


To: Board of Directors From: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Date: October 2, 2012 Subject: Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations

Recommendation: That the Board endorse the strategies and actions outlined in the report titled “Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations” dated September 7, 2012. At its September 19, 2012 meeting, the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee considered the attached report dated September 12, 2012, titled “Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations”. The Committee considered the strategies and actions outlined in the report; inquired about reasons for considering the report in-camera and subsequently passed a resolution directing staff to release the report to the public. Attachments: Report dated September 12, 2012, titled “Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations”

Section E 1.3


6511209

CLOSED MEETING

Intergovernmental and Administration Committee Meeting: September 19, 2012

To: Intergovernmental and Administration Committee From: Intergovernmental Relations Task Force Engagement Task Force Date: September 12, 2012 Subject: Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations

Recommendation: That the Board endorse the strategies and actions outlined in the report titled “Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations” dated September 7, 2012. This matter is being presented at a closed meeting pursuant to Community Charter provision(s) Section 90 (1) (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a regional district service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the board or committee, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district if they were held in public. At their September 12, 2012 joint meeting, the Intergovernmental Relations and Engagement Task Forces considered the report titled “Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations”, dated September 7, 2012 and approved in principle the strategies and actions outlined in the report. The report is attached for consideration (Attachment 1). In addition, the Task Force requested that the report be forwarded to RAAC. Attachments: 1. Report dated September 7, 2012, titled “Actions for Improved Intergovernmental

Relations” (Orbit doc # 6501513) 2. Summary of Mustel Group qualitative research methodology, findings and

recommendations (Orbit doc # 6501519) 3. Diagram of the web of Metro Vancouver’s working relationships (Orbit doc # 6501522)

4. Summary of survey responses from members of Advisory Committees (Orbit doc #6501525)

Attachment


6501513

CLOSED MEETING

Intergovernmental Relations and Engagement Task Forces Joint Meeting: September 12, 2012

To: Intergovernmental Relations and Engagement Task Forces From: Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Heather Schoemaker, Department Manager, Corporate Relations Ann Rowan, Sustainability Strategist (Acting), Office of the CAO Date: September 7, 2012 Subject: Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations

Recommendations: That the Intergovernmental Relations and Engagement Task Forces endorse the strategies and actions outlined in the report titled “Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations” dated September 7, 2012. 1. PURPOSE To report on actions being implemented at Metro Vancouver, that have been informed by research findings and feedback on initiatives implemented in 2012, to improve intergovernmental relations. This matter is being presented at a closed meeting pursuant to Community Charter provision(s) Section 90 (1) (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a regional district service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the board or committee, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the regional district if they were held in public. 2. CONTEXT At its workshop on January 27, 2012, the Board discussed the possible means for increasing the political influence of Metro Vancouver and improving the connections between Metro Vancouver, member municipalities, and other orders of government. At that time, it was recognized that the two objectives were linked. As a result, the Board endorsed a recommendation by the Intergovernmental and Administration Committee to appoint a taskforce to work with staff on the development of strategies to:

a) Establish a recognized brand to increase understanding of Metro Vancouver services and policies among the public;

b) More effectively communicate with member municipalities; and

Attachment 1


Actions for Improved Intergovernmental Relations Intergovernmental Relations and Engagement Task Forces Joint Meeting Date: September 12, 2012

Page 2 of 7

c) Better engage other levels of government and their agencies in support of regional priorities.

That recommendation led to the creation of two separate taskforces – the Engagement Taskforce and the Intergovernmental Relations Taskforce – which have since been developing parallel strategies. To inform the development of these strategies, the findings from qualitative research were combined with input from Metro Vancouver senior staff and feedback on initiatives related to communications and intergovernmental relations that were introduced early in 2012. This report will focus on staff implemented strategies and actions to address Board direction on improving the relationships with member municipalities and other orders of government. The list of actions includes initiatives that have been already implemented in 2012. The intent of this effort is to build on the best elements of existing intergovernmental relations and fill gaps or shortcomings where they exist. The strategies and actions reflect an understanding that, given Metro Vancouver’s governance model, its ability to perform its roles in the region and to implement the nine regional management plans, is based on effective collaboration with member municipalities and other stakeholders. A separate report will outline the specifics of the development of a corporate communications strategy. Qualitative Research and Findings The Vancouver-based Mustel Group was contracted to conduct qualitative research with the objectives:

a) To understand the general public’s perceptions of MV services, policies and gain insights to assist in the development of a brand identity that will increase public awareness of MV and its activities (this would provide the basis for the development of a broad-based communications strategy in 2013);

b) Determine how MV might communicate more effectively with member municipalities and other levels of government, their agencies and stakeholders in support of regional priorities.

The research comprised focus groups conducted in four sub-regions, and included separate sessions with the general public, municipal politicians, and municipal staff. It also included one-on-one interviews with representatives of the provincial government and a number of “community influencers.” (See Attachment 1 for an overview of the methodology, research findings and recommendations from the Mustel Group). In terms of findings, municipal politicians and their staff recognize that Metro Vancouver plays a significant role in providing core regional services. They also acknowledged that Metro Vancouver staff do an exemplary job in managing the regional utilities, producing and sharing useful data and information, and in contributing to progress on labour relation issues. Respondents from smaller municipalities raised concerns that the Metro Vancouver voting structure put them at a disadvantage in relation to the larger, growing municipalities particularly on issues of large, expensive capital projects. Their perception of what their communities can afford varies from others on the Board. In general, municipal politicians and staff felt that Metro Vancouver could do a much better job communicating what services



Page 3 of 7

it provides the region and how this is translated into the Metro Vancouver portion of the property tax bill. In interviews conducted with provincial government representatives and community influencers, all felt that Metro Vancouver was doing a good job in relation to the provision of its core services. Some felt that Metro Vancouver could improve its analysis of the economic implications of its policies and actions and the effectiveness of existing policies and guidelines. Metro Vancouver Research and Findings In addition to the qualitative research, Metro Vancouver staff conducted additional research to assess how well the relationships between Metro Vancouver and member municipalities are working at the staff level. One element of this work was to document the scope of relationships that involve staff. The resulting list of over 160 committees, taskforces and on-going relationships reflects the breadth of consultation required for Metro Vancouver to deliver on its mandate. (See Attachment 2 for a graphical representation.) This situation also demonstrates the challenge to efficiently and effectively involve important stakeholders while trying to make progress on operational and strategic goals. In addition, a preliminary survey was sent to municipal members of the regional advisory committees to identify the positive and negative elements of the current working relationships. The findings of this survey echo some of the findings of the qualitative research described above and identified some important areas for action. In terms of what is working well, members of the regional advisory committees feel their meetings are useful forums for municipal staff to network, share information, and receive briefings on Metro Vancouver initiatives. Again the depth of experience that Metro Vancouver staff share on labour relations and human resources is highly valued. Respondents appreciated the effort that is being made to understand municipal perspectives and to solicit input – this is essential for increasing collaboration. In general, they felt the staff to staff working relationships are generally cooperative, effective and professional. In terms of how collaboration could be improved, the most mentioned issue was the unrealistic expectations about how quickly municipal staff can respond to requests from Metro Vancouver for information or feedback. Improving attendance at Advisory Committee meetings will require that municipal staff see more value in participating. Some respondents felt that they were being asked to “rubber stamp” Metro Vancouver initiatives and that there was not the opportunity to vet reports or recommendations before they went to the political committees. While this was an open-ended survey, there was a clustering of responses that suggested that input from Advisory Committee members should be solicited at an early stage, including at the problem definition stage, which would lead to improved strategic discussions (as opposed to reactive) and better briefings to mayors and councils. Other issues of shared concern were the need to: clarity the role of the Regional Administrative Advisory Committee (RAAC), better coordinate work of the advisory committees, and ensure that affordability had more prominence. (See Attachment 3 for a summary of survey responses.) Metro Vancouver 2012 Initiatives As a result of changes in leadership at both the Board and within the organizational administration in early 2012, new relationships and initiatives emerged that began to change the working relationships with member municipalities and other orders of government. This included:



Page 4 of 7

A series of presentations to individual Councils organized from April to October. In their remarks, Chair Moore, Vice Chair Louie and Interim CAO Laglagaron clarify how Metro Vancouver and municipalities work together to deliver regional services before receiving feedback on how to better serve the region.

Five Council presentations in July that were organized on a sub-regional basis to provide a high-level overview of the Metro Vancouver budget process and outline the drivers and influences on the development of the 2013 Metro Vancouver budget. (Note: This and the previous initiative have been thoroughly embraced by both elected officials and staff within Metro Vancouver member municipalities, and in fact were mentioned by some at the research focus groups referenced above as examples of “best practices” in maintaining a constructive relationship between Metro Vancouver and its members.)

A reception in May for Members of the Legislative Assembly in Victoria. This was also very successful, and could remain a permanent annual component of Metro Vancouver’s ongoing government relations activities supplementing the current practice of cultivating good working relationships within senior levels of the bureaucracy and the scheduling of one-on-one meetings with individual Ministers as required.

The adoption of new approaches to working with First Nations. In addition, the scope of the Aboriginal Relations program has been expanded to provide support to Metro Vancouver corporate programs, processes, and projects that intersect with First Nations’ interests, such as infrastructure and waste water treatment plant upgrades, implementation of Metro Vancouver’s major plans, as well as regional parks initiatives.

On-going discussions with RAAC to identify how municipal administrators and their staff can be more effectively linked to discussions and analysis being done by Metro Vancouver staff.

Moving Forward As a result of its governance model, Metro Vancouver must collaborate with member municipalities and other orders of government to be effective. The importance of collaboration will be essential in addressing the challenges of continued population growth in the region, the increasing complexity of policy decisions, and ensuring the affordability of Metro Vancouver services within the context of implementing the nine regional management plans adopted by the Board. Recognizing that intergovernmental relations are in part political, staff actions are restricted to the value of creating forums that enable greater communication and collaboration; establishing policies and practices that engage municipal partners, and strengthening the analytical elements of staff recommendations to Committees and the Board. The actions build on what is currently effective and reflect an understanding that municipal partners are



Page 5 of 7

sources of information and ideas that should be better integrated into the development of policies and projects at Metro Vancouver. Next Steps To strengthen the spirit and tools of collaboration, the staff are implementing the following strategies and actions: Strategy 1: Review the roles and relationships of Advisory Committees. The meetings of the Advisory Committees are a valuable means for staff to staff communications -- between Metro Vancouver and municipal staff as well as among municipal staff. Coupled with other recommendations designed to garner more input from municipal staff early in the process, this strategy should support greater collaboration. Aligning the relationship of Advisory Committees to RAAC and Board Committees will help to support good decision-making at the regional level. Actions

a) Agendas for Advisory Committees will reflect the value of networking and the importance of municipal staff as a source of advice and input in the development and evaluation of regionally significant policies and projects.

b) Metro Vancouver staff will work with RAAC to improve the alignment of the work of Advisory Committees with the Metro Vancouver priorities identified in the Annual Action Plan.

c) Metro Vancouver staff will also work with RAAC to solidify the relationships between the Advisory Committees, RAAC, and the Board Committees.

d) Metro Vancouver staff will work with RAAC to ensure that city managers are more effectively able to contribute to strategic decision-making.

Strategy 2: Strengthen and establish forums for collaboration. Metro Vancouver has been a forum for identifying regional priorities and the means for making progress on these priorities. Moving forward, it will be even more important in dealing with other orders of government for Metro Vancouver to speak with “one voice” which can only be achieved through more opportunities for member municipalities to come together for sharing ideas and aspirations as well as identifying solutions that can be generally supported. These forums involving municipal councils are also opportunities for Metro Vancouver to explain its work on pan municipal issues like affordable housing and local food systems. Actions:

a) Institute annual municipal visits as a means of strengthening the day-to-day relationship with member municipalities.

b) Host up to four Council-of-Councils annually to bring elected officials and senior staff from all member municipalities together to discuss issues of regional significance including at least one set of sub-regional Council-of-Councils.

Strategy 3: Improve the profile and reputation of Metro Vancouver with other orders of government. Given the fluid character of its relationship with other orders of government – the specific nature and intensity of the relationship depending on the topic or issue of concern – Metro



Page 6 of 7 Vancouver should continue its targeted approach on specific issues while identifying opportunities to build a stronger profile among key politicians. Actions

a) Host an annual MLA reception in Victoria to raise awareness of Metro Vancouver, its roles and responsibilities and current intergovernmental issues.

b) Continue to develop constructive working relationships within the senior levels of the provincial and federal bureaucracies.

c) As required, schedule one-on-one meetings with Ministers/Deputy Ministers to discuss Metro Vancouver priorities and/or issues of mutual concern.

d) Develop a pre-election Metro Vancouver position paper that presents regional priorities and related asks for political parties.

Strategy 4: Continue to provide and develop information systems and data that can be used to support informed decision-making at the regional, sub-regional, and municipal levels. Metro Vancouver is already an important source of information and data for its municipal partners, like the Housing Data Book and Census Bulletins. This should continue as well as work that will support a better understanding of the unique characteristics of the sub-regions that comprise the Metro Vancouver region. Actions

a) Identify the web-based means to facilitate the timely sharing of information and data relevant to member municipalities.

b) Develop a profile (the population, economic, housing and other characteristics within Metro Vancouver) of the sub-regions within Metro Vancouver that can be used in policy development and capital planning at Metro Vancouver and shared with appropriate stakeholders.

c) Develop, share and publicize indicators that can be used to assess progress towards regional goals.

Strategy 5: Ensure that policy analysis and capital planning at Metro Vancouver better supports decision making at the regional level and reflects active collaboration. Implementing nine regional management plans during a time of significant economic, environmental and social challenges will require greater collaboration among key stakeholders coupled with providing decision-makers with relevant information early in the process and a strong analysis of the relevant options at the decision making stage. Building the analytical capacity of report authors will be important as will institutionalizing a culture of collaboration in the practices and policies at Metro Vancouver. Actions

a) Implement new guidelines and structures for staff reports that will provide decision-makers sound evidence and analysis for their deliberations. Reports should provide, as appropriate, information on the financial and operational implications for municipalities, residents and the private sector.

b) The characteristics and needs of the sub-regions will be considered in the prioritization process associated with capital budgeting.



Page 7 of 7

c) The value of collaboration will be reflected in the criteria used in performance measurement.

Strategy 6: More effectively present and communicate pan-municipal work. Pan-municipal work refers to services provided by Metro Vancouver to its municipal members on issues of general interest. These services for members include: providing a forum for discussion, organizing public outreach events, undertaking research, providing expertise, as well as drafting policy and preparing reports. Actions

a) Present Metro Vancouver work on pan-municipal services as part of the budget process; providing details on costs and expected deliverables and outcomes.

b) Communicate pan-municipal work effectively to member municipalities; highlighting the municipal share of costs and resulting outcomes.

3. ALTERNATIVES None presented. 4. CONCLUSION Research associated with the mandate of the Task Force on Intergovernmental Relations has identified the nature of the working relationship between Metro Vancouver, member municipalities and other orders of government. Concurrent with the research phase, initiatives were implemented by Metro Vancouver to improve communications and the working relationships with all levels of government. This report summarizes the strategies and actions staff have implemented to build on the best elements of existing intergovernmental relations and bridge the gaps where they exist. This effort reflects an understanding that given Metro Vancouver’s governance model, its ability to perform its roles in the region and to implement the nine regional management plans, is based on effective collaboration with member municipalities and other stakeholders. Attachments 1. Summary of Mustel Group qualitative research methodology, findings and

recommendations (Orbit doc # 6501519) 2. Diagram of the web of Metro Vancouver’s working relationships (Orbit doc # 6501522)

3. Summary of survey responses from members of Advisory Committees (Orbit doc #6501525)


402 – 1505 West Second Avenue Vancouver BC V6H 3Y4

[email protected] www.mustelgroup.com Tel 604.733.4213 Fax 604.235.1359

Presented to:

Metro Vancouver

Vancouver, BC

Metro Vancouver Communications Research

Qualitative Research Phase

July 2012


DDavis

Text Box

Attachment 2

Mustel Group Market Research Page 4

Conclusions

In conclusion, apart from the general public who are virtually unaware of Metro Vancouver’s activities, the majority of stakeholders recognize most of what Metro Vancouver does and appreciate its management and delivery of core services. Beyond those services, questions arise. Some question what appears to be a duplication of services; others are concerned that Metro Vancouver is taking on more and more authority over municipalities.

Everyone recognizes an inherent tension in Metro Vancouver’s relationships with stakeholders and, hence, sees the job of Metro Vancouver as a difficult one.

There are concerns about transparency, because of the way Metro Vancouver is structured and the fact that it has operated “under the radar” for a long time.

The municipalities, provincial politicians and influencers all applaud Metro Vancouver’s delivery of core services; however, when asked for their current perceptions of Metro Vancouver, most portrayed it as inflexible, rigid and authoritative. The exception was some municipal staff, which also portrayed Metro Vancouver as a very valuable resource for information they could not afford to access on their own.

What do they want Metro Vancouver to be? The general public suggested they want an organization that will protect their quality of life. Municipalities want an organization that makes sound decisions, but with a progressive flavour and a dash of magic. In other words, they want an organization that is less authoritative, less rigid and one that works more as a “member of the club.”

Recommendations 1. Communicate with the general public – let them know what Metro Vancouver does and why it

exists.

2. For others, tell the story, connect the dots, and outline the challenges. As these individuals do not work for Metro Vancouver, they see the organization from the outside and do not always understand the process involved in decisions to take on new responsibilities. Outside of core services, explain why those additional responsibilities are important and how they came to be part of Metro Vancouver’s responsibilities.

3. Have regular “state of the union” communications to keep everyone informed about new activities, changes in situations, and new challenges.

4. Be careful not to appear authoritative. Each community wants autonomy, and they all see themselves as distinct. They do not want to lose their uniqueness.

5. And finally, continue to deliver the core services in the same responsible way and to be an information resource for the communities that fall under the Metro Vancouver umbrella.



Background and Objectives

Metro Vancouver wishes to strengthen its engagement with its various constituencies and determine how it can work more effectively with member municipalities and other stakeholders.

Metro Vancouver commissioned Mustel Group to conduct a research project in two phases: qualitative and quantitative. This report reflects the findings of the qualitative phase of the research.

The purpose of this research was:

• To understand perceptions of Metro Vancouver services and policies among the general public

• To determine how Metro Vancouver might communicate more effectively with member municipalities

• To determine how Metro Vancouver might better engage other levels of government, their agencies and stakeholders in support of regional priorities

• To gain insights to assist in the development of a brand identity for Metro Vancouver that will increase awareness of the organization and its activities

Methodology and Respondent Selection

Six (6) focus groups were conducted amongst members of the general public. These groups were broken down as follows:

• Three (3) groups of citizens 18‐45 years of age

• Three (3) groups of citizens 45+ years of age

• Spread of income, employment and marital status

• Have lived in the Metro Vancouver area for more than one year

• Attitudinally have some interest in news and social issues

An additional eight (8) groups were conducted as follows:

• Four (4) groups of municipal staff

• Four (4) groups of municipal politicians

All groups were drawn from the following regions:

• Vancouver/Burnaby/New West/South Delta/Richmond

• North Vancouver/West Vancouver/Bowen Island

• Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge/Tri Cities

• Surrey/Langley/North Delta All focus group were conducted by Ms. Kathleen Roach of Mustel Group. The groups were conducted in facilities with viewing capabilities and were audio taped.



A further series of 20 in‐depth interviews (IDIs) was conducted amongst provincial politicians and community influencers. Metro Vancouver provided a list of potential participants for these IDIs, from which Mustel Group recruited participants.


Metro Vancouver Staff

OtherStakeholders

Public

FederalGov’t

ProvincialGov’t

24 Member Municipalities


DDavis

Text Box

Attachment 3

6501525

Initial Findings: June 2012 Survey

Summary of Responses from Members of Regional Advisory Committees

Responses: 12 Municipal respondents who sit on Regional Advisory Committees

What’s working?

Comment # of responses Recognize that a greater effort is being made to understand each other’s perspective and to increase collaboration. Effort to seek input and consult with municipal staff is valued.

4

Advisory Committees are useful forums for municipalities to network, share information and be briefed on Metro Vancouver initiatives.

4

The depth of experience that Metro Vancouver staff are willing to share on labour relations and human resources is an excellent resource.

4

Staff-to-staff working relationships are generally cooperative, effective, and professional.

2

Taskforce work is good and constructive (i.e., sewer cost allocation working group) 1

What could work better/needs improvement?

Comment # of responses Expectations about how quickly municipal staff can turn around responses for feedback and input are unrealistic.

6

Improving attendance at Advisory Committees will require demonstrating that their input is valued and effective in shaping reports and recommendations.

4

Feel that Advisory Committees are being asked to “rubber stamp” Metro Vancouver initiatives. Metro Vancouver staff reports should be vetted by the appropriate Advisory Committee before it goes to a political Committee. This would enable municipal staff to provide input and to prepare more thorough briefings to Mayor and Council.

4

Seeking input at early stages of a project or policy development, including a briefing at the problem definitions stage, could lead to improved strategic discussions. One idea is to share committee reports during the draft stage which be useful in briefing mayors/councillors and would be an opportunity to receive input from municipal staff.

3

Affordability has to be of greater concern going forward. In proposing new projects, programs and other initiatives, the financing options of covering costs must be considered and must be justified in how they relate to the overall priorities within Metro Vancouver.

2

There needs to be better coordination among the Advisory Committees including clarity on the role of RAAC. RAAC seems to be primarily reactive rather than contributing to strategic decision making.

2

Attachment 4


The operations and activities of Metro Vancouver need to be better integrated to ensure that opportunities to improve service or reduce costs are not lost.

2

The focus of Metro Vancouver should be on regional matters such as liquid waste, solid waste and drinking water management.

2

The positions taken by Metro Vancouver staff sometimes appear to be not progressive on issues like community energy.

1

The relationship/service model between Metro Vancouver and member municipalities need to be more innovative/flexible and less tied to past practices. For instance, a customer service model would work better.

1

In some municipalities, Metro Vancouver Board members do not ask for staff input/comment on reports going to the Board or Committees. On the other hand, preparing formal briefings to Council on Metro Vancouver agendas would be challenging.

1

The mandates of Advisory Committees should be expanded to include discussing issues of interest to member municipalities but not necessarily to the regional district.

1

Improving collaboration will require an understanding that together we provide the services of local governments to the region’s residents.

1

Reconciling Board desire’s move on some items to the time required for proper consultation with municipal staff is challenging.

1

The cumulative cost analysis of providing government services in the region is important.

1

More effort should be placed on identifying middle-ground options/compromises. This is particularly important of evaluating cost implications of particular technologies.

1

The Regional Administrative Advisory Committee (RAAC) should be receiving the Closed Board Agendas.

1

Issues like the Sewer Cost Allocation Study would benefit from the oversight of the Regional Finance Advisory Committee but it is not meeting often enough to do so.

1

Concerns about whether the new staff Aboriginal Advisory Committee will add value. 1 Municipal staff don’t have a good understanding of Metro Vancouver’s organizational chart and areas of responsibility.

1

Metro Vancouver can host regional discussions on stormwater management but should not be seeking to develop or implement policies on the topic except in the selected areas where they have responsibility for stormwater management.

1

The technical committees for each sewerage area should be disbanded and their responsibilities should be assumed by the REAC Liquid Waste Subcommittee who reports to REAC. This would streamline reporting lines and eliminate duplication.

1

Given the scope of Metro Vancouver’s work plans and the number of projects underway, the Long Range Planning sessions should be held at least quarterly.

1


Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: October 3, 2012

To: Environment and Parks Committee From: Laurie Bates-Frymel, Air Quality Planner Ali Ergudenler, Senior Engineer Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department Date: September 10, 2012 Subject: Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study Results Recommendation: That the Board authorize staff to: a) initiate a review of Metro Vancouver’s ambient air quality objectives for sulphur

dioxide (SO2), and b) work with Port Metro Vancouver and other partners to establish a network of key

SO2 monitoring sites to assess the effectiveness of the Emission Control Area for ships and inform the SO2 objective review.

1. PURPOSE To report on the results of the Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study (BIALAQS) and to identify further actions for Metro Vancouver to address the air quality issues identified during this study. 2. CONTEXT In its 2005 Air Quality Management Plan, Metro Vancouver committed to “assessing and monitoring possible local air quality priority areas, and where needed, partnering with the appropriate governments, health agencies, the public and owners/operators of emission sources to develop and implement local air quality action plans”. Metro Vancouver identified the Central Burrard Inlet Area as a local air quality priority area since a wide variety of air emission sources are situated within this densely-populated area and emissions are expected to increase due to port expansion and/or increased activities. The Central Burrard Inlet Area (CBIA) is roughly bounded by the Lions Gate Bridge to the west, the TransCanada Highway to the north, the Chevron refinery to the east, and Hastings Street to the south. The main sources of air emissions in the CBIA include: ocean-going vessels, cruise ships, harbour vessels, non-road engines (including cargo handling and construction equipment), heavy-duty trucks, locomotives, small aircraft, commuter traffic, and industrial sources (such as a refinery and bulk shipping terminals), as well as commercial and residential sources.

Section E 2.1


Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study Results Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: October 3, 2012 Page 2 of 5

According to Health Canada, exposure to high levels of SO2 can cause breathing problems in people with asthma. Exposure to elevated SO2 levels may increase hospital admissions and premature deaths.

The main objectives of the study were to: (a) determine how air quality in the CBIA differs from other parts of Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional District, (b) determine how pollutant levels vary by space and time, and (c) provide information that may be used to determine the major sources contributing to air quality levels. Metro Vancouver measures air quality at six existing monitoring stations within the CBIA. Between July 2008 and June 2010, Metro Vancouver supplemented the existing monitoring network by collecting air quality data from ten additional sites using portable samplers and a mobile trailer (Figure 1).

S1

S2

S4S5

T1T23

S3

S6

T24

T26

S8

S9S15

Legend

Fixed Sites

Existing Network Stations

Mobile Trailer Sites

T4

T6

Pandora Park

Harbour-Clark MT

McLean Park

Heliport MT

Kensington Park

Burnaby - Capitol Hill

North Burnaby

Second Narrows

S7Lynn PS MT

Lynn PS

Downtown Vancouver

Yacht Club

Norgate Firehall

Mahon Park

BCIT Marine

Seabus MT

Figure 1: Air quality monitoring sites - Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study Data from all sites were validated using Metro Vancouver’s quality assurance and control procedures. The air quality readings were then compared to other areas in the Lower Mainland, as well as Metro Vancouver’s air quality objectives. Study Results The study findings are summarized in the attached executive summary of The Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study: Monitoring Program Results (September 6, 2012). The main conclusions of the study include: 1. The CBIA experienced elevated sulphur dioxide

(SO2) levels. • On average sulphur dioxide (SO2) levels were

higher in the CBIA than the rest of Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional District. The largest sources of SO2 emissions in the Burrard Inlet area are marine vessels and a petroleum refinery.


Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study Results Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: October 3, 2012

Page 3 of 5

Fine particulate with a diameter of 2.5 micrometres (µm) are small enough to be inhaled deeply and enter the bloodstream.

The World Health Organization classifies diesel exhaust as carcinogenic – accounting for 67% of lifetime cancer risk in Metro Vancouver.

• SO2 levels were better than Metro Vancouver’s air quality objectives most of the time, except during one fog event in January 2009. This SO2 exceedance occurred at one station adjacent to the Chevron refinery in North Burnaby.

• The World Health Organization (WHO) published new guidelines for SO2 in 2005, which are more stringent than Metro Vancouver’s current objectives. While levels in the CBIA comply with the Metro Vancouver objectives, they exceeded the WHO’s SO2 guidelines several times at all but one location (Mahon Park in North Vancouver). Although the WHO’s air quality guidelines are not legally-binding standards, they are intended to provide guidance to air quality agencies to support air quality improvement and the protection of public health. The WHO also recognizes that governments should consider their own local circumstances carefully before adopting these guidelines as air quality objectives.

2. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) levels were

periodically elevated in the CBIA. PM2.5 levels were better than MV’s objectives most of the time, except during a fog event in January 2009 and a summer regional air quality advisory in July/August 2009.

3. Black carbon, vanadium and nickel levels were

elevated in the CBIA. Tests on several PM2.5 samples revealed elevated levels of black carbon (soot), vanadium and nickel. Black carbon is an indicator of diesel fuel combustion and/or wood smoke, while vanadium and nickel are tracers for marine fuel combustion. Levels of vanadium and nickel measured in the CBIA were well below established guidelines.

Actions Underway Several initiatives are already underway that will reduce emissions of SO2 and PM2.5 in the CBIA. These initiatives, listed below, have been developed by Metro Vancouver, or as collaborative efforts involving Metro Vancouver and a number of partners:: • Starting this year, marine vessels in North American waters will be required to meet

stringent emission control standards which will significantly reduce SO2 and nitrogen oxide emissions, as well as PM2.5 levels. Transport Canada is responsible for compliance promotion and enforcement of these regulations in Canadian waters.

• Port Metro Vancouver has established “shore power” at Canada Place which enables

properly-outfitted cruise ships to shut down their engines while docked and connect to the electrical grid.

• Port Metro Vancouver has also introduced increasingly stringent environmental

requirements for container trucks focusing on the phasing out of older trucks, mandatory opacity testing and idling limits, and an awareness program. By 2017, these requirements will reduce emissions of diesel exhaust particles significantly.


Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study Results Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: October 3, 2012 Page 4 of 5

• In 2011 Metro Vancouver adopted a Non-Road Diesel Engine Emission Regulation that

requires operators of older, dirtier non-road diesel equipment (including cargo handling and construction equipment) to pay fees. If an old engine is permanently retired from use in Metro Vancouver or is upgraded to significantly cleaner emission standards, 80% of these fees will be returned to the operators to cover those costs.

• Metro Vancouver is working with the port and other partners to implement other actions

in its Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan that reduce diesel exhaust.

• Metro Vancouver is working with Chevron Refinery staff to ensure reliable ambient air

quality data communications and routinely review SO2 excursion mitigation procedures. In addition, Environment Canada is also developing emissions requirements for industrial sectors which may require further emission reductions from petroleum refineries.

Recommendations for Further Action In addition to these actions that are underway, Metro Vancouver staff proposes the following new actions: • Initiate a review of Metro Vancouver’s SO2 objectives. This review would consider: the

results of this study with consideration of forecast levels of emissions of SO2 taking into account growth in shipping activity as well as pending emission controls and fuel quality improvements; the conclusions of a forthcoming Health Canada SO2 Health Science Assessment; information from the World Health Organization and other agencies; as well as other stakeholder input.

• Work with Port Metro Vancouver and other partners to establish a network of key SO2 monitoring sites. This enhanced monitoring will help to assess the effectiveness of the Emission Control Area for ships and inform the SO2 objective review. It is expected that funding for this enhanced monitoring will be provided by Port Metro Vancouver and other partners.

3. ALTERNATIVES That the Environment and Parks Committee may: a) Direct staff to initiate a review of Metro Vancouver’s sulphur dioxide objectives and to

work with Port Metro Vancouver and other partners to establish a network of key SO2 monitoring sites to assess the effectives of the Emission Control Area for ships and inform the SO2 objective review; OR,

b) Direct staff to take an alternative course of action; OR, c) Receive this report for information and take no further action at this time.


Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study Results Environment and Parks Committee Meeting Date: October 3, 2012

Page 5 of 5

4. CONCLUSION As part of its 2005 Air Quality Management Plan, Metro Vancouver committed to developing new programs to address local air quality – recognizing that while air quality may be acceptable on a region-wide basis, there may be localized “hot spots” at the sub-regional level. The Central Burrard Inlet Area was chosen as a specialized study area since it contains many air emission sources and several densely-populated neighbourhoods. Elevated levels of sulphur dioxide and fine particulate matter were observed during this study, which was not unexpected given the level of marine vessel, port and industrial activity and emissions associated with goods movement. Although a number of new initiatives (including the implementation of the Emission Control Area for ships) and Metro Vancouver’s programs to address diesel particulate matter are expected to reduce air emissions in this area, enhanced monitoring will help to track progress. Metro Vancouver’s air quality program includes a principle of continuous improvement, including the review and establishment of new ambient air quality objectives. The World Health Organization has introduced new guidelines for SO2 that are more stringent than Metro Vancouver’s current objectives and it is recommended that Metro Vancouver’s sulphur dioxide objectives be reviewed and updated to ensure the protection of public health in our region. ATTACHMENT The Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study: Monitoring Program Results (September 6, 2012) - Executive Summary (Doc. # 6546652). 6504211


Executive Summary In its 2005 Air Quality Management Plan, Metro Vancouver committed to “assessing and monitoring possible local air quality priority areas, and where needed, partnering with the appropriate governments, health agencies, the public and owners/operators of emission sources to develop and implement local air quality action plans.” Metro Vancouver identified the Central Burrard Inlet Area (CBIA) as a possible local air quality priority area since a wide variety of air emission sources are situated within this relatively densely-populated area and emissions are expected to increase due to port expansion. The objectives of the monitoring portion of the Burrard Inlet Area Local Air Quality Study (BIALAQS) were to: a) determine how air quality in the CBIA differs from other parts of Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional District, b) determine the spatial and temporal variability of pollutants, and c) provide information that may be used to determine the major sources contributing to air quality levels. The monitoring portion of the BIALAQS was conducted from July 2008 to June 2010 using twelve fixed monitoring sites and one mobile monitoring trailer which rotated between four locations in the CBIA. Information was collected about air pollutants that have been associated with human health impacts including fine particulate matter, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. This report provides a detailed summary of the levels of specific air pollutants observed within the CBIA during this study period. Where possible, recommendations have been provided for further action. In general, the BIALAQS monitoring program concluded that the CBIA experienced unique air quality compared to other areas in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional District. In particular, this study yielded the following conclusions: a) The CBIA experienced elevated sulphur dioxide (SO2) levels. Average SO2 concentrations

were generally higher at sites closer to the Burrard Inlet. The largest sources of SO2 in the CBIA are marine vessels and petroleum refining. Pollution roses and diurnal profiles indicate that marine vessels are the likely source of elevated average SO2 levels at most sites. However, during a winter inversion episode in January 2009, SO2 concentrations exceeded Metro Vancouver’s 1 and 24-hour SO2 objectives at the Burnaby-Capitol Hill site for a short period. Elevated SO2 concentrations were also recorded at other CBIA sites during this episode, but due to the proximity of the Burnaby-Capitol Hill site to a nearby petroleum refinery and the lack of dispersion during this event, it is suspected that the refinery was


GStanese

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 1

primarily responsible for the short-term SO2 exceedances at the T23 Burnaby-Capitol Hill station.

b) Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) levels were periodically elevated in the CBIA. PM2.5 concentrations exceeded Metro Vancouver’s 24-hour objective at two CBIA sites with standard network monitors during a winter inversion episode and a regional summertime air quality advisory. Several other CBIA sites also recorded exceedances, but these sites employed non-standard monitoring technology with greater uncertainty than the standard network monitors. There were no PM2.5 exceedances at any other Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) network stations outside the CBIA during these episodes.

c) Black carbon levels were slightly elevated in the CBIA. A component of PM2.5, black carbon is often used as an indicator for diesel fuel combustion and/or wood smoke. Black carbon concentrations were slightly higher at the two CBIA sites compared to the only other station monitoring black carbon at the time in Abbotsford. However, these concentrations were only monitored for a short portion of the study.

d) The CBIA experienced elevated vanadium and nickel levels. Nickel and vanadium are found in residual/heavy fuel oil burned in ocean-going vessels and are emitted as particles during combustion. Vanadium and nickel levels were significantly higher in the three sets of PM2.5 samples collected from CBIA sites.

e) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels were similar to the rest of the LFV network, with the exception of the Downtown Vancouver site. Due to its proximity to a major roadway with high traffic volumes, average NO2 concentrations at the Downtown Vancouver site slightly exceeded Metro Vancouver’s annual NO2 objective.

f) Unique poor air quality episodes occurred within the CBIA. With a combination of distinctive meteorology, topography and emissions, the CBIA experienced several unique air quality episodes during the study. PM2.5 and SO2 concentrations exceeded Metro Vancouver’s short-term air quality objectives at several CBIA sites during four episodes -- two during summer and two during winter. There were no exceedances of Metro Vancouver’s PM2.5 or SO2 objectives at any LFV network stations outside the CBIA during these episodes.

Based on these conclusions and other detailed analyses presented in this report, the following actions are recommended: a) Metro Vancouver should review its ambient air quality objectives for SO2 using the results of

Health Canada’s assessment (when complete), the World Health Organization’s guidelines, and input from public and industry stakeholders.


b) Metro Vancouver should continue to work with Port Metro Vancouver and other stakeholders to investigate and implement measures that will reduce SO2 emissions from marine vessel activities. A number of measures are already underway.

c) Metro Vancouver should continue to work with the Chevron Refinery to ensure reliable ambient air quality data communications and routinely review SO2 excursion mitigation procedures.

d) Additional assessment work which should be considered, in collaboration with partners, includes: • Additional PM2.5, speciation and black carbon monitoring within a few CBIA

communities using standard instrumentation. • Enhanced monitoring of SO2, particularly on Port Metro Vancouver lands and adjacent

populated communities on the CBIA’s south shore. • Collection of representative meteorological measurements (including wind speed and

direction, air temperature and humidity) within the community where most of the complaints originate.

• Evaluating the value of the Second Narrows station within the LFV network. • Analysing the speciated volatile organic compound data collected during the BIALAQS. • Completing additional dispersion modelling to further assess the contribution of emission

sources and test the effectiveness of emission reduction strategies.


GStanese

Text Box

6546652

6613918


To: Board of Directors From: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Date: October 5, 2012 Subject: Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Recommendation: That the Board: a) Advise the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation that:

i. the development of alternative mechanisms to fund the remaining elements of the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan should remain a high priority, and the Mayors Council should be asked to conduct the development of these alternatives jointly with Metro Vancouver;

ii. a new supplemental plan which contemplates rescinding the two-year time-limited property tax increase without the inclusion of a corresponding replacement revenue source will have detrimental effects on the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy and the achievement of regional environmental objectives, and may adversely affect the movement of goods and the sustained economic development in the region;






At its October 5, 2012 meeting, the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee considered the attached report titled “Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook”, dated October 1, 2012. The Committee subsequently defeated section a) i. of the

GVRD Cover Report Item E 3.1

recommendation in the subject report and further amended section a); the resulting changes to section a) are presented above. Attachment: “Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook”, dated October 1, 2012

Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: October 11, 2012

To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Finance Committee From: Gaëtan Royer, Manager Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department Date: October 1, 2012 Subject: Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Recommendation: That the Board: a) Advise the TransLink Board and Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation that:

i. the draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook is acceptable, but, given the financial circumstances, will provide only moderate support for the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy;

ii. the development of alternative mechanisms to fund the remaining elements of the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan should remain a high priority, and should be conducted jointly with Metro Vancouver;

iii. a new supplemental plan which contemplates rescinding the two-year time-limited property tax increase without the inclusion of a corresponding replacement revenue source will have detrimental effects on the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy and the achievement of regional environmental objectives, and may adversely affect the movement of goods and the sustained economic development in the region;






Section E 3.1


KBirks

Text Box

ATTACHMENT

Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: October 11, 2012 Page 2 of 12 Finance Committee Recommendation: That the Finance Committee receive for information the report dated October 1, 2012, titled “Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook”. 1. PURPOSE This report provides comments and recommendations on TransLink’s draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook (Attachment 1). 2. CONTEXT The Regional Land Use and Transportation Context The region is moving in the right direction. Transit ridership grew by 80 percent between 2000 and 2011. Transit mode share has increased significantly. In 2000, one in ten trips was by transit in the region. Eleven years later, nearly one in seven trips was made on transit. This is consistent with Goal 5 of the Regional Growth Strategy (Support Sustainable Transportation Choices).

Growth of ridership 2002 – 2011. Source: TransLink


Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012

Finance Committee Meeting Date: October 11, 2012 Page 3 of 12

The introduction of the U-Pass and expansion of the Frequent Transit Network (Millennium Line, Canada Line, bus service expansion) successfully attracted previously car-dependent passengers. These are significant achievements given how easy it still is to access a car and that much of the built environment is designed to facilitate car travel. The Regional Growth Strategy calls for much more to be done to attract more car-dependent drivers to transit and other choices. According to TransLink, both cycling and walking trips have increased dramatically in recent years. This suggests a growing market demand for cycling lanes and for more cyclable and walkable communities. These increases were limited to certain cities and neighbourhoods and have yet to make measurable differences in mode share at a regional scale. From a land use perspective, in 2012, TransLink and Metro Vancouver achieved the Transport 2040 target to have the majority of jobs and housing located along the Frequent Transit Network. This is consistent with Goal 1 of the Regional Growth Strategy (Support a Compact Urban Area). It shows the region’s continued commitment to preserving agricultural lands, containing development within the Urban Containment Boundary, and focusing growth in Urban Centres and corridors served by frequent transit. It also shows the degree of expansion of the Frequent Transit Network. Obviously, a reduction in transit funding and service levels could easily reverse this fragile progress, and undermine the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy. There is no guarantee that this performance is durable. Several provincial highway expansion projects are nearing completion, and more were recently announced. Significantly more capacity will soon be available to serve cars and trucks (and buses). In addition to easing congestion, the additional road capacity will reduce the personal time cost of movement by automobile (partially offset by toll cost in some cases). More road capacity makes driving a more attractive option. Continued highway expansion without corresponding expansion of transit choices runs counter to the Regional Growth Strategy. Expanding the number of highway traveling lanes without transportation demand management and without faster, more frequent transit will lead to long-term increases in vehicle kilometers travelled and greenhouse gas emissions. Legislative Requirements As required under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, TransLink must adopt a base plan and outlook document and submit it to the Regional Transportation Commissioner for review and to the Mayors’ Council for information no later than November 1st of each year. Mayor’s Council action is required only for a supplemental plan. The base plan identifies all anticipated expenditures, including transportation services and major capital projects, to be funded under established revenue sources. It also identifies borrowing limits and accumulated surpluses, as set out in the most recently approved strategic plan. The affected period is the ensuing three fiscal years (2013-2015). The outlook component identifies the transportation services and major capital projects for years 4 to 10 (2016-2022). TransLink chose to forecast only expenditures fundable by approved revenue streams in its outlook. Consultation with Metro Vancouver TransLink must prepare its base plan and any supplement so that the resulting plan sets out the relationship between the major actions planned and regional objectives. TransLink is also required by legislation to consult with Metro Vancouver on its base plan and


Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: October 11, 2012 Page 4 of 12 supplemental plan. It is the role of Metro Vancouver to provide comments on the degree to which TransLink’s plans support the Regional Growth Strategy, Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and other established Board policies. Even with the extended timeline to submit a base plan, the consultation process remains too compressed (see Attachment 2). The current consultation schedule does not provide TransLink itself with time to revise content in any material way, and to conduct further consultation with Metro Vancouver or any other stakeholders prior to adopting the plan and submitting it to the Regional Transportation Commissioner who has to render an opinion on the financial sustainability of the plan. The Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook The draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook is based on the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan, which was approved by the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation last year. This report highlights only key items from the plan. Financial Element The 2013 Base Plan and Outlook will see TransLink’s budgeted revenues grow from $1.338 billion in 2012 to $1.505 billion in 2015, an increase of $167 million or 12 percent over the next three years. No new revenue sources requiring legislative amendments are proposed. The 2013 Base Plan and Outlook retains the time-limited property tax increase in 2013 and 2014 from the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan. Although the Mayors’ Council formally advised TransLink in April 2012 that the time-limited property tax is no longer available, TransLink is required by law to prepare and consult on a base plan that is based on the most recently approved supplemental plan. The base plan also assumes that transit fares will increase in 2013 by the maximum amount allowable in legislation. It is TransLink’s intention to reapply for supplemental fare increases for enactment in 2014. The Commissioner will judge whether TransLink has met his condition of achieving $40-$60 million of cumulative efficiencies in the base plan. TransLink’s identification of $47 million per year in cost-saving efficiencies and $51 million in revenue-increasing efficiencies is impressive and commendable. Still, the fact that TransLink has to draw down its reserves from 21 percent in 2012 to 12 percent by 2015 highlights the depth of its revenue challenge. Borrowing will remain below the debt cap of $3.5 billion. TransLink is not putting forward transit service levels that cannot be maintained within the 10-year horizon of the outlook. Revised Investments When TransLink set out to prepare the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan under the direction of the Mayors’ Council in 2011, a key aim was to resolve the Evergreen Line funding gap ($400 million). The Regional Growth Strategy identifies the Evergreen Line as the region’s number one priority for rapid transit expansion. Even though it met this key Regional Growth Strategy priority, the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan should not be misconstrued as an optimal investment package to serve the needs of the population and employment growth set out in the Regional Growth Strategy. For example, the plan is deficient in addressing the movement of goods and establishing policies and actions to reconcile the land development activities of Port Metro Vancouver, the airports, and other actors.




TransLink’s 2012 plan was designed primarily to achieve a regional consensus for funding the Evergreen Line and modest investments in other transit service, with attention paid to the south of Fraser communities. In the 2012 plan, two scenarios were presented. Scenario A comprised a set of new investments funded by a permanent increase in the motor fuel tax by $0.02/litre ($40 million per year) and a new permanent funding source to be enabled in 2013 (generating $30 million per year). This scenario was agreed to by the Province and the Mayors’ Council. It was imperative for the Mayors’ Council that the 2012 plan included funding for the Evergreen Line and investments elsewhere in the region, including an increase of 415,000 annual service hours for bus and SeaBus. It should be noted that full implementation of these service hours were planned to improve service quality without necessarily solving all overcrowded hotspots and new demand induced by the expanded provincial U-Pass program (the planned service increase was 8% from 2011 to 2014 - in comparison, total service hours increased 16 percent from 2006 to 2009). Scenario B was included as a “back-up plan” in case the alternative permanent funding source could not be found and enacted by 2013. The new investments in this scenario were scaled back and assumed to be funded in part by the permanent motor fuel tax increase and a time-limited property tax in place for 2013 and 2014 only (generating approximately $60 million cumulatively in those two years). In the end, the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan was approved by the Mayors’ Council. The Province approved and raised the motor fuel tax for TransLink. Then the carefully assembled set of assumptions behind the plan started to unravel:

• Discussions among the Province, the Mayors’ Council, and TransLink to identify a new permanent funding source broke down in early 2012;

• The Province initiated an audit of TransLink (the TransLink Board formally requested that the audit be conducted by the Province);

• The Regional Transportation Commissioner rejected TransLink’s application for a supplemental increase in short-term fares for 2013 that was assumed as part of the approved 2010 Funding Stabilization Supplemental Plan.

• The Commissioner recommended that TransLink reapply once it demonstrated an achievement of $40-$60 million of cumulative efficiencies in the next base plan.

• TransLink confirmed that fuel tax revenues in 2013-2015 are expected to fall $144 million short of original projections;

• Transit fare revenues will be lower than projected; • Golden Ears Bridge toll revenues will be significantly lower than projected; and, • The sale of the Oakridge Transit Centre will be deferred to 2016.

Faced with a financial reality diverging from the one envisaged in the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan, TransLink had to sculpt the committed investments for the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook as shown on the following page:


Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: October 11, 2012 Page 6 of 12

2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan

2013 Base Plan and Outlook

Shortfall from 2012 Moving Forward

Supplemental Plan

1Additional Funding

Required in 2013-2015

Key Funding Assumptions

• Motor fuel tax increase • Time-limited property

tax increase in 2013, 2014 only

• New supplemental fare increase in 2013

• Motor fuel tax increase • Time-limited property tax

increase in 2013 and 2014 only

• New supplemental fare increase in 2014

N/A N/A

Evergreen Line

Funded Funded N/A N/A

Bus and SeaBus Service Hour Increases

+415,000 service hours: • White Rock to Langley

local bus • Highway 1 rapid bus • King George

Boulevard B-Line • SeaBus upgrade to

Frequent Transit Network status

• Other routes

+109,000 service hours, inclusive of:

• White Rock to Langley local bus (implemented April 2012)

• Partial Highway 1 rapid bus (scaled back service in off-peak)

• Partial King George Boulevard B-Line (terminates in Newton)

• Other routes, such as increase in early evening SeaBus service

Shortfall of 306,000 service hours including: • No full Highway 1

rapid bus • No full King George

Boulevard B-Line to South Surrey/White Rock

• Postponed SeaBus upgrade to Frequent Transit Network level

• Other routes

$72.8 million (operating) + $4.9 million (capital)

Rapid Transit Station Upgrades, Pedestrian, cycling facilities in station areas

• Main Street • Commercial-Broadway • Metrotown • New Westminster • Surrey Central • Lonsdale Quay • Ped/cycle integration

in Evergreen Line station areas

• Main Street • Commercial-Broadway • Metrotown • New Westminster • Scott Road • Surrey Central • Joyce-Collingwood

• No upgrades to Lonsdale Quay

• Reduced provision of pedestrian and cycling facilities integration in Evergreen Line station areas

$0.7 million

$2.2 million

Major Road Network and Bike upgrade programs

+$10 million for the MRN upgrade program ($20 million)

+$3 million for the Bike

upgrade program ($6 million)

Existing upgrade program funding folded into MRN Operations, Maintenance, Rehabilitation program (municipalities can apply to divert OMR funds to upgrades)

No restoration of Major Road Network and Bike upgrade programs to pre-2010 levels

$5.9 million

Total $86.5 million Relationship between the Revised Investments and the Regional Growth Strategy In staff’s judgment, the revised investment package in the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook is a pragmatic response to the reality of TransLink’s financial situation. It is consistent with TransLink’s stated priority of keeping the regional transportation system in state of good repair and maintaining transit services, followed by making strategic enhancements and upgrades when new resources are available.

1 These figures were provided by TransLink staff on September 21, and are not included in the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook document. The capital costs are represented as debt serving costs net of revenues for 2013-2015.




The investments are generally supportive of the Regional Growth Strategy goals, but fall short in many areas. The major elements are evaluated as follows (see Attachment 3 for details). • King George Boulevard B-Line and Highway 1 Rapid Bus

The King George Boulevard B-Line and Highway 1 rapid bus connects emerging Urban Centres in South of the Fraser. This supports Regional Growth Strategy Goal 1 (Create a Compact Urban Area), Goal 3 (Protect the Environment and Respond to Climate Change Impacts), and Goal 5 (Support Sustainable Transportation Choices). In particular, the Highway 1 rapid bus, operating at 10-minute headways during rush hours, will provide a real alternative for commuters within the region and outside the region to choose transit rather to drive over vastly expanded highway and bridge capacity. It is unfortunate that off-peak service will be 30-minute headways. This will be a significant disincentive for drivers to switch over to transit when commuting at irregular hours and for non-work trips.

• Rapid Transit Station Upgrades

Upgrading rapid transit stations also supports Goals 1, 3, and 5 of the Regional Growth Strategy. It is important to modernize and expand these established facilities as the region accommodates more and more residents and workers in Urban Centres and areas close to the Frequent Transit Network. Prioritizing the Expo Line stations appears reasonable as they are the oldest facilities in the rapid transit system.

• Pedestrian/Cycling Facilities Integration in Rapid Transit Station Areas

The exclusion of $25 million in pedestrian and cycling facilities in station areas along the Evergreen Line is a missed opportunity that fails to advance the Regional Growth Strategy goal of supporting sustainable transportation choices ($30 million was originally committed). It would be easier and more affordable to integrate this infrastructure into the station areas as the stations are constructed, rather retrofitting the station areas afterwards.

• Major Road Network Upgrades

Funding for Major Road Network upgrades and cycling upgrades are folded into TransLink’s Operations, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation program. Municipalities have the flexibility to apply to divert these funds towards upgrade projects. This is a sensible formula given that the original Major Road Network Minor Capital Program and Bike Capital Program will not be restored to prior year funding levels. Emphasizing a “fix it first” philosophy is appropriate and supports Goals 1, 2, and 5 of the Regional Growth Strategy.

• Cycling Upgrades

In terms of Goal 2 (Support a Sustainable Economy), a well-maintained major road network benefits goods and services vehicles, buses and community shuttles, drivers, and even cyclists. In rapidly growing communities, however, where new roads will have



to be built, or existing ones right-sized, a lack of regional road upgrade funds may mean increased congestion, idling, and even more greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of Goal 5, there is increasing acceptance and demand for safe cycling facilities that are more than just a line painted on a busy road. A lack of regional cycling upgrade funds will mean deferred investments to support what is one of the fastest growing transportation modes in the region.

Aside from the investments, the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook includes the key elements of a draft policy for Park and Ride. The intent of the policy is to better manage the Park and Ride system, including its financial sustainability. One of the key tools proposed is variable pricing, with a minimum rate of $2 per day, at all TransLink Park and Ride stalls (currently, 3,500 out of the 4,300 stalls under TransLink’s control has pricing in place). From the perspective of the Regional Growth Strategy, this initiative is consistent with policies to encourage TransLink to advance transportation system and demand management measures. The initiative is also in line with emerging awareness of user-based transportation financing (as discussed later in this report). As this policy gets refined, staff will review and provide comments from the perspective of the Regional Growth Strategy. The Importance of Delivering the Rest of the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan The public interest is always better served when the challenges and choices facing regional land use and transportation decision-makers are framed clearly and accurately. Simply put, by not achieving new funding sources to deliver the rest of the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan, there will be serious impacts to the Regional Growth Strategy. Finding the funding to deliver the remaining elements should remain a high priority. As shown in the table above, an additional 306,000 annual transit service hours have been excluded from the base plan. These new service hours would allow the King George Boulevard B-Line to connect to Semiahmoo Municipal Town Centre in South Surrey/White Rock, and allow the Highway 1 rapid bus to operate more frequently than every 30 minutes during off-peak periods. The remaining new service hours, if appropriately allocated to accommodate growth in Urban Centres and other corridors, will complement the service optimization initiative, and continue to sow the seeds of transit-oriented communities, in particular in the fastest growing suburban parts of the region. The next few years are especially critical as municipalities update their official community plans and prepare new regional context statements to achieve the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy. As municipalities affirm new areas for growth in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, residents, elected officials, and developers will demand more certainty about the stability of the Frequent Transit Network. Failing to deliver the previously committed 306,000 service hours will impede the region’s momentum to becoming a transit-oriented place as envisioned in the Regional Growth Strategy. From a social equity perspective, the new service hours would cushion the adverse impacts of service optimization on the most vulnerable segments of the population. Through its service optimization initiative, TransLink is continuously adjusting and fine-tuning service levels to ensure greater revenue productivity and that may mean reallocating services from less productive areas to more productive corridors. These efficiencies may discourage suburban communities from becoming more transit-oriented. Students, carless commuters and seniors (the fastest growing demographic group) living in transit-poor areas of the region are also likely to experience greater service reductions, therefore affecting their mobility and access to education, jobs, and social/recreation opportunities.




This report does not speculate whether a future supplemental plan would be prepared having the singular purpose to remove the time-limited property tax increase, thereby creating a new revenue shortfall of $60 million. In the event that such a supplemental plan is advanced, however, it is foreseeable that further reductions from the proposed 2013 Base Plan and Outlook would result in extremely difficult choices which could have further impacts on the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy. A more thorough analysis by staff is required if a “negative” supplement is proposed by TransLink. It should be emphasized that the Metro Vancouver Board strongly supports alternative forms of funding other than property tax increases only (see Attachment 4). Possible Paths Forward There is no easy path forward. This is especially so since the provincial government will not be convening the fall session of the legislature to contemplate new legislation enabling new funding tools. However, without the Province at the table, there can be no real progress made on identifying and implementing new revenue sources for regional transportation investments. In the interim, there is an opportunity for Metro Vancouver, TransLink, and the Mayors’ Council to cooperate on a number of shared objectives. Path 1: Cooperation on Developing Feasible Funding Sources When the Province and Mayors’ Council signed the Livable Cities Memorandum of Understanding in 2010, it was a positive milestone in the ongoing dialogue on sustainable funding for regional transportation. The Memorandum of Understanding spelled out the intention to examine all feasible revenue sources. In the subsequent months, a great deal of technical work was completed jointly by the Province, TransLink, and the Mayors’ Council, culminating in the identification of a long-list of feasible revenue sources. These discussions ended abruptly in early 2012. The priority now should be to identify new funding to deliver the rest of the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan. Finding a solution to this near-term challenge may also yield momentum to finding the longer term solution. Metro Vancouver should be a full partner in this new dialogue. It is recommended that the Board request the Provincial Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure to resume the process of evaluating all feasible funding sources for regional transportation jointly with Metro Vancouver and TransLink. Two of these near-term funding sources are the BC Carbon Tax and the renewal of the Federal Gas Tax funding for the region. • BC Carbon Tax

Recently, the Province announced the review of the revenue-neutral BC Carbon Tax, which is currently set at $30/tonne, and will remain so over the next two fiscal years. All the forecasted revenues are spoken for in the form tax credits and reductions. Metro Vancouver has sent a letter to the Province conveying a desire for the BC Carbon Tax to continue and to have some of the incremental revenues returned to local governments to fund greenhouse gas reduction investments in the region. Incremental revenues may be achieved by assessing the tax on sectors which are currently exempt from the BC Carbon Tax, or by raising the BC Carbon Tax above its current rate. For example, if the BC Carbon Tax were to be raised to $35/tonne in 2013 and to $40/tonne in 2014, then the “increment” generated by the region could add up to $100 million in those two years (order of magnitude estimates).



If a portion of this amount is returned to the region through a shared revenue agreement, rather than through personal and business tax credits or reductions, then it would appear to be sufficient to replace the time-limited property tax increase in 2013 and 2014 (cumulative $60 million). Such a shift from the time-limited property tax increase to a carbon tax increase would constitute a tax relief for property owners.

If additional carbon tax revenues are returned to the region, then some of the remaining commitments in the 2012 Moving Forward Supplement could be delivered, plus, innovative Metro Vancouver initiatives to implement the Regional Growth Strategy and the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan.

BC Carbon Tax Revenues Generated by the Region (Preliminary estimates from MV staff)

FY2013 FY2014

Estimated Baseline Revenues • $30/tonne in 2013 and 2014

$380 million $390 million

Estimated Revenues • $35/tonne in 2013 • $40/tonne in 2014

$410 million $460 million

Estimated Incremental Revenues $30 million $70 million • Federal Gas Tax Funding

In 2005, Metro Vancouver agreed to direct 100 percent of federal gas tax funds allocated to the region to TransLink. The current tri-partite agreement between the Federal Government, the Province, and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) for distribution of the federal gas tax funding will expire after 2014. The Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement between Metro Vancouver, TransLink, and UBCM will also expire at the same time. In 2011, the Federal Government made the return of these gas tax dollars to municipalities nationwide permanent. Establishing the target investment areas (transportation and non-transportation) for using federal gas tax funding in the region is an important topic for dialogue between senior governments and Metro Vancouver.

Path 2: Cooperation on Regional Land Use and Transportation Planning through a Memorandum of Understanding Metro Vancouver and TransLink, in collaboration with municipalities, can begin working together to integrate land use and transportation in a substantive way. There are two areas for cooperation: the Regional Transportation Strategy update, and regional road pricing. • Regional Transportation Strategy Update

The big question about the next major round of Frequent Transit Network expansion, such as rapid transit extensions south of the Fraser and on the Broadway corridor, is anticipated to be deliberated in the Regional Transportation Strategy update. Staff from TransLink, Metro Vancouver, and municipalities have only been engaged in high-level discussions on background research to date. Prioritizing investments that will have a material impact on progress towards the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy, greenhouse gas reduction targets and other established Board objectives must not take place without Metro Vancouver as a full partner in the planning process. It is therefore recommended that the Metro Vancouver Board negotiate a memorandum of understanding with TransLink for the new Regional




Transportation Strategy to become a joint project of the two regional agencies to ensure real integration of land use and transportation planning and investment decision-making.

• Regional Road Pricing Implementation

Revenues derived from gasoline and diesel sales are proving to be an unreliable source because fuel sales are declining. The best medium-term and long-term solution for funding the regional transportation system is one where transportation user-based fees, independent of fuel source, are a significant component of the revenue portfolio. Transit fares are already a large component. Other sources are needed, such as an annual vehicle licensing fee and road-user fees (e.g. tolls or distance-based pricing).

TransLink’s 2013 Base Plan and Outlook makes no reference to undertaking further investigation and consultation on such measures. Metro Vancouver is uniquely positioned to take on this work in partnership with TransLink.

Road pricing has the dual objectives of raising sustainable revenues and managing transportation demand. On that second point, there is arguably a land use shaping dimension to road pricing that only Metro Vancouver can bring to the design of such a program.

Further, Metro Vancouver is in a stronger position to facilitate dialogues with member municipalities and stakeholders on subregional and multisectoral equity concerns and to achieve regional consensus. This work should take place under the same Memorandum of Understanding set out above for the Regional Transportation Strategy.

Path 3: Cooperation on Governance Practices Review Study Finally, successful integration of land use and transportation requires a rethink of the current governance arrangements in the region. The Mayors’ Council is initiating a transportation governance practices review study this fall. It would be beneficial for the Mayors’ Council to collaborate with Metro Vancouver in this study so that optimal and preferred alternatives can be identified. 3. ALTERNATIVES That the Board may: a) endorse the recommendations as listed in this report; Or b) identify additional information requirements or policy directions to be included in the

feedback to TransLink and other parties; 4. CONCLUSION

TransLink has released the draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook for consultation. The draft plan is generally acceptable as a short-term pragmatic program. The exclusion of 306,000 transit service hours committed in the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan is problematic from the perspective of fostering transit-oriented communities and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Staff recommends several paths forward for Metro Vancouver, TransLink, and the Mayors’ Council to cooperate on a number of shared objectives.


Comments on TransLink’s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: October 11, 2012 Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENTS 1. 2013 Base Plan and Outlook prepared by TransLink, September 16, 2012

(Doc. #6531626). 2. 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Milestones and Decision Points (Doc. # 6549477). 3. Evaluation of Major Investment Element relative to the Regional Growth Strategy

(Doc. # 6561088). 4. Recent Metro Vancouver Board Resolutions related to Property Tax Increases for

Transportation (Doc. # 6561267). 6536560


2013 Base Plan and Outlook i

2013 Base PlanDRAFT FOR CONSULTATION

September 17, 2012

Transportation & Financial Plan for 2013 to 2015 and Outlook for 2016 to 2022


GStanese

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 1

2013 Base Plan and Outlookii

TransLink Board Members

About the 2013 Base Plan

Caution Regarding Forward Looking Statements

About TransLink

Under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, TransLink is required to prepare a base plan and outlook every year. The base plan supports implementation of the region’s long-term transportation strategy, as well as progress toward the Provincial Transit Plan, Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy, Provincial greenhouse gas reduction targets and municipal plans.

This document and accompanying appendices are TransLink’s 2013 Transportation and Financial Base Plan and Outlook for 2013 to 2022. A base plan identifies the strategic initiatives, programs, investments and services that TransLink will pursue over the next three years (i.e. “plan period”) drawing only on established revenue sources. It identifies how TransLink will be able to meet these commitments and maintain its financial integrity over an additional seven year period (i.e. “outlook period”).

Supporting details and information for the 2013 Base Plan can be found in the appendices.

From time to time, TransLink makes written and/or oral forward looking statements, including in this document, and in other communications. In addition, representatives of TransLink may make forward-looking statements orally to analysts, investors, the media and others.

Forward-looking statements, by their nature, require TransLink to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risk and uncertainties. In light of the uncertainty related to the financial, economic and regulatory environments, such risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond TransLink’s control, and the effects of which can be difficult to predict, may cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements.

TransLink is Metro Vancouver’s regional transportation authority. We are responsible for regional transit, cycling, roads and commuting options, as well as AirCare and Intelligent Transportation System programs. Our services are delivered through our operating companies, which include the Coast Mountain Bus Company and British Columbia Rapid Transit Company. We also share responsibility for the Major Road Network (MRN) and regional cycling with our municipal partners in Metro Vancouver. We are the first North American transportation authority to be responsible for planning, financing and managing all public transit in addition to major regional roads, bridges and cycling.

Nancy Olewiler, Board ChairJames Bruce, Board Vice-ChairRick ChristiaanseW John DawsonBarry ForbesSarah GoodmanHoward NemtinDon RoseMarcella Szel


2013 Base Plan and Outlook 1

Contents2 A message from the Board Chair3 A message from the CEO

4 Cutting costs, spending wisely

5 Where are we now? A decade of growth and transportation improvements Proving efficiency and cost-effectiveness Managing in tough times

14 2013 to 2015: What can we afford? What will we do for roads, bridges and cycling? What will we do for transit? How will we improve the region’s transportation experience?

22 What about the future? Regional Transportation Strategy Asset management Financial sustainability

24 Outcomes: achieving regional goals Supporting regional goals, plans, policies and partnerships Is the region achieving its goals?

26 Looking ahead

27 Appendices Appendix A: Revenue sources Appendix B: Services, programs and capital expenditures Appendix C: Strategic initiatives Appendix D: Outcomes Appendix E: Financial Information Appendix F: Efficiencies and key performance indicators Appendix G: Financial tables


2013 Base Plan and Outlook2

A Message from the Board Chair

TransLink has helped shape a better place to live in our

region. Over the last decade, key investments in transit,

roads and bridges, walking and cycling infrastructure

have given the people who live here more transportation

options. The end result is cleaner air, and better

movement of people and goods—all this contributes

to Metro Vancouver’s quality of life. But, we cannot

sustain this quality of life as the population and economy

grow unless transportation infrastructure grows as well.

Our region has also identified the need for additional

transportation services, particularly transit, in areas

where demand is already higher than the current system

can accommodate.

The harsh reality is we do not have the means to pay

for more given the economic climate and TransLink’s

legislated funding sources. Our current revenues are

challenged by lower than expected fuel tax revenues

and a smaller fare increase than requested. In light

of these challenges, TransLink’s Board of Directors

remain focused on delivering the best possible

transportation system to the public, while making the

most of every dollar we have. We have worked with

the Mayors’ Council and the Province to achieve a

sustainable funding level that delivers the current level

of transportation services and a number of priority

investments for the region such as the Evergreen Line

project. We have a process to aggressively reduce

expenditures with strict policies in place to guide future

spending and investments. We will continue our focus

on fiscally responsible management in the years to

come. The 2013 Base Plan and Outlook reflects

the board’s ongoing call for financial prudence and

organizational efficiencies. We will continue to provide

critical oversight and ensure taxpayers’ money is spent

wisely.

Yet, we know the plan we’re putting forward today

doesn’t prepare our region to meet the transportation

needs of the future—it is simply not enough. Without a

transportation network that keeps pace with our growth,

we will experience more traffic congestion, higher costs

for moving goods, more crowding and pass-ups on the

transit system, and less service in some areas. The

question we face is how do we want transportation to

shape the future of Metro Vancouver?

This is a conversation we must have as a region.

The board is committed to working with the Mayors’

Council, the Province, stakeholders and the public to

build a transportation network that supports a thriving

region. In the meantime, we will ensure that we use

our existing resources efficiently and live within our

means. Nonetheless we must acknowledge that without

a sustainable transportation network, we jeopardize our

quality of life and the competitiveness of our economy.

We invite you to share your thoughts and opinions on

the challenges we face. Join the conversation and

be a part of the plan, as we contemplate the future of

transportation in Metro Vancouver.

Nancy Olewiler | Board Chair



A Message from the CEO

In order to balance the books for 2010 we implemented

$30 million per year in savings by realigning our

organization, reducing professional and management

positions, and cutting spending. We have continued

to examine our operations and take steps to improve

effectiveness and efficiency which is reflected in our

positive financial and operating performance.

Today we are forecasting a significant and unexpected

decline in revenues from what had been assumed in

previous estimates. This means we have to get even

more aggressive in reducing costs and leveraging our

existing assets to derive more revenue. Over the last

few years, we have been retaining vehicles and other

assets on the prospect that new revenue sources will be

identified to fund expansion. We can no longer assume

this, and we are taking the steps required to live within

this new reality.

In 2009, we addressed opportunities for improvement

identified by the Comptroller General in her review

of our operations. We are now working with the BC

Ministry of Finance audit team as they conduct a further

review of our operations. Based on the final results of

the audit we will implement those measures that make

sense and adjust our operations and plan as required.

Many of the areas the audit team has identified are

areas where we have already begun to take action – we

have built those efficiencies into this plan.

We’re making tough choices. Unfortunately these

choices may have negative impacts for some of our

customers. We’ve started to shift resources from transit

routes with low ridership to provide service where

demand is greater. This means we can offer more

service at times and in places where more people will

use them, increasing ridership and revenue. But other

customers will experience a decline in service; they may

have to wait longer or they may find that transit is no

longer an option.

These measures may make up for much of our lost

revenue, but they also mean we won’t be able to go

ahead with all the investments expected in the 2012

Moving Forward Plan. Instead, this 2013 Base Plan,

which assumes we are provided the time-limited

property tax, allows us to maintain service levels and

proceed with a smaller amount of expansion. This is

only possible because we have been cutting costs and

increasing revenues through efficiencies and drawing

down our reserves. Our Base Plan puts our focus on

the present, and on maintaining most of the services we

already provide. But our region must also look forward.

The tough choices we make today will have a profound

impact on what our transportation network will look like

in the future. As population and demand increase, a

focus on today won’t get our region where it needs to

go.

These challenges call for a renewed focus on

affordability, pragmatism and practical thinking. At no

time is the need for collaborative,

cost-effective solutions more

urgent. This can only be achieved

through working together

with our Board of Directors,

Mayors’ Council, the Province,

stakeholders and the public.Ian Jarvis | CEO



Cutting costs, spending wisely 2013 Base Plan and Outlook

Since 2002, there has been unprecedented expansion in transit in the region. There has been a 45 per cent increase in bus service, two rapid transit lines have opened and a third new SkyTrain line is on the way. We’ve leveraged new technologies to give customers better access to information. We’ve also made significant investments in road infrastructure and supported cycling.

Since 2008, TransLink has been cutting costs and finding efficiencies. There are almost $100 million/year in efficiencies built into this plan. We are making the most of every dollar.

Despite these efficiencies, TransLink faces significant challenges to several revenue sources. For example, fuel tax revenue, our second largest source of income, is declining. Last year, TransLink committed to an investment plan that assumed we’d have $144 million more from 2013-2015 than we now expect to get.

We are delivering as much of the 2012 Moving Forward Plan, approved last year, as we can afford. This includes: •OurcontributiontotheEvergreenLine •UpgradestosevenSkyTrainstationstoimproveaccessandcapacity •BusandSeaBusexpansionimplementedin2012 •Highway1RapidBusfromCarvolthtoBraid(Lougheed) •KingGeorgeB-LinefromGuildfordtoNewton

This plan works because we’ve taken a multi-pronged approach: •Reducingcostsandfindingefficiencies •Increasingrevenuebyleveragingourexistingassetsandservices •Drawingdownourcumulativereservestotheminimumfiscallyresponsiblelevel

We are not meeting the region’s desire and need for further investment in transportation and our progress to our regional goals is, at best, modest.

A well functioning transportation system is vital to the livability of Metro Vancouver. We need to work together to achieve the 2013 Base Plan.



Where are we now?

A DECADE OF GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

Since 2002, TransLink has invested in an unprecedented

expansion of the regional transportation system. Today,

the people who live in Metro Vancouver have more and

better choices for getting around. Major facilities such

as the Canada and Millennium Lines and the Golden

Ears Bridge were built and have shortened commute

times dramatically. We invested over $357 million to

improve or expand regional roads, including facilities

such as the Fraser Highway, Coast Meridian Overpass,

Mount Seymour Parkway and Kingsway. TransLink also

contributed $272 million to making sure the over 2,300 km

of Major Road Network it funds is kept in a state of good

repair. We invested $42 million in making cycling better

by funding upgrades to municipal bike facilities, funding

new facilities such as the Central Valley Greenway, and

building a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the Fraser

River. TransLink also succeeded in providing world

acclaimed transportation service in support of the 2010

Winter Olympic Games.

TransLink leads North America in transit ridership growth.

Today, we provide 45 per cent more transit service to this

region than we did in 2002, while serving nearly 80 per

cent more transit customers. In 2011, TransLink provided

more than 233 million rides in our transit network.

Research shows that over 50 per cent of people in this

region use transit in a typical month, reflecting the broad

reach and quality of our services.

The people who live here—road users, cyclists,

pedestrians and transit riders—all benefit in a variety of

ways from our quality transportation system. For example,

the Golden Ears Bridge has saved many road users

time, with 30 minutes or more in travel time savings, and

money, with lower fuel and operating costs. TransLink’s

other major road investments also make it easier for

people and goods to move around the region efficiently.

The dramatic increase in transit use also has a positive

impact. Transit users save money by using the system.

Fewer drivers translates into lower emissions and cleaner

air. Drivers face less congestion, leaving more space for

the people and goods that most need to be on the roads.

In fact, 10 per cent fewer cars now enter the core of

Vancouver than a decade ago, and traffic volume growth

on other regional roads has substantially slowed.

The expansion of service over the last decade has brought

clear benefits to our region, and so far we have been

able to meet rising demand and get closer to achieving

regional goals. But the question our region now faces is

how we will meet the needs of the future with the means

we have available.



Cost-Saving Efficiencies

Cost-Saving Efficiencies

Revenue-Increasing Efficiencies

Revenue-Increasing Efficiencies

FIGURE 1 TransLink Efficiencies, Past and Present

$30 Million / Year($90M total 2013-2015)

Reduction of over 90 management and

professional positions

Reductions in overtime and labour costs

No cost of living increases to exempt staff salary

levels

Reduced cost of buying goods and services

Increase in usage of fuel efficient vehicles

Optimization of bus services

Reduction of fare evasion

Increased ridership revenue by

accommodating background

population growth with no new

service

Scheduling efficienciestighten up schedules by reducing recovery times

Rightsizing the transit fleetassign vehicles to ensure that each route is served by the appropriately sized vehicle, based on customer demand

Maintenance and operation efficienciesimprove maintenance practices

Reduced SkyTrain frequency on Expo and Millenium Lineson weekends from 9:30am-9:30pm

Additional optimization of bus servicesshift bus resources to routes where there are more riders; serving more riders generates more revenue

Leveraging real estate assetsobtain commercial value from real estate assets and pursue real estate projects that deliver sustainable revenues

Park and ride pricingintroduce or increase rates at TransLink operated park and ride lots

These efficiencies will impact customers – buses may come less frequently on routes that aren’t very busy and smaller buses may be used; some less busy bus service may be cancelled; SkyTrain passengers will have to wait longer for a train on weekends and the trains will be more crowded; the risk that buses won’t run on time will increase. On the other hand, passengers using the busiest routes are less likely to get passed up by an overcrowded bus and TransLink’s real-time bus information will let people know when their bus will arrive.

Average annual total efficiencies:Three year total efficiencies:

Already implemented or assumed in 2012 Plan

New efficiencies introduced in 2013 Base Plan






$98 Million / Year$294 Million (2013-2015)

Further, $41 million of additional efficiencies and service adjustments was implemented in 2012.



In 2008, the TransLink Board, just brought on under our

new governance structure, faced a growing $150 million

gap between revenues and expenditures. After a period of

rapid expansion, TransLink’s expenditures were growing

faster than its funding could support. In response, we

halted further expansion and in 2010 we implemented

$30 million in cost-reduction efficiencies. We reduced

spending by eliminating executive positions, reducing

management and professional positions, consolidating

procurement activities and centralizing human resources

and information technology. These savings continue to

carry forward under this plan. TransLink delayed more

extensive cost reductions until we fulfilled our service

commitment to the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, which

required every available bus and rail car to ensure

success.

Since then, we have continued to find ways to streamline

our business and make every dollar count. In 2010, we

began optimizing bus service, a program to better match

service with demand around the region. To date, 3.4 per

cent of total bus service hours have been shifted to busier

routes or times of day. This resulted in better service to

more customers and was responsible for $7 million of the

$21 million in new transit revenues added to the system in

2011. Over the next three years, the impact of improved

productivity that was already assumed in previous plans is

$27 million in additional revenue a year.

This plan introduces more efficiency measures in addition

to those that have already been implemented or assumed

in our previous base plan. For example, cost savings will

be achieved by tightening up bus schedules to reduce

“recovery”, the time provided at the end of a route to

ensure bus schedules are reliable. More routes will be

served by smaller vehicles that are less expensive to

operate. And changes will be made to maintenance and

other operation practices to increase cost-efficiencies.

SkyTrain won’t run as frequently on weekends in order

to reduce costs, though the same number of passengers

will be carried. The combined impact of these efforts is

additional cost-reduction efficiencies of $17 million a year.

In this plan, we are taking steps to leverage our assets

and existing service to further increase revenues. In

addition to the $27 million in new revenues in our previous

plans, a further $24 million a year in new revenues will

be achieved, at no extra cost to TransLink. Service

optimization is now a core and ongoing program, and each

TRANSLINK IS PROVING ITS EFFICIENCY AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS



year we will achieve productivity gains by reallocating

services. We will leverage our real estate assets to

generate sustainable revenues. We will introduce or

increase charges at our park and ride lots to bring a more

equitable approach, ensure efficient usage of the lots, and

to generate revenue.

So far, TransLink has been successful in identifying

efficiencies and cost reductions while maintaining a

record high level of customer satisfaction. However, it

will be difficult to achieve these further efficiencies and

cost reductions without having a negative impact on our

customers. For example, fewer spare buses available

and tighter schedules will have an impact on how reliable

our bus services are for customers. This will especially

be the case when major service disruptions occur, such

as a SkyTrain service stoppage or power disruption on a

trolley line, as there will simply be fewer buses on standby

available to respond. While many customers will benefit

from reducing crowding and fewer pass-ups from service

optimization, some customers will experience a reduction

in service. Some bus passengers will travel on smaller

vehicles and weekend SkyTrain passengers will have to

wait a little longer and the trains will be a bit more crowded.

The efficiencies that have already been implemented

and previously planned and the new efficiencies being

introduced are necessary in order to be able to afford the

investments that are proceeding under this plan.

TransLink is also reducing costs and taking steps to keep

costs from growing. In 2012, TransLink examined and

prioritized all capital projects and services on the basis

of their business cases and we are only proceeding

with those that are cost-effective and deliver the highest

benefit to customers and the region. In total, $48.5 million

of initiatives from the capital plan have been deferred or

reduced in scope. While there were important initiatives

among these, there is not sufficient funding available to

implement them at this time. We will work to reintroduce

these capital initiatives—in order of priority—as resources

permit.

There are a number of risks associated with this plan.

The efficiencies described above must be achieved. Real

estate revenues must be realised. If fuel prices increase

beyond what is forecasted this will increase costs to

TransLink and would likely decrease fuel tax revenues.

This plan also assumes there will be no labour rate

increases for the next two years. If this turns out to be

something we can’t achieve, TransLink will have to reduce

expenditures in other areas to offset this.


2013 Base Plan and Outlook 9Greater Vancouver Regional District - 71


In 2011, we had a plan to expand.1

After plan approval, TransLink faced new financial realities.

Today, we face significant challenges to our funding sources. We are expecting $472 million less than forecast revenue over the next 3 years, mostly because of lower fuel tax and transit revenues.

2

It’s still not enough.

We’re still facing a $163 million gap. We’ve had to choose projects that add the best value to the system, and defer the remainder to the future.

4

We are doing more with less by: implementing further efficiencies & cost-reductions; finding innovative ways to increase our revenues; and, drawing down our reserves to the minumum level.

3 We’ve made every effort to close the gap.

A $2.24 billion investment program was approved by the Mayors’ Council in October 2011. This required approximately $70M/ year in new revenue, to be funded by 2 cents of additional fuel tax and a $30M/ year new revenue source.

Cost-Savings & Efficiencies$51M (2013-2015)

New Revenue Efficiencies $71M

Draw Down of Reserves to Minimum Level $124M

A $163 Million

Gap

Revenue Adjustments $22M

Fuel Tax Revenue $144M

Fare Revenue $108M

No New Revenue Source in 2015 $30M

Golden Ears BridgeToll Revenue $38M

Deferral of Real Estate Sales $152M

$472 Million Lower Than Forecast (2013-2015)

Cost-Savings & Efficiencies$41M (2012)

To Pay For What’s Out

XX

X

XXX

XX

Rapid Transit

Service Improvements

Roads and Cycling

Evergreen Line (TransLink contribution)

Station Upgrade Projects Main Street, Scott Road, Metrotown, Commercial-Broadway, Surrey Central, New Westminster, Joyce-Collingwood Lonsdale QuayStation Area Upgrades - Walk, Bike and Road Connections

KingGeorgeBlvdB-Line,GuildfordtoNewtonHwy 1 Rapid Bus, 10 min peak, 30 min off-peakWhite Rock to LangleyAdditional early evening SeaBusSome service to reduce overcrowdingRemainder of bus service to reduce crowding, meet U-Pass demand, and accomodate population growthFull extension of daily 15 minute SeaBus service FullKingGeorgeBlvdB-Line,toWhiteRockFull Hwy 1 Rapid Bus, every 10 minutes all day

Restoration of funding for Major Road Network upgrades (to $20M)Restoration of funding for Bicycle Capital upgrades (to $6M)

109,000 annual hours

X306,000 annual hours

Financial changes from 2012 Moving Forward to 2013 Base Plan

What’s In and What’s Out

FIGURE 2 The Financial Challenge



While TransLink continues to focus on being

efficient and cutting costs, today we face significant challenges to our funding sources. It costs money to

expand transportation services to meet the demands of

this growing region. And the revenues needed to provide

the additional transit, road, bicycle and pedestrian

investments that can meet current and future needs to

move people and goods are now in question.

TransLink’s second-largest revenue source, fuel tax,

is substantially declining. In 2011, fuel consumption

dropped 5 per cent from the previous year, and TransLink

is projecting a further decline of approximately 3 per cent

for 2012. This decline in consumption results in a loss of

$30 million in 2012 compared to what was forecasted in our

2012 financial and transportation plan (the 2012 Moving

Forward Plan). Over the next three years, we forecast

that fuel tax revenues will be $144 million lower than what

the 2012 Moving Forward Plan assumed. Forecasting

fuel consumption and revenues is difficult given complex

factors involved and the volatility in revenues paid to

TransLink since a recent Provincial change in collection

methodology.

A combination of factors is contributing to the decline:

people are driving less and using more fuel-efficient

vehicles and more people are filling up their cars outside

Metro Vancouver. Less driving and lower emissions are

good news because it means people are making more

sustainable transportation choices and reducing their

environmental impact. However, lower fuel tax revenue

has a significant impact on TransLink’s overall revenues

and highlights the need for sustainable long-term funding

for transportation.

Over the next three years fare revenue will be

approximately $100 million lower than was previously anticipated. This difference is primarily caused by

three factors. First, expansion of service hours is lower

than expected. Second, forecast revenues from pass

programs have been reduced (this may be revised as

negotiations are underway). Third, in April 2012, the

TransLink Commissioner rejected a supplementary fare

increase for 2013. Under its legislation, TransLink can

raise the price of fares up to 2 per cent each year in

response to inflationary pressures. However, TransLink

requested a slightly larger fare increase than allowed

MANAGING IN TOUGH TIMES



under legislation to help fund further transit expansion.

The Mayors’ Council approved this proposed increase

in 2009, which was supposed to bring in another $15

million of fare revenue. The Commissioner refused to

allow this supplementary increase. Instead, he suggested

TransLink reapply after demonstrating $40 to $60 million

of cumulative efficiencies in our 2013 Base Plan.

The 2012 Moving Forward Plan assumed proceeds from

the sale of the Oakridge Transit Centre would occur in

the 2013-2015 period. The timing for vacating current

operations from this property has now been delayed

until 2016. $150 million in revenue from the sale of Oakridge is no longer available to fund operations in

the next three years.

Traffic volumes on the Golden Ears Bridge are not

growing as quickly as originally forecast and toll revenue

is expected to be $38 million lower over the next three

years than was assumed in the 2012 Moving Forward

Plan.

Finally, the 2012 Moving Forward Plan, which was adopted

by the Mayors’ Council in October 2011, assumed that

the Province and the Mayors’ Council would agree on a

new $30 million per year funding source to fund services

and projects in the plan. If this source was not identified

in 2012, a time-limited property tax in the amount of

$30 million for 2013 and 2014 would be introduced as

a means to pay for the expansion implemented in 2012.

The $30 million per year funding source has not been

identified, and the Mayors’ Council’s willingness to see the time-limited property tax go into effect is now

in question. Legally, this 2013 Base Plan must assume

that the time-limited property tax will go into effect for 2013

and 2014. The legislative framework provides assurance

that approved revenues are available so TransLink can

fund its commitments.

In spring 2012, the Province began an audit of TransLink

to find out what amount of ongoing savings can be found to reduce the need for additional revenues. We

have been working closely with the audit team to identify

any areas that we have not yet considered. The auditor’s

report is expected to be released in fall 2012.

FIGURE 3 The Decline of the Regional Fuel Consumption

1990

90

110

130

150

170

1998

2006

1994

2002

2010

1992

2000

2008

1996

2004

2012

Metro Vancouver Gasoline Sales, Monthly & 12-Month Average

Mill

ions

of

Litr

es (G

asol

ine)

Litres reported & basis for TransLink fuel revenue (Consumer Taxation Branch data)

Litressoldinregion(Kentdata)


2013 Base Plan and Outlook 13Greater Vancouver Regional District - 75


2013 Revenues & ExpendituresFIGURE 4

Revenues, $1.43 Billion

Transit revenuesMotor fuel TaxProperty taxSenior government contributionsParking sales taxToll revenuesOther

Expenditures, $1.51 Billion

Transit operationsInterest expenseDepreciation expenseCapital contributions for road and street-related infrastructureAdministrationSecurity

2013 to 2015: What can we afford?

TransLink is attempting to maintain or implement as much of the approved 2012 Moving Forward Plan as possible in light of the financial realities we now face. While we will be able to fulfill our commitment on the Evergreen Line and most station upgrade projects, this plan will only deliver one-quarter of the additional planned bus service hours. Funding for the Major Road Network and bicycle programs will not increase. All the investments in the Moving Forward Plan continue to be near-term priorities for the region and TransLink will implement these as financial resources permit.

To deliver services and investments with less funding, TransLink is putting in place strategies that involve tradeoffs and risks.

• Reduce costs: TransLink will continue to build in efficiencies and cost-reduction measures across all services, programs, and investments.

• Increase revenues: TransLink will seek to increase revenue without affecting taxpayers. This includes extending pricing to Translink-owned park and ride lots, leveraging real estate assets, selling surplus real estate and increasing fare enforcement.

• Draw down reserves: TransLink will tap into its cumulative funded surplus (‘reserves’) in order to move ahead with commitments. We are drawing down this fund to the lowest level that is still fiscally responsible.

The projected revenues and expenditures for 2013 are provided in Figure 3. Revenues include a transit fare increase in 2013, approved in TransLink’s plans since 2009. This increase is lower than planned due to the Commissioner’s decision to reject TransLink’s application for a higher increase. As assumed in previous plans and allowed under a base plan, property tax revenue will increase by 3 per cent. Today, TransLink charges for parking at some park and ride lots, and not others.



TransLink will start charging for parking at all of our park and ride lots in order to provide a consistent and equitable approach for all customers, ensure the efficiency and availability of parking and generate revenue.

TransLink uses a comprehensive performance-based evaluation framework to assess and rank potential investments. The framework and process provides a transparent, objectives-driven and performance-based method for evaluating and deciding on initiatives. Financial resources are limited, and this process ensures all initiatives included in TransLink’s plans are effective at delivering benefits to customers, moves the region toward its long-term objectives and are of the highest priority.

Since not all of the initiatives from the 2012 Moving Forward Plan could be carried forward, this performance-based evaluation was used to prioritize investments for the 2013 Base Plan and determine which initiatives could be funded. Based on the revenues projected to be available and the investment prioritization, the following section outlines the programs, services and revenues that are included in the 2013 Base Plan.

Going forward, TransLink will continue to use performance as a basis for investment decisions. As further efficiencies are achieved or new revenues realized, TransLink will direct available resources towards those transportation services or programs that deliver the best overall benefit.

What projects are IN?

Evergreen Line (TransLink’s contribution)

109,000 bus annual service hours:

• White Rock to Langley bus service• Additional early evening SeaBus services• Some additional hours to address overcrowding•• Highway 1 Rapid Bus, Phase 1: Carvolth to Braid, 10

min peak, 30 min off-peak•• King George Blvd B-Line, Phase 1: Guildford to

Newton, with upgrades to Newton Exchange

Upgrades to SkyTrain stations: Main Street, Scott Road, Metrotown, Commercial-Broadway, New Westminster, Surrey Central, Joyce-Collingwood (replaces Lonsdale Quay upgrade).

306,000 annual service hours• Remainder of envelope to increase bus service hours

to reduce overcrowding on key routes, accomodate population growth, and meet U-Pass demand

• Extension of 15 minute SeaBus service to every day, including Sundays and Holidays year round.

• Full Highway 1 Rapid Bus• FullKingGeorgeBlvdtoWhiteRockB-Line

Station Area Improvements

Restoration of full funding for Major Road Network and Cycling upgrades

Upgrade to Lonsdale Quay terminal and exchange

What projects are OUT?

FIGURE 5 Comparison with the 2012 Moving Forward Plan

• 48,000 annual hours (implemented April 2012)

• 21,000 annual hours

• 40,000 annual hours


2013 Base Plan and Outlook16Greater Vancouver Regional District - 78


WHAT WILL WE DO FOR ROADS, BRIDGES, AND CYCLING?

Along with our municipal partners, TransLink provides planning, funding and coordination for more than 2,300 lane-kilometres of regionally-significant roadways, known as the Major Road Network (MRN). Under the 2013 Base Plan, TransLink will:

• Continue to fund operations, maintenance and rehabilitation of the major road network.

• Maintain basic funding to municipal road and bicycle projects, at a lower level than committed to in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan.

• Continue to operate and maintain its bridges and continue discussion on the future of the Pattullo Bridge.

As part of its commitments, TransLink provides operations, maintenance and rehabilitation funding for the major road network to the municipalities. It also provides basic funding for municipal road and bicycle projects. The total envelope for contribution to municipal roads and cycling capital and operations is $46 million per year.

In 2013, TransLink will put in place a new funding structure for contributions to municipal roads and bicycle network. The total amount of funding remains the same as 2011 levels and the new structure gives our municipal partners

the flexibility to allocate funds based on their local priorities. TransLink will provide $8,375 per lane kilometre for operations and maintenance of the MRN and $5,980 for rehabilitation of the MRN. This provides sufficient funding to cover 100 per cent of the operations, maintenance and rehabilitation needs for the MRN. Under the 2013 Base Plan, the MRN and bicycle upgrade program is unfunded but municipalities can reallocate rehabilitation funding to fund upgrade projects.

During the 2013 to 2015 plan period, TransLink will operate and maintain its bridges, including the Knight Street Bridge, the Westham Island Bridge and Golden Ears Bridge. To ensure public safety, TransLink will continue to monitor the need for operational upgrades and repairs on these facilities and make improvements as needed. The awareness and education campaign for the Golden Ears Bridge will continue.

TransLink will also continue to operate and maintain the Pattullo Bridge to ensure that the structure is safe. TransLink will continue to work with the Cities of New Westminster and Surrey and other project stakeholders to ensure that all reasonable alternatives for the Pattullo Bridge have been properly assessed, and to identify a way forward as soon as possible.



Under the 2013 Base Plan, we will:• Continue to reduce costs in our transit system and

achieve incremental fare revenues by delivering more productive and efficient schedules.

• Fulfill our commitments on the Evergreen Line.• Move ahead with seven station upgrade projects.• Deliver one-quarter of the additional bus service

hours committed in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan, including Highway 1 bus service with reduced frequency and a shorter route for the King George Boulevard B-Line.

TransLink will fulfill its commitment on capital contributions relating to the Evergreen Line and work closely with the Province, who is leading the project. This rapid transit project, set to be completed in 2016, will bring SkyTrain service to the communities in and around Coquitlam City Centre to Lougheed Town Centre. The 11-kilometre Evergreen Line will provide fast, frequent and convenient rapid transit service that integrates with regional bus networks and West Coast Express. An integration plan will be developed for the Evergreen Line to identify impacts and guide the restructuring of bus services to allow for an efficient introduction of the new rapid transit line.

The 2013 Base Plan will continue commitments to key station upgrade projects to improve station capacity and accessibility to better serve our customers. These projects are funded in part by $124 million of senior government funding. This funding requires that station upgrade projects are substantially completed by 2016. Not moving ahead with upgrades at these stations would put this funding at risk. Therefore, TransLink will press forward with the design and construction of upgrades

at the following seven stations: Main Street, Metrotown, Scott Road, Commercial-Broadway, Surrey Central, New Westminster and Joyce-Collingwood. Work has already begun at some stations, including Scott Road and Main Street Station. Under the 2013 Base Plan, in addition to the senior government funding for these projects, TransLink will contribute $29 million to the completion of these upgrades.

With respect to bus service expansion, TransLink will only be able to deliver one-quarter of the additional bus service hours committed in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan. TransLink will introduce service on Highway 1, but it will run less often in off-peak hours than originally planned. TransLink will also introduce the King George Boulevard B-Line in 2013, but the service will run only from Guildford to Newton. Although the service expansion that rolled out in April 2012 will stay in place, delivering this lower level of additional bus service means we will have to make difficult decisions that will affect our customers.

Although we are not able to include in the 2013 Base Plan all the projects and service identified in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan, we know these are regional priorities. These initiatives include the Lonsdale Quay upgrade, bus and SeaBus service expansion, the restoration of funding for bicycle and major road network upgrades past 2012, and cost-share investments with municipalities for pedestrian and bicycle facilities in station areas that support better access to the Evergreen Line and other rapid transit stations. Current financial forecasts show we don’t have enough resources to move ahead with these initiatives at this time. We will move ahead with these as soon as resources allow.

WHAT WILL WE DO FOR TRANSIT?



HOW WILL WE IMPROVE THE REGION’S TRANSPORTATION EXPERIENCE?

In 2013, TransLink will continue to build on its programs and services aimed at enhancing the customer experience for people travelling by foot, bicycle, transit and automobile, and for businesses and operators moving goods in our region.

In 2013, TransLink will introduce an automated fare collection system across all transit modes, called the Compass card system. This project is a key TransLink initiative to increase customer convenience; improve the efficiency and effectiveness of collecting fare revenue; improve transit service quality through data analysis; reduce fare evasion; increase revenue; improve safety and security on the transportation system; and, in the longer run, provide a means to transition to a more equitable and efficient fare structure. The phased introduction of the system will include the installation of faregates at Expo, Millennium and Canada Line stations and SeaBus terminals.

Under the 2013 Base Plan, TransLink will continue to focus on improving customers’ experience of the transportation network. This includes the TravelSmart program, which promotes sustainable transportation choices and more efficient use of the existing transportation network. TravelSmart combines relevant transportation information with “tipping point” incentives to encourage and help people throughout the region to better understand and use the travel options available to them.

Improving the quality and ease of access to information improves customer service and quality and reduces the need for “bricks and mortar” investments, such as call centres. To do this, TransLink will continue other customer-focused initiatives, including providing real-time travel information for buses; engaging customers through social media (such as Twitter and Facebook); and providing multi-modal travel information through Google Maps. TransLink will continue to upgrade wayfinding at new or renovated facilities to help customers more easily use the transit system. Lastly, TransLink is further developing technologies and strategies to enable customers to make travel choices that save time and money.

We also expect to improve the customer experience through efficiencies in how we design service. For example, by reallocating bus service hours to higher demand routes, service optimization will reduce bus overcrowding and minimize pass-ups on some routes.

A safe and secure network is a fundamental part of delivering an excellent transportation experience to our customers. In 2013, TransLink will work with our municipal partners to consider various initiatives for improving traffic safety for motorists in the region.The 2013 Base Plan also continues to support the core strategic directions of Transit Police and Transit Security. These are reducing crime and disorder; protecting TransLink assets and the transit environment; and providing better service to the transit community. Additionally, new legislation enables greater enforcement for fare evasion and directs fine revenues to TransLink.



What about the Future?

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY

In 2013, TransLink will undertake an update to the region’s long-term strategic planning direction, building on the foundation established in Transport 2040. This updated Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS) will provide guidance for both the long-term (30 years) and medium term (15 years), and take a performance-based approach that seeks to achieve the region’s desired outcomes in the most cost-effective way possible. The RTS will focus on developing a path forward in the following key areas: coordinating transportation and land use in support of Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy; encouraging smart travel choices; effective system management; maintaining transportation assets in a state of good repair; system expansion; and financial sustainability.

ASSET MANAGEMENT

TransLink is responsible for managing and maintaining assets valued at approximately $11.7 billion- including roads, bridges, tracks, guideways, trolley wires, stations, vehicles, and depots. As these assets age, future capital needs to maintain and renew them are increasing. To ensure that the region’s transportation system remains in a state of good repair, TransLink will continue to prioritize spending on asset maintenance and renewal with projects and programs such as SkyTrain running rail replacement, revenue vehicle replacement, and spending on depots. This plan assumes that TransLink will spend $1.2 billion over the next ten years on asset maintenance and renewal. A discussion on how to most strategically maintain these assets will be had as part of the Regional Transportation Strategy dialogue, and will focus on balancing multiple transportation objectives while ensuring the quality, safety and reliability of the transportation network.

Many of TransLink’s fundamental financial difficulties, such as declining fuel tax revenue, are projected to continue in 2014 and beyond. While the 2013 Base Plan is financially stable and maintains most current services and commitments, TransLink does not have sufficient resources to significantly expand the transportation network to meet projected demand. However, simply maintaining current services and programs will not move the region toward its long-term goals.

In 2013, TransLink will work on a number of strategic initiatives to continue progress toward our long-term goals and financial stability.



FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

In 2013, TransLink will continue to work toward identifying a strategy for diversifying revenue sources, and pursuing new and innovative ways to fund transportation. This is important work that, while difficult and often controversial, is necessary for the organization, public and elected officials to engage in a constructive conversation on how we best develop a funding strategy that is sufficient and appropriate to deliver the programs, services and investments required to serve our growing region. The fact that revenues expected from our second largest funding source, fuel tax revenue, are forecasted to be substantially lower than previously assumed underscores the urgency for defining a way forward. Revenues represent one side of the financial sustainability equation; the other side is cost cutting. This includes both reducing the costs of how we invest today and deliver our day-to-day operations and

the policies we pursue that enable us to cost-effectively move toward the region’s long term objectives. The new reality is not just for today, it will shape how we invest over the long term.

How we ensure a stable future for our funding and efficiency and effectiveness in our investment and decision-making will be topics for the region to discuss as we move forward with development of the Regional Transportation Strategy and decide what we want our transportation future to look like.



SUPPORTING REGIONAL GOALS, POLICIES, PLANS, AND PARTNERSHIPS

TransLink’s annual transportation and financial plans are a primary means of implementing the long-term transportation strategy and progress toward the vision, goals and objectives of the Province and Metro Vancouver. TransLink’s current long-term strategy, Transport 2040, was adopted in 2008 and established six goals for the regional transportation system. The forecast performance of the 2013 Base Plan has been evaluated in relation to the Transport 2040 goals. These are regional goals that were developed through extensive consultation in 2007 and are intended to move the region to a more sustainable transportation future.

The 2013 Base Plan will also support other regional policies and partnerships to help the region achieve its vision and goals. TransLink’s Sustainability Policy

(2009) commits the organization to making sustainability a key factor in its strategies, plans, business practices, decisions and operations. The Provincial Transit Plan

(2008) calls for significant expansion of transit service in Metro Vancouver, including rail and/or bus rapid transit lines on corridors throughout the region. Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (2011) focuses on land use policies to guide the future development of the region and support the efficient provision of transportation, regional infrastructure and community services. Lastly, TransLink has committed to supporting both the region’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the Provincial Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets for reducing GHG emissions in the Province by 33 per cent by 2020 and by 80 per cent by 2050 compared to 2007 levels.

IS THE REGION ACHIEVING ITS GOALS?

Unfortunately, the answer is no. Given the expected land use patterns in the region, the lack of strong demand-side management measures and the planned level of investment, only modest progress is anticipated toward most of the Transport 2040 goals. Despite the expansion that will proceed under this Plan, these gains will not be sustained through the outlook period (the next ten years) because growth is outpacing investment and expected land use patterns, making it less likely that our region will achieve the long-term goals of Transport 2040.

While we’ve made some significant progress with the implementation of new transit services and transit ridership will continue to grow, the region is not on track to meet GHG reduction (Goal 1) and mode share goals for walking, cycling, and transit (Goal 2). In 2012, Goal 3 from Transport 2040 was largely achieved, as over half of all jobs and housing in the region are now located on the Frequent Transit Network (FTN) as a result of regional investments. This success is expected to erode because growth within walking distance of the FTN will be offset by growth in areas that are not on the FTN. To close the gap on these targets will require changes to land use patterns,

Outcomes: Achieving Our Goals

Transport 2040 A Transportation Strategy for Metro Vancouver, Now and in the Future.

For the purposes of the BC South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, this document constitutes the long term strategy for the regional transportation system, prepared in 2008.



Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are aggressively reduced, in support of federal, provincial, and regional targets

The majority of jobs and housing in the region are located along the Frequent Transit Network

Economic growth and efficient goods movement are facilitated through management of the transportation network

Traveling in the region is safe, secure, and accessible for everyone

Funding for TransLink is stable, sufficient, appropriate and influences transportation choices

Region not on track to meet greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets

Nearly 30% of TransLink’s bus service hours are powered by electricity or compressed natural gas (CNG)

Ongoing network management will improve traffic flow and travel times to provide more efficient goods movement in the region

Congestion relief is expected as some trips shift to transit due to the opening of the Evergreen Line

Achieved in 2012

Without transit supportive land use, this achievement will not be sustained past the 10 year Outlook period

Region not on track to meet TransLink’s mode share targets

Transit mode share will plateau near 14% by 2020, well below the Provincial target of 17%

Only limited progress on shifting trips to walking and cycling

Expansion for the rapid transit network (Evergreen Line) is funded

Translink faces signficant challenges to the stability of revenue sources

Funding will be reduced for some roads, bridges, cycling, and transit initiatives

Faregates and Compass Card initiative will be implemented in 2013

Fatalities and serious transportation injuries in the region continue to decline

Transit Police continue to improve the security on the transit system

FIGURE 6 Limited Progress toward the Region’s Transportation 2040 Goals

improved transportation demand management measures and additional investment in the transportation system.

TransLink continues to prioritize safety, security and accessibility on the transit system and is actively working with municipalities to improve safety on the Major Road Network (Goal 4). An efficient and effective transportation system is a key component of support for the regional

economy (Goal 5). TransLink is developing a Goods Movement Strategy and has other initiatives underway to support goods movement. Finally, TransLink faces significant challenges to the stability of revenue sources and current financial resources are not sufficient to meet the region’s needs and desire for transportation investment (Goal 6). However, we are living within our means and the 2013 Base Plan is financially sustainable.

Most trips are by transit, walking, and cycling



This 2013 Base Plan builds in the efficiencies we have been challenged to find and takes into account TransLink’s new financial reality. However, it does not deliver

enough to meet the transportation needs of the

future. It delivers only some of the transit expansion that people in the region are calling for. It does not increase investment in road infrastructure that is critical to support the movement of people and goods by walking, cycling, transit and driving.

TransLink is operating strictly within the revenues we have available, delivering more service with fewer dollars, and drawing down the reserves to the lowest level possible within our risk tolerance. What we will be able to deliver is only possible because of our clear focus on efficiencies, and this will affect customers.

As a region, we are at a critical crossroads. This plan may be enough for today. But is it enough for tomorrow? Is it enough to help build what our region needs ten years from now?

We know we are stalled in achieving the region’s long-term transportation vision. But our region isn’t standing still—Metro Vancouver continues to grow. A strong transportation system in the future will be critical for managing that growth in a way that supports a healthy environment, healthy people and communities, a healthy economy and a sustainable region. The financial challenges TransLink faces today are coming at a time of

huge increases in demand for sustainable transportation choices and investments in the transportation network that support our region’s economic competitiveness, resilience, and livability.

And just as we are facing this challenge to deliver on our existing commitments, there are high expectations for future investment – for rapid transit on Broadway and in Surrey, more frequent bus service across the region, road and bicycle improvements and the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. These are all needed, but our challenge is, and has always been, what we can afford and how to pay.

In the coming months, we need to decide together as a region—the Mayors’ Council, the Province, the TransLink Board, our stakeholders and the public—how to manage through this growth and meet demand. For this 2013 Base Plan, we invite you to participate in the dialogue by going to the “Be Part of the Plan” section of our website www.translink.ca.

As we move past this financial challenge and into 2013, TransLink will look to renew consensus on the transportation future of our region. We invite you to be part of the development of the new Regional Transportation Strategy, and join us in candid conversations about the transportation system we want to build – how far we want to go, how fast we want to get there and how to pay for it. As a region, we need to define our path forward.

Looking ahead


Draft Appendices to the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook 27

APPENDICES



Appendix A: Revenue Sources 30 User Fees 31 Taxation Sources 34 Real Estate Program 35 Senior Government Contributions (Capital and Operating Contributions) 36 Interest Revenue 36

Appendix B: Services, Programs and Capital Expenditures 37 Prioritizing Investments 37 Transit Services 38 Roads and Bridges 47 Multi‐Modal Programs and Investments 51 TransLink Corporate and Transit Police 52

Appendix C: Regional Transportation Strategy 56

Appendix D: Outcomes 60

Appendix E: Financial Information 67 Statement of Revenue and Operations Summary 67 Debt Service 67 Funding Adjustments 68 Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Statement 68 Outlook for 2016 through 2022 70 Assumptions and Risks 70

Appendix F: Efficiencies & Key Performance Indicators 75 Efficiencies 75 Key Performance Indicators 78

Appendix G: Financial Tables 79



TABLES Table 1: Statement of Revenue and Operations Summary (millions) ............................................................................................. 31 Table 2: Transit Revenue Projections (millions) .............................................................................................................................. 31 Table 3: Golden Ears Bridge Toll Revenue Projections (millions) .................................................................................................... 33 Table 4: Motor Fuel Tax Revenue Projections (millions) ................................................................................................................. 34 Table 5: Property Tax Projections (millions) ................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 6: Parking Rights Tax Revenue Forecasts (millions) ............................................................................................................... 35 Table 7: Real Estate Program Revenue Projections (millions) ........................................................................................................ 35 Table 8: Senior Government Contribution Forecasts for Capital and Operations (millions) ........................................................... 36 Table 9: Interest Income Projections (millions) .............................................................................................................................. 36 Table 10: Total Transit Service Hours by Service Type (thousands)* .............................................................................................. 39 Table 11: Transit Operations Expenditure Forecasts (millions) ...................................................................................................... 39 Table 12: MRN and BICCS Program Funding Structure ................................................................................................................... 49 Table 13: Major Road Network, Bridges and Bicycles (millions) ..................................................................................................... 50 Table 14: TransLink Corporate and Transit Police Expenditures (millions) ..................................................................................... 52 Table 15: 2013 to 2015 Capital Plan (in 000s) ................................................................................................................................. 55 Table 16: Ridership Forecasts ......................................................................................................................................................... 63 Table 17: Statement of Revenue and Operations Summary (millions) ........................................................................................... 67 Table 18: Debt Interest Expense (millions) ..................................................................................................................................... 67 Table 19: Depreciation Expense Forecasts (millions) ...................................................................................................................... 68 Table 20: Funding Adjustments (millions)....................................................................................................................................... 68 Table 21: Key Assumptions for 2012 Three‐Year Plan with Outlook .............................................................................................. 71 Table 22: Cost Saving and Revenue Efficiency Initiatives in the 2013 Base Plan ............................................................................ 76 Table 23: Key Performance Indicators for the 2013 Base Plan ....................................................................................................... 78 Table 24: Consolidated Statement of Financial Position ................................................................................................................. 79 Table 25: Statement of Operations ................................................................................................................................................. 80 Table 26: Funded Statement of Operations .................................................................................................................................... 81 Table 27: Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows ........................................................................................................................... 82 Table 28: Projected Borrowing Compared to Borrowing Limit and Select Financial Ratios ............................................................ 83 Table 29: Transit Service Hours....................................................................................................................................................... 85

FIGURES Figure 1: Evaluation Criteria and Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 2: Regional Weekday Mode Share from the 2011 Trip Diary (preliminary results) ............................................................. 62 Figure 3: Transit Mode Share Trends and Forecasts ....................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 4: Cumulative Surplus Level Forecasts for 2012 through 2022 ............................................................................................ 70



APPENDIX A: REVENUE SOURCES This section details the estimated revenues for the three‐year Plan period, 2013 through 2015. Longer‐term revenue forecasts for the Outlook period, 2016 through 2021, are also described in this section.

The SCBCTA Act defines the revenue sources that can be used in the annual Base Plans. Within that legislative framework, the 2013 Base Plan uses only “established funding sources” (as defined in the SCBCTA Act) to fund TransLink operations.

The 2013 Base Plan financial strategy demonstrates that revenues from “established funding sources” are sufficient to maintain the service levels, programs and investments included under this transportation plan for the region, including delivering on as much of the 2012 Moving Forward Plan as possible given the financial challenges associated with declining fuel tax revenue forecasts. This was achieved through a multi‐pronged approach:

Reducing costs and finding efficiencies Increasing revenues by leveraging our existing assets and services Drawing down reserves to the minimum fiscally responsible level

The financial strategy extends to 2022 as a 2016‐2022 Outlook. The Outlook period captures the financial obligations and implications of the investment in services and infrastructure that have been committed as of December 2015.

Revenue projections are based on the following assumptions for 2013 to 2015:

Transit Fares: allowable increases on select fares o Increase in 2013 as allowed under a Base Plan o Increase in 2014 based on reapplication to the Commissioner of the increases approved

in the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan o 2 per cent increase on an annual basis, beginning in 2014 as allowed under a Base Plan

Fuel tax rate: 17 cents/litre (statutory maximum) Property tax revenues: grows by 3 per cent annually Property tax revenues: two years of time‐limited property tax of approximately $30 million for

2013 and 2014 Replacement tax revenues: $18 million (statutory maximum) Parking sales tax rate: 21 per cent (statutory maximum) Bridge toll rates: increases at CPI index (assumed at 2 per cent per year)

Under this Plan, total annual revenues will be $1.5 billion by 2015.



Table 1: Statement of Revenue and Operations Summary (millions)

User Fees

TRANSIT REVENUES Transit revenues are the largest source of revenues, accounting for more than one‐third of total revenues. They are made up of transit fares, property rentals and advertising revenues. Under the 2013 Base Plan, transit revenues are budgeted at $456 million in 2012 and increase to $549 million in 2015. Transit fare revenues will grow during the 2013 to 2015 period due to increased ridership and planned incremental fare increases beginning in 2013, which have been assumed in TransLink’s plans since 2009. Transit fare revenue in 2013 is lower than was forecasted in Moving Forward for several reasons:

Lower fare rates because the Commissioner declined the application for a supplementary increase

Lower revenues for pass programs Lower ridership because expansion hours in 2012 were lower than forecast in Moving Forward Adjustments to elasticities and productivity rates for background growth

In recent years ridership has increased at a higher rate than fare revenue because greater numbers of passengers are using discounted products and pass programs.

Table 2: Transit Revenue Projections (millions)

TransLink’s fares are regulated by the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act (SCBCTA Act) and by the Regional Transportation Commissioner. For short‐term products (e.g. cash fares, FareSavers and DayPasses), TransLink may set prices at or below the “targeted fare”. The “targeted fare” for a given product is equal to the fare price in 2008, plus a compounded annual increase of 2 per cent. Any increase beyond this requires approval by the Mayors’ Council and Commissioner. The prices for long‐term products (e.g. monthly passes) are not subject to regulation.

Actual Budget Outlook2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2022

Transit Revenues 444.6$ 456.2$ 497.8$ 533.0$ 549.2$ 724.0$

Toll Revenues 33.7$ 39.0$ 40.1$ 41.2$ 42.7$ 55.6$

User Fees 478.3$ 495.2$ 537.9$ 574.2$ 591.9$ 779.6$

Motor Fuel Tax 311.8$ 330.8$ 335.1$ 332.7$ 332.7$ 339.7$

Property Tax 280.2$ 287.6$ 296.1$ 304.9$ 314.1$ 386.3$

Parking Rights Tax 53.7$ 51.6$ 52.9$ 53.7$ 54.5$ 60.5$

Other Taxes 36.6$ 37.2$ 37.5$ 37.8$ 38.2$ 40.5$

Time‐l imited Property Tax ‐$ ‐$ 29.0$ 29.9$ ‐$ ‐$

Taxation Revenues 682.3$ 707.2$ 750.6$ 759.0$ 739.5$ 827.0$

Senior Government Contributions 82.3$ 82.4$ 85.5$ 94.5$ 106.7$ 125.8$

Amortization of deferred Concessionaire Credit 23.3$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$

Interest Revenue 26.1$ 30.3$ 37.9$ 42.5$ 43.9$ 69.6$

Total Revenues 1,292.3$ 1,338.2$ 1,435.0$ 1,493.3$ 1,505.1$ 1,825.1$

Forecasts



In order to maintain revenues and current service levels, the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan included a 12.5 per cent increase to the price of all products in 2013. Some products were proposed to increase to their targeted fares or only slightly above, while others (e.g. FareSavers) were proposed to increase above their targeted fares. This supplemental increase was approved by the Mayors’ Council but was not approved by the Commissioner.

Planned 2013 Fares In 2013, TransLink will increase fares to the targeted fare. This is at or below rates that have been assumed in plans since 2009. Cash, DayPass and short‐term West Coast Express prices have not risen since 2008 and will be increased. Adult FareSaver prices, which were increased in 2010, will not change. The Concession FareSaver price will be increased from $17.00 to $17.50 (a 3 per cent increase). Rates for monthly, weekly and annual Employer passes will increase by 12.5 per cent, as assumed in TransLink plans since 2009. The full schedule of transit fares is provided in Appendix G: Financial Tables.

Compass Card In 2013, TransLink will introduce an automated fare collection system called the Compass Card. After the introduction of Compass Card, TransLink will be discontinuing FareSavers, and customers will have the option of travelling using period (monthly, daily) pass products or a new fare product called “Stored Value”. Stored Value on the Compass Card provides customers the convenience of having an electronic “cash purse” loaded on the Compass Card. Money in the “cash purse” can be applied toward the cost of single rides in one or more zones of travel, AddFares, or pass products (e.g. monthly passes). The Compass system will automatically calculate the correct price for zones and amount of time in the system when the customer taps out. If customers use Stored Value on the Compass Card to purchase a single trip, a discount from the cash fare will be offered. The prices for Stored Value travel have been set so that average fares will be the same as they would be under the existing fare system.

2014 and Beyond In his decision to reject TransLink’s application for a supplemental increase the Commissioner suggested TransLink reapply when further efficiencies were demonstrated in the 2013 Base Plan. TransLink will reapply to increase prices in 2014 to those prices proposed in the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan. If this application is approved, TransLink will increase prices to either the approved price or the targeted fare, whichever is greater. Starting in 2014, TransLink will also begin annual fare increases. In previous plans, annual increases were compounded and implemented every 3 years to bring prices up to targeted levels. The Compass Card brings greater pricing flexibility, so smaller fare increases can be made each year.

U‐Pass BC U‐Pass BC program revenues have been estimated using the forecast numbers of eligible students as provided by the post‐secondary institutions. Ridership impacts have been included in the Plan, including those on students using transit, as well as the potential for displacement of current passengers due to



increased demand1. The Province is providing financial support to the U‐Pass BC program through the Provincial Transit Plan funding to ensure the new program does not have a negative financial impact for the duration of the agreement. TransLink will accommodate the program within the existing envelope of service hours. The current program expires at the end of April, 2013. This plan assumes that the Province continues the U‐Pass BC program or that the rates will be increased.

PROPERTY RENTAL, ADVERTISING AND OTHER

Property rental, transit advertising and other revenues are forecasted to rise from the 2012 budget of $11.5 million to $17.7 million in 2015. The 2013 to 2015 forecasts assume the contractual minimum increase in advertising revenues. “Other” revenues include Park and Ride user fees and fare infraction revenues from the introduction of Bill 51, which are forecasted to add $3 million in additional revenues.

Fare Evasion TransLink continues to reduce lost revenues from fare evasion. The introduction of faregates to the transit system will help to reduce fare evasion. In addition, the Royal Assent of Bill 51 on May 31, 2012, included provisions that required TransLink to pass a fare collection bylaw that sets out fare evasion fines (bylaw may specify discounts, surcharges and interest), which are to be enforced by designated fare officers and Transit Police. The introduction of Bill 51 also entitles TransLink to the fines owed, where previously they were paid to the Province.

TOLL REVENUES

TransLink receives toll revenues from the Golden Ears Bridge. The toll revenues will be used to pay for the project over the next 30 years.

Table 3: Golden Ears Bridge Toll Revenue Projections (millions)

The revenue forecasts for the 2013 Base Plan are lower than they were in the 2012 Moving Forward plan, especially in the Outlook years. This change is mainly due to revised growth assumptions based on existing traffic volumes and an independent study to determine the impact of population growth, economic activity, re‐distribution of travel and re‐assignment of traffic. Other factors influencing the expected lower revenues include the expectation of increased transponder use when the Port Mann Bridge is reopened, resulting in a lower average toll rate charged to Golden Ears Bridge customers.

1 Displaced passengers are non U‐Pass riders who are unable or unwilling to continue using transit due to over‐crowding caused by the influx of new U‐Pass ridership. Trips that exceed current network capacity are assumed displaced.



While traffic volumes are forecasted to continue growing on the Golden Ears Bridge each year, this growth is expected to slow, from 5.4 per cent in 2013 to 2.3 per cent in 2015. The average toll rate is scheduled to increase every July by a forecasted 2 per cent annual rate of inflation. Also, there is risk related to assumptions made about the impact of tolling on the Port Mann Bridge on toll revenues of TransLink, including any changes made by the Province or the Transportation Investment Corporation to tolling on the Port Mann Bridge.

Taxation Sources

MOTOR FUEL TAX REVENUES

The adoption of the 2012 Moving Forward Plan included a request to increase the fuel tax rate allowed under the SCBCTA Act by $0.02 to $0.17 per litre. The Province passed this legislative change in the spring of 2012 and the $0.02 increase came into effect on April 1, 2012, which explains the revenue increase shown for 2012 and 2013. The forecasted revenues from the full $0.17 fuel tax are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Motor Fuel Tax Revenue Projections (millions)

Fuel tax is currently TransLink’s second largest source of revenue, accounting for 23 per cent of total revenues in 2013. However, as a result of declining fuel sales volumes, the fuel tax is not producing as much revenue as previously anticipated and TransLink’s forecast fuel tax revenues for the 2013 Base Plan are significantly lower than they were in the 2012 Moving Forward plan. Forecasts for the 2013 to 2015 period are $145 million lower than previously anticipated, and the 10‐year fuel tax revenue projection for this plan period is down 15 per cent as compared to the 2012 Moving Forward Plan.

PROPERTY TAX

Property tax revenue will increase by 3 per cent per year, the maximum annual increase permitted under legislation for a base plan. Tax rates for all property classes necessary to generate the targeted revenue increase will be calculated to generate no more than the amount permitted by law and will be “rebalanced” for growth in the region and assessed values of homes. For example if regional growth was 2 per cent, there would only be a 1 per cent increase in owner property taxes.

Table 5: Property Tax Projections (millions)

Under the 2012 Moving Forward Plan, a contingency plan was approved so that if a new long‐term sustainable funding source had not been implemented before the end of 2012, then a time limited property tax would be implemented in 2013 and 2014 that would generate a total of $29 million in the first year across all property classes, equating to approximately $23 per year on the average residential


Property Tax 280.2$ 287.6$ 296.1$ 304.9$ 314.1$ 386.3$

Time‐limited Property Tax ‐$ ‐$ 29.0$ 29.9$ ‐$ ‐$

Forecasts



property. Legislatively, the 2013 Base Plan builds on the previously approved 2012 Moving Forward Plan, which assumes that the time limited property tax will be in place. Accordingly, $29 million and $30 million in additional property tax revenue are included above for 2013 and 2014.

PARKING RIGHTS TAX REVENUE

Under the 2013 Base Plan, parking rights tax (historically called the parking sales tax) revenue that is budgeted at $51.6 million in 2012 increases to $54.5 million in 2015. The tax rate is set at 21 per cent, the maximum permitted under the SCBCTA Act.

Table 6: Parking Rights Tax Revenue Forecasts (millions)

The 2013‐2015 forecasts assume a 1.5 per cent increase on the price of paid parking, based on factors such as the rise in fuel prices, rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and increase in population.

OTHER TAXES ‐ REPLACEMENT TAX, HYDRO LEVY

The Replacement Tax forecast remains at its legislated maximum of $18 million per year for the Base Plan and Outlook period. The tax will continue to be collected from all allowable property tax classes. The Hydro Levy is presently at a rate of $1.90 per month per residential account with no increases other than general population growth as projected by BC Stats.

Real Estate Program

In 2008, TransLink allocated $50 million in seed money for the Real Estate program to work collaboratively with internal and external stakeholders to ensure real estate property requirements are secured before transit infrastructure is required. It also seeks opportunities to minimize holding costs through interim uses and revenues. TransLink owns and/or operates assets across the BC South Coast Region and tries to leverage its assets by actively seeking commercialization opportunities. The organization also has a program in place to manage leases, land and facilities so as to optimize the its footprint, real estate liabilities and holdings. TransLink will pursue partnerships on projects that will provide long‐term revenue. Where sustainable recurrent income is not achievable, TransLink will seek to maximize the sale value of surplus land holdings. TransLink expects gains from the Revolving Land Account to be able to contribute to the operational budget by 2015. This plan includes proceeds from the sale of surplus properties to manage through funding challenges.

Table 7: Real Estate Program Revenue Projections (millions)

Factor Actual Budget Outlook2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2022


Forecasts

Actual Budget Outlook

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Period

Funds transferred from Real Estate to Operating 55.9$ 13.5$ ‐$ 45.0$ 195.0$

Forecasts



Senior Government Contributions (Capital and Operating Contributions)

The Federal and Provincial Governments contribute to TransLink’s capital projects through sources such as the Provincial Transit Plan, Building Canada Fund and the Strategic Priorities (Federal Gas Tax) Fund. The Federal Gas Tax Fund focuses on transit investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other contaminants to the air and water.

Senior government funding is applied to projects meeting the funding program’s criteria up to the allowable limit. These funds are restricted and most cannot be used for TransLink’s day‐to‐day business operations. The Summary of Capital Program, Table 8, provides more details on the specific contribution levels from the Federal and Provincial Governments.

Table 8: Senior Government Contribution Forecasts for Capital and Operations (millions)

A portion of senior government contributions are derived from Gas Tax Fund allocations targeted for vehicle fleet replacement and fleet purchases to implement service initiatives identified in this plan. Provincial Transit Plan funding supports both the Highway 1 Bus Rapid Transit and the majority of the rapid transit station upgrades. Building Canada Fund resources are also required for the rapid transit station upgrades. Operating contributions of $19.3 million per year are the deferred provincial contributions for the Canada Line. The Capital Summary provides more details on the specific contribution levels from the federal and provincial governments.

Interest Revenue

Interest revenue is interest earned on sinking funds, capital contributions, debt reserve funds and cash balances. Interest earned is restricted and cannot be used to fund operations with the exception of interest from cash balances.

Table 9: Interest Income Projections (millions)

Interest revenue in the Plan increases mainly due to the accumulation of further contributions to the sinking fund. The funds accumulated in this sinking fund go towards funding maturing debt issues which happens in the later part of the Outlook period.


Capital 61.7$ 63.2$ 66.4$ 75.2$ 87.4$ 106.5$

Operations 21.7$ 19.2$ 19.3$ 19.3$ 19.3$ 19.3$

Total Contributions 83.4$ 82.4$ 85.7$ 94.5$ 106.7$ 125.8$

Forecasts



Forecasts



APPENDIX B: SERVICES, PROGRAMS AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES The 2013 Base Plan objective is to keep as many of the planned projects from the 2012 Moving Forward Plan as possible, while also maintaining existing service levels and assets in a state of good repair. TransLink has identified ways of improving efficiencies and effectiveness to help close this gap. The following table highlights the investments that were approved in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan that are going ahead in the 2013 Base Plan. Within each of the following sections, the variations between the 2012 Moving Forward Plan and the 2013 Base Plan are outlined.

What Projects from the Moving Forward Plan will Proceed

TransLink’s commitment to the Evergreen Line Bus service expansion that was implemented up to April, 2012 (48,000 annual hours)

o White Rock to Langley bus service, introduced in April 2012 o Additional evening SeaBus sailings o Targeted expansion to address overcrowding

Highway 1 Rapid Bus, Phase 1: Carvolth Exchange to Braid SkyTrain Station (with future extension to Lougheed) (21,000 annual hours)

King George Boulevard B‐Line, Phase 1: Guildford to Newton (40,000 annual hours) Station Upgrade Projects, including: Main Street, Scott Road, Metrotown, Commercial‐

Broadway, New Westminster and Surrey Central What Projects from the Moving Forward Plan will Not Proceed under this Plan

Remainder of the bus and SeaBus service hours (306,000 annual hours) o To reduce overcrowding on key routes and to meet U‐Pass demand o Full Highway 1 Rapid Bus o Full King George Boulevard B‐Line to White Rock o Extension of 15 minute SeaBus service to everyday, including Sundays and Holidays year

round Restored funding for Major Roads Network and Cycling upgrades Upgrades to Lonsdale Quay

Prioritizing Investments

As outlined above, not all initiatives planned in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan are able to be carried forward into the 2013 Base Plan. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation framework was used to assess and rank initiatives in terms of their effectiveness toward achieving the Transport 2040 goals and priorities identified for the 2013 Base Plan. This is an approach that is similar to how TransLink has evaluated and prioritized initiatives in past plans. The framework and process provides an objectives‐driven, performance‐based method for planning and prioritization. Figure 1 presents the evaluation criteria and objectives.



Figure 1: Evaluation Criteria and Objectives

OBJECTIVES CRITERIA

REGIONAL PRIORITIES

GHGs Aggressively Reduced Reduces VKT

Improves system operations and efficiency Greater use of low emission fleet technology Greater use of low carbon content fuel

Non SOV Mode Share Serve existing transit ridership in an efficient manner Influences efficient transportation choices Promotes shifts to transit, cycling and walking, where feasible

Encourages future shifts to transit, cycling and walking

Complete Communities Encourages complete and transit‐oriented communities

Expands access to regional transit and cycling networks Promotes regional mobility

System Optimization Encourage modal integration Improves the resilience of the transportation system

Improves system safety

Promotes universal accessibility

Economic Growth & Goods Movement Supports efficient access to regional centres and economic gateways Manages congestion Improves travel time reliability

Financially Sustainable Maximizes leveraging opportunities Make efficient use of existing infrastructure Prioritizes cost‐effectiveness

Prioritizes long‐term growth in cost‐effectiveness

2013 Plan Priorities

Net Financial Impact to TransLink Incremental Revenue less operating costs

Debt service on TransLink capital costs

Level of Risk Financial

Political and Strategic

Reputational‐ schedule and successful project delivery

Leverages Significant Other Investment/Funding

Extent of capital contribution (to TransLink)

Extent of investment (made directly)

Interdependencies with other projects or investments

Urgency Time constraints on partner funding

Impact on customers of not proceeding (safety risk, accessibility, crowding)

Intensity of previous commitment

Readiness Project is ready to implement

Delaying will have negative financial impact

Transit Services

TransLink’s integrated transit system includes service of various levels of frequency, speed and daily span provided with bus, light rail, marine, commuter rail and custom transit, to meet the needs of



diverse markets. Under the 2012 Moving Forward Plan, TransLink proposed an increase of 415,000 annual bus and SeaBus service hours to be implemented in 2012, 2013 and 2014. In 2012, only 48,000 hours were implemented and the remainder were placed on hold until it was determined there was a means to pay for them. Under this plan, an additional 61,000 revenue service hours will be implemented. Table 10: Total Transit Service Hours by Service Type below summarizes the service hours by service type to be provided.

Table 10: Total Transit Service Hours by Service Type (thousands)*

*includes changes to both revenue and non‐revenue transit service hours

TRANSIT OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES

Transit operating expenditures are budgeted at $877.2 million in 2013 and are forecasted to be $912.5 million in 2015. In 2013, Transit accounts for 77 per cent of TransLink’s total operations expenditures. Transit revenue will cover 57 per cent of transit operations costs.

Table 11: Transit Operations Expenditure Forecasts (millions)

*The Canada Line expenditures include payment to the concessionaire to cover its operating expenditures and capital repayments, which are elevating the average annual growth rate metric.

Operations costs for transit services (except the Canada, Expo and Millennium Lines) are projected to grow at or below inflation forecasts, reflecting continued focus on operational efficiency and effectiveness. The higher‐than‐inflation increase in Canada Line is due to the terms of the contracted payment schedule, which are lower in the early years of the contract. Expo and Millennium Line costs reflect the impact of the 48 new cars placed in service in 2010 coming off warranty, as well as some increased operating costs associated with planned station upgrades.

Actual Moving Forward Revised Plan Outlook

Service Hours in Thousands 2011 2012 2012 2013 2014 2015 2022

Conventional Bus & Community Shuttle 4,909 5,058 4,923 4,929 5,006 5,024 4,997

SkyTrain Expo and Millennium Lines 1,166 1,128 1,171 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126

SkyTrain Canada Line 182 196 195 196 196 196 196

SkyTrain Evergreen Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 138

Rapid Transit Total 1,348 1,324 1,366 1,322 1,322 1,322 1,460

SeaBus 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

West Coast Express 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

Total Conventional Transit 6,310 6,435 6,342 6,304 6,381 6,399 6,510

Custom Transit (HandyDART) 603 613 598 598 598 598 598

Total Service Hours 6,913 7,048 6,940 6,902 6,979 6,997 7,108

Forecasts


Bus 574.6$ 605.3$ 600.5$ 609.4$ 628.4$ 686.7$

SkyTrain Expo/Millennium Lines & West Coast Express 110.0$ 120.1$ 119.8$ 123.6$ 126.2$ 136.9$

SkyTrain Canada Line 98.5$ 107.1$ 106.1$ 107.9$ 110.0$ 126.1$

SkyTrain Evergreen Line ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 11.3$ 15.6$

Capital Infrastructure Contributions ‐$ ‐$ 8.6$ 11.6$ 3.9$ ‐$

Property Taxes, Rentals, Fare Media 33.0$ 36.6$ 42.2$ 38.9$ 36.7$ 24.7$

Total Operations 816.1$ 869.1$ 877.2$ 891.4$ 916.5$ 990.0$

Forecasts



MANAGING THE TRANSIT NETWORK

Service Optimization Starting in 2010, TransLink pursued a Service Optimization Initiative (SOI) to increase the productivity of its existing service. To date, more than 170,000 hours, or 3.4 per cent of the total bus service hours, have been reallocated from lower demand routes or times of day to higher demand routes and time periods. At the same time population growth has also increased demand for transit. As a result of SOI and population growth, capacity utilization has increased from 84 per cent in 2009 to 88 per cent in 2011, boardings per revenue hour have increased from 54 to 58 over the same period, and fare revenue increased by 5 per cent ($21 million). Additional SOI adjustments are planned in 2012 and 2013 as part of the program. The 2013 Base Plan establishes an ongoing Service Optimization Program that will reinvest 25,000 hours a year in order to achieve higher productivity on the bus network. This will include reallocation of revenue hours from low productivity services and time periods, reductions in hours and days of operation, cancellations of very low performing routes and reinvestments focused on reducing overcrowding on key corridors with some investment in longer term ridership growth.

In support of this effort, an annual review of system performance is conducted, which looks at trends in bus system ridership at a system‐wide, sub‐regional, and route‐by‐route basis. The 2011 Bus System Performance Review (BSPR) is the first of these annual reviews and was published in May 20122.

Compass Card and Faregates In 2013, TransLink will introduce an automated fare collection system, called Compass Card, across all transit modes. Faregates at the Expo, Millennium and Canada Line stations and SeaBus terminals will also be installed. This project is a key initiative to increase customer convenience, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of collecting fare revenue, improve transit service quality through data analysis, reduce fare evasion and increase revenue, and improve safety and security on the transportation system. The Provincial and Federal Governments are providing financial support for this project.

Construction to prepare the stations for the installation of gating and related equipment will be completed by the end of 2012. System installation began in July 2012 and will be completed on the rail system by the end of 2012 and bus system in early 2013. Phased implementation of the Compass Card program will begin in 2013.

Transit Service Guidelines Update Developed in 2004, TransLink’s Transit Service Guidelines established the key service quality and performance indicators used to guide on‐going monitoring and management of the regional transit network. In 2013, TransLink will review and update the Transit Service Guidelines to inform performance‐based decision‐making and improve the tracking, analysis and reporting of regional transit system performance.

2 This report is available online at www.translink.ca



Area Transit Plans Area Transit Plans identify future transit networks and priorities for improving local transit service in Metro Vancouver's 21 municipalities. Each plan includes a long‐range transit vision, established in coordination with local growth patterns and land use plans. It also includes identified shorter‐range transit priorities for consideration in subsequent base or supplemental plans or on‐going network management efforts in each of the seven sub‐regions in Metro Vancouver. The North Shore Area Transit Plan will be completed in 2012, and the Area Transit Plans for the Richmond and Northeast Sector sub‐regions are expected to be initiated upon completion of the Regional Transportation Strategy update.

Park and Ride TransLink is adopting a comprehensive Park and Ride policy to guide the strategic decisions concerning Park and Ride facilities in the region. Park and Ride facilities serve an important role in the regional transportation system by enabling access to the transit network to those customers with low transit accessibility at their place of residence. The policy addresses the current inconsistencies in facility amenities, pricing, management, and access priority across the different Park and Ride facilities that are under our operation control.

The policy will enable the correct level of park and ride supply to be provided across the region, consistent with TransLink’s strategic goals. Where park and ride supply is not being provided by third parties TransLink will explore interventions, including providing new supply, to increase access to the transit system.

Pricing is an additional tool and the policy introduces paid parking at all lots. The price levels will be set to meet a number of key objectives, including: providing greater equity (e.g. all transportation users are paying for the infrastructure they use); cost‐recovery (e.g. both land and operational costs); improving the efficiency of the system; recognizing future land development potential; and leveraging assets and major TransLink projects. There are also major customer service benefits from pricing, such as greater certainty of finding a parking space is provided at oversubscribed facilities and the ability to provide consistent facility amenities. As a result, TransLink will develop an implementation strategy using variable pricing, with a minimum rate of at least $2 per day, at all the parking lots under its control.

Currently, roughly 3,500 of the 4,300 spaces under TransLink operational control already had pricing in place. In December 2012, the new Carvolth Park and Ride facility is scheduled to open, with roughly 650 spaces, which will be served by the new Highway 1 Rapid Bus service across the Port Mann Bridge connecting to Braid Station and direct services to Surrey Central Station. In addition, work is underway to deliver Park and Ride facilities associated with the Evergreen Line.

For the purposes of this Plan increases in revenue generation are assumed starting in 2013.



BUS AND SEABUS SERVICES

Overall Services Under this plan, 2012 service levels will be maintained and an additional 61,000 annual service hours will be implemented, resulting in a total expansion of 109,000 annual service hours as compared to the 2012 Base Plan.

The following new services are scheduled to be implemented under this plan:

King George Boulevard B‐Line Service: Beginning in 2013, 40,000 annual service hours will be allocated to a phased implementation of B‐Line service connecting Guildford Town Centre, Surrey Central and Newton Town Centre. Newton Exchange will be upgraded to accommodate this new service. Extension of the service to White Rock Centre, as contemplated in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan, will be deferred.

Highway 1 Rapid Bus: Coinciding with the opening of the new Port Mann Bridge, expected in December 2012, 21,000 annual service hours will be allocated to provide an express, high‐reliability service on the Highway 1 corridor linking a new Carvolth Exchange and park and ride in Langley with the Braid SkyTrain Station. Off‐peak service levels will be lower than planned in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan, and service will be extended to Lougheed town Center Station when ramps are completed. This project benefits from Provincial Transit Plan funding for the infrastructure supporting this service initiative.

Additional bus service changes will be proposed to improve the productivity of the system by reallocating services from lower performing routes to high demand routes through ongoing Service Optimization, as described above.

Making the Bus System More Efficient TransLink is committed to ensuring the bus system is as efficient as possible. Over the 2013 Base Plan period, TransLink will pursue the following initiatives:

Recovery times: Recovery time is the time added to the end of a trip to ensure that the vehicle is able to make the subsequent trip on schedule. This is to account for traffic congestion and other unforeseen delays that may occur along the route. CMBC3, working with new automatically collected operations data, has initiated a review of recovery and other non‐revenue time to ensure it is minimized while maintaining an acceptable level of service reliability. In 2012, this initiative identified a savings of 48,000 hours on the conventional bus system, reducing the amount of recovery time from 18.2 per cent of total service hours to 17.1 per cent. The 2013 Base Plan sets a target of further reductions in recovery time to 16 per cent of total service hours in 2016 and to just over 15 per cent by the end of the outlook period. TransLink will work to minimize service impacts for customers, including monitoring impacts on reliability and customer satisfaction, making adjustments as required. TransLink’s increased provision of real‐time transit information will help mitigate some customer impacts that may arise.

3 Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC) is one of TransLink’s operating subsidiaries.



‘Right‐Sizing‘ the fleet: Right‐sizing the fleet means ensuring that each transit route is served by the appropriate vehicle based on customer demand. Lower demand routes may be better served with smaller vehicles such as a Community Shuttle, while high demand routes may be better served by an articulated bus. TransLink works with CMBC to analyze boardings and make adjustments with as little impact on the customers’ experience as possible. To take advantage of a lower cost per hour of service, the Plan will increase the share of service operated by Community Shuttles.

Service Optimization Initiative: As described in the previous section, Managing the Transit Network, TransLink will establish an ongoing program of optimization with a reallocation of approximately 25,000 service hours each year for the balance of the Plan period.

Reducing Spare Ratios TransLink’s fleet contains spare vehicles that allow for routine maintenance activities and responding to unforeseen events. TransLink’s spare ratio (the ratio of spare vehicles to vehicles required for operation) has been high because TransLink retained vehicles to provide extra service during the Olympics. Spare vehicles have also been in long‐term storage with the expectation that service will be expanded as contemplated in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan. In 2012, targets were established for spare ratios by fleet type. Through a combination of retirements and fewer replacement purchases, the fleet will be reduced to meet the new spare ratio targets. This will result in capital cost savings over the Plan period. Fewer spare vehicles in reserve will require more time for TransLink to expand service should such a decision be made in the future. Waits of up to two years for new fleet orders are typical.

Depots In accordance with our regional bus facility plan, TransLink will begin construction of the Hamilton Transit Centre in Richmond in 2013 and the centre will be operational by 2015. This modern facility will allow for efficient maintenance and dispatch and have capacity for future service growth. TransLink will close the North Vancouver Transit Centre in 2015 and service will be redistributed to remaining transit centres.

CUSTOM TRANSIT

TransLink’s Custom Transit services provide transportation for customers who are not able to use conventional transit without assistance. The Custom Transit program includes HandyDART (a shared ride, pre‐booked, door‐to‐door service that uses specialized lift‐equipped vehicles for registered persons with temporary or permanent disabilities) and HandyCard (a prequalified program for persons with permanent disabilities that provides concession fares on conventional transit, the ability to bring an attendant on conventional transit for free and the opportunity to purchase TaxiSaver coupons).

TransLink currently operates 332 custom transit vehicles. However, actions were undertaken in late 2012 to determine the best balance between asset utilization and spare ratio. The HandyDART and TaxiSaver programs together provided 1.39 million passenger trips in 2011.



In July 2012, the TransLink Board confirmed the continuation of the TaxiSaver program. Further analysis is being done to address potential program growth concerns and review other service delivery options to better manage costs and program effectiveness.

For 2013, TransLink will take action to address the increasing number of weekend HandyDART trip denials. To maintain the custom transit service in a state of good repair, 133 HandyDART vehicles will be replaced over the three‐year period, some of which will include the trial of smaller van‐based units.

Custom Transit is an on‐demand service, therefore service hours can fluctuate year to year based on demand. The budgeted envelope of available service hours, however, will remain at 2012 levels.

RAPID TRANSIT

TransLink’s rapid transit system consists of three high‐capacity rail services in dedicated rights‐of‐way: the Expo Line, the Millennium Line and the Canada Line. Under the 2013 Base Plan, service on the Canada Line will be maintained at 2012 levels. There will be a 3.8 per cent decrease in service hours (45,000 hours) on the Expo and Millennium Lines by adjusting service frequencies on Saturdays and Sundays from approximately 9:30am to 9:30pm.

There are a number of state‐of‐good repair projects on the Expo and Millennium Lines, such as a propulsion power upgrade, a running rail replacement and an overhaul of Expo Line elevators and escalators. The existing power distribution system has been in service since 1986 and requires an increase in capacity to better accommodate past and future fleet increases. This propulsion power upgrade will ensure smooth train operation well into the future. Sections of the running rail in tight curves will be replaced. Also, Expo Line escalators and elevators, most of which are over 25 years old, will be overhauled to extend their useful life.

Additionally, rather than incur significant capital costs associated with replacing older vehicles, beginning in early 2013 TransLink is undertaking the refurbishment of 114 older Mark I vehicles to extend their service life by 15 years.

EVERGREEN LINE PROGRAM

The 2012 Moving Forward Plan confirmed TransLink’s financial support for the provincially led Evergreen Line project and outlined TransLink’s responsibility for integrating the new service with existing services. The project is expected to be completed in 2016.

Integration of the rapid transit line will require upgrades across the transportation network. The region’s busiest transfer hub, Commercial‐Broadway Station, will undergo expansion to accommodate projected Evergreen Line‐related ridership increases as well as local area population and employment growth. TransLink is responsible for the following multimodal integration projects below within the 2013 Base Plan period:



Evergreen Line Multimodal Integration The Evergreen Line multimodal integration project will include:

Commercial‐Broadway station upgrades, development of station area plans and infrastructure for Evergreen Line stations in collaboration

with municipalities, pedestrian, bicycle, transit priority and other urban design improvements within 800 meters of

the station to enhance access to the rapid transit line and support urban development that are identified in station area plans and cost‐shared with municipalities,

enhanced information, such as walking maps and trip planning information for each station area, and

wayfinding improvements to inform customers of the new operating pattern and enhance navigation.

STATION UPGRADES

TransLink has begun necessary station upgrades on the Expo Line. The 2013 Base Plan provides funding to meet TransLink’s contribution requirement to receive $160 million of funding through the federal and provincial governments to upgrade key stations in the region for improved capacity, accessibility and implementation of faregates. Upgrades are prioritized for stations with the most significant deficiencies (consistent with the Provincial Transit Plan and Expo Upgrade Strategy).

Commercial‐Broadway Station Phase II Upgrades The Commercial‐Broadway Station upgrade project is a component of the successful implementation of the Evergreen Line and will support future capacity increases on the rapid transit network as outlined in the Provincial Transit Plan and the Expo Upgrade Strategy. Detailed design is expected to begin in 2013 and the project will be complete in 2016. Upgrades at this station will include:

construction of an additional inbound platform for the Expo Line, with associated platform access improvements, to accommodate the projected increase in transfer volumes from the Evergreen Line,

widening the crossing of the Grandview Cut between platforms 1 and 2 and the north station concourse, and

upgrading the bus waiting areas serving the station complex

Main Street Station Upgrades Main Street Station will be upgraded to meet TransLink’s accessibility standards, improve the transfer experience for passengers arriving by bus, increase the capacity of the Expo Line, and provide space for faregates.

Construction activities are expected to begin in 2012 with the project complete in 2014. The project includes:

an expanded east station house, escalator and elevator access to the platform at the east entrance,



a reconfigured west station house with direct escalator access to the platform from street level, and

additional station retail and bike parking

Metrotown Station Upgrades The Metrotown Transit Village Plan was adopted in 2007. Working closely with the City of Burnaby, TransLink will upgrade Metrotown Station and its environs to offer improved accessibility, expanded circulation and capacity to accommodate current and projected passenger volumes, enhanced overall passenger experience, convenient bus transfers, and faregates.

Construction is expected to begin in 2013 with the project complete in 2015. Upgrades include:

a new mezzanine and station houses to serve transfer movements to a new bus exchange, reconfigured and expanded bus exchange immediately below the station, a down escalator from the platform, expanded elevator capacity, and improved integration with the redeveloping, surrounding neighbourhood.

Scott Road Station Upgrades Scott Road Station is being modernized to improve accessibility, capacity and customer amenity. The first phase of this upgrade, a new elevator at the west station house to make the bus exchange accessible persons with disabilities, was completed in late 2012. Work is underway now to renovate the bus exchange island and both station houses to improve customer amenity, safety and security.

Surrey Central Station Upgrades Surrey Central Station upgrades were first conceived in the Surrey Central Transit Village Plan, adopted in 2007. The station improvements support implementation of the South of Fraser Area Transit Plan, the Expo Upgrade Strategy, and the redevelopment of Surrey Centre by upgrading the current off‐street bus exchange and an additional entrance to the Surrey Central SkyTrain station. The upgrades will be closely coordinated with the City of Surrey and other partners to further the development of this regional hub. Planning is underway and the project is expected to be complete by 2016.

New Westminster Station Upgrades New Westminster station is being integrated into an adjacent mixed‐use development. Upgrades to the station will include new finishes, replacement of mesh screens, replacement of station elements that are near the end of their working lives, and updated wayfinding to address changes to station circulation and access. Construction of some elements is underway and the project will continue in 2013.

Joyce‐Collingwood Station Upgrades Joyce‐Collingwood Station serves a high‐density, mixed‐use neighbourhood and serves as an important bus transfer location. Upgrades to increase passenger and bus capacity and enhance accessibility were identified in the Expo Upgrade Strategy. Planning will begin in 2013 to identify high priority elements for improvement and the project is expected to be complete by 2016.



STATION AND EXCHANGE PLANNING

In addition to the Station Upgrade projects, TransLink will work with municipalities to coordinate efforts by agencies and the private sector to leverage the significant station upgrade investments in a manner that supports regional and municipal objectives. This plan does not include a funding program to cost share on station area improvements with municipalities. TransLink will contribute to the construction of a transit terminal at the UBC Point Grey Campus.

Planning will continue for new or expanded exchanges under the 2013 Base Plan. Implementation timing will depend on confirmation of available funding in future plans. Priorities for planning include Phibbs Exchange, Langley Centre and Guildford Centre.

WEST COAST EXPRESS

The 20‐year service agreement between TransLink and the Canadian Pacific Railway to operate the West Coast Express expires in 2015. Negotiations for renewal will be initiated within the time period covered by the 2013 Base Plan. A fuller understanding of the future interaction of the service with the Evergreen Line is required, as well as an understanding of the overall market for long distance travel in the corridor. Accordingly, TransLink will complete a West Coast Express Strategy in 2012 with subsequent implementation work expected to identify appropriate future service and infrastructure requirements.

West Coast Express service levels will be maintained at 2012 levels throughout the Plan period.

Roads and Bridges

TransLink provides planning, funding and coordination for more than 2,300 lane‐kilometres of regionally‐significant roadways, the Major Road Network (MRN). The SCBCTA Act empowers TransLink to:

establish guidelines to identify which roads can become part of the MRN, establish standards for management, operation, construction and maintenance, review and approve all proposed changes that could result in a reduction of people‐moving

capacity on the MRN, designate routes and times for dangerous goods movement, and approve the prohibition of truck movements from any road in the region (including non‐MRN

roads).

In support of fostering goods movement in the region, TransLink will continue to work with the municipalities to designate the MRN for the movement of dangerous goods, in accordance with Section 23 of the SCBCTA Act.

In 2013, TransLink will also continue to support the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor Program, a multi‐agency partnership initiative to improve safety and goods movement reliability at several rail/road crossings in Delta, Surrey and the Langleys. TransLink will also continue to support the Low Level Road upgrade project, a Port Metro Vancouver and Transport Canada joint initiative to improve safety, reliability and the movement of goods in the City of North Vancouver



MRN AND BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE

In 2012 TransLink successfully completed a cooperative review with Metro Vancouver municipalities to improve the management and funding framework for the Major Road Network and bicycle facilities in the region. The new framework provides better alignment with the SCBCTA Act and regional objectives, as well as providing the municipalities with improved flexibility to better manage investments in the network.

As part of its MRN commitments, TransLink provides Operating, Maintenance and Rehabilitation (OMR) funding for the MRN to the municipalities, as well as funding for upgrades to minor capital and cycling projects. In 2013, TransLink will hold the funding envelope for the MRN and Bicycle Capital constant to the 2011 budget level, but will consolidate the previously allocated funding of $10 million for MRN minor capital upgrades and $3 million for cycling upgrades into the OMR funding, giving municipalities the ability to spend the funds where they are most needed. Table 12 outlines the changes to the funding structure. Municipalities will be able to request lower OMR non‐pavement funding and increased OMR pavement funding for the following year, enabling the municipalities to have greater flexibility in determining how they want to spend the allocated funds.



Table 12: MRN and BICCS Program Funding Structure

Major Road Network (MRN) and Bicycle Programs

Description

2013

2014

2015

Operations and Maintenance (Operating)

Funding allocated to municipalities on a per lane km basis to cover 100 per cent of

operations and maintenance of MRN roads. Municipalities can request to divert a

portion of their allocation to Rehabilitation.

$11,140 / lane km

$25.7M total

$11,140 / lane km

$11,140 / lane km

Rehabilitation (Capital)

Funding allocated to municipalities on a per lane km basis to cover 100 per cent of

rehabilitation of MRN roads. Municipalities can request to divert a portion of their allocation to fund Bicycle or Road capital

upgrades.

$7,960 / lane km

$18.4M total

$7,960 / lane km

$7,960 / lane km

MRN and Bicycle Upgrades (Capital)

Capital funding for upgrades to municipal bike facilities and MRN roads. There is no

funding currently allocated for this program but municipalities can request to divert a

portion of their allocation from the Rehabilitation program.

$0

$0

$0

BICCS – Regional Needs

Capital funding TransLink contributes to municipalities for regionally significant bike

projects

$1.55M

$1.55M

$1.55M

TransLink‐Owned Bicycle Infrastructure

Funding TransLink spends on TransLink owned bike facilities

$0.45M $0.45M $0.45M

Total $44.1M $44.1M $44.1M



BRIDGES

TransLink also owns and maintains a number of major bridge structures: Pattullo Bridge, Knight Street Bridge, Golden Ears Bridge, Westham Island Bridge, and the Canada Line bike and pedestrian bridge. In 2013 TransLink will continue to operate and maintain these bridges to ensure public safety, and will monitor the need for operational upgrades and repairs on these facilities and implement improvements as needed.

Pattullo Bridge From 2013 to 2016, TransLink will maintain the existing Pattullo Bridge through the ongoing budget of $1.5 million per year for maintenance of TransLink‐owned bridges, with an additional $3 million provided for special maintenance of the Pattullo Bridge in 2013. The existing Pattullo Bridge is 75 years old. TransLink will work with the Cities of New Westminster and Surrey and other project stakeholders to ensure that all reasonable alternatives for the Pattullo Bridge have been properly assessed. $7 million has been allocated for this study, and a decision on the bridge and how it will be paid for will be confirmed through a supplemental plan.

CYCLING

TransLink will initiate an Implementation Plan for the Regional Cycling Strategy in 2013, which will outline specific actions for key aspects of cycling, including:

bicycle infrastructure wayfinding parking and end‐of‐trip facilities bicycle‐transit integration education, encouragement and enforcement planning and monitoring

The Strategy will be incorporated into the regional transportation strategy and the implementation will be completed as future TransLink budgets permit. Funding to cycling programs will be provided through the above MRN and BICCS funding structure.

Table 13: Major Road Network, Bridges and Bicycles (millions)

AIRCARE

This provincial program has been administered by TransLink since 1999. It has been one of the most effective vehicle testing programs in North America and has helped cut vehicle‐generated emissions by


Major Road Network and Bridge Operations 34.1$ 35.7$ 27.0$ 29.8$ 30.6$ 36.8$

Golden Ears Bridge 12.0$ 13.2$ 13.4$ 13.4$ 13.7$ 16.6$

Albion Ferry 0.4$ 0.2$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Total Operations & Maintenance 46.5$ 49.1$ 40.4$ 43.2$ 44.3$ 53.4$

MRN and Bike Capital Programs 48.8$ 66.2$ 64.3$ 36.0$ 24.5$ 20.5$

Total Roads, Bridges and Bicycles 95.3$ 115.3$ 104.7$ 79.2$ 68.8$ 73.9$

Forecasts



almost half. Over the years, the program has taken almost one million cars off the road until they met emissions standards. Vehicle technology and industry standards have advanced and resulted in an improved automotive fleet. In the spring of 2012, the Province announced the light‐duty vehicle focused AirCare program will end on December 31, 2014. The program will continue to operate as normal for calendar years 2013 and 2014 with an expected total of about one million inspections to be performed.

Multi‐Modal Programs and Investments

CUSTOMER SERVICE

E‐Communication Customer information is core to TransLink’s business. People who are well informed about options and current conditions will be able to make more efficient and timely travel choices. TransLink has engaged in a number of electronic communication initiatives, including:

real time travel information for buses, mobile devices and desktop, development of the Regional Traffic Data System (RTDS) to provide real‐time road speed and

travel time information, upgrade to our mobile site (m.translink.ca), social media applications (such as Twitter and Facebook), transit and bike information through Google Maps, enhancements of the TransLink website with more options for accessing service information and

new tools to help improve navigation, and TravelSmart website enhancements to include online Tracker

Under the 2013 Base Plan, TransLink will continue to improve our existing communications tools and seek new opportunities where appropriate. In addition, TransLink will continue to measure and report annually on effectiveness in all of its operations, as part of the statutory reporting requirements.

Wayfinding Wayfinding refers to the various types of information that customers rely on to plan, confirm and complete a journey. TransLink developed a wayfinding strategy that lays the groundwork for an integrated system of information across modes. In 2010, a wayfinding standards manual was adopted to guide the provision of more and higher quality information on the bus and rail system.

Consistent with past plans, TransLink will continue to upgrade wayfinding at new or renovated facilities and wayfinding improvements will be implemented with the Evergreen Line rapid transit project.

TRAVELSMART

TravelSmart is a suite of programs, information and online tools designed to promote travel behaviour change by increasing awareness of travel options and trip reduction initiatives.

Under the 2013 Base Plan, TransLink will continue to provide a wide range of programs under the TravelSmart brand, supported by partnerships with employers, municipalities, schools and other public



and private agencies. Travelsmart.ca will continue as a centralized hub for program support, information and tools to help Metro Vancouverites make more sustainable travel choices. The programs include:

the employer Pass Program, support for rideshare and vanpool programs, active transportation sponsorship and promotion, TravelSmart Schools program, targeted outreach to new Canadians and seniors other programs, such as Corporate Car Share, Telework, Guaranteed Ride Home program and

assistance implementing workplace programs.

TransLink Corporate and Transit Police

Under the 2013 Base Plan, combined expenditures for TransLink Corporate and Transit Police total $114 million in 2012 and are forecasted to be $139 million in 2015.

Table 14: TransLink Corporate and Transit Police Expenditures (millions)

TRANSLINK CORPORATE EXPENDITURES

TransLink has been working hard to stream‐line corporate processes and make the organization operate in a more efficient manner. As part of this, key human resources activities from across the enterprise were centralized under TransLink. The result is a one‐time increase in TransLink corporate expenditures between 2011 and 2012, but an overall decrease in associated costs.

In 2013, TransLink will incur one‐time costs associated with the introduction of Compass Card, the Pattullo Bridge feasibility study and relocation of TransLink offices. These costs are outlined below:

Compass Card will have start‐up costs of $24 million in 2013, and on‐going costs of $18 million per year for the remainder of the plan period,

the Pattullo Bridge study accounts for $7 million in 2013 for the work that needs to be completed in to define the scope of the Pattullo Bridge replacement,

TransLink will relocate its office to New Westminster in 2013. Included in the plan is a one‐time cost of $4 million for the transfer, decommissioning the existing space and the duplication of lease space during the transition,

an ongoing increase in investments in technology, which will provide better utilization of information, reduce system risks, allow for technology upgrades and investment in new technology such as NextBus and scheduling, and

TransLink’s stepped merit increase for staff of approximately $3 million



TRANSIT POLICE

The Transit Police remain the most effective and flexible solution dedicated to reducing crime and disorder, ensuring high levels of police presence on the region’s transportation network and enhancing the perception of safety. Research has determined that while there are many models for providing security on transit systems, different types of systems and environments may require different solutions. One solution that has emerged clearly from all of the discussion, however, is that dedicated police presence is one component of effective safety and security on public transportation.

The role transit authorities play in addressing crime and fear of crime on public transit directly impacts on the bottom line, as perceptions of violence and fear of crime has been proven to cause loss of ridership and revenues. Lack of order‐ as evidenced by aggressive panhandling, vandalism, graffiti, people vending unauthorized items, persons avoiding payment of fare or flagrant violations of a system’s rules– are some of the most important policing issues a transit system can face. While seemingly minor at first glance, these quality of life violations often result in patron discomfort, and the discomfort fuels perceptions of fear. If left unchecked, such activity can influence patrons to seek another mode of transportation.

In 2011, the Police Board approved the 2011‐2015 Transit Police Strategic Plan4. Within the Transit Police Plan, there are three Strategic Directions containing 29 goals. The Strategic Directions are:

reducing crime and disorder, protecting TransLink assets and the transit environment, and providing better service to the transit community.

In 2011, a Transit Police focus on crime and social disorder issues resulted in a 14 per cent reduction in Crimes Against People and a 15 per cent reduction in Crimes Against Property per 100,000 boardings. To date in 2012, Crimes against people have been reduced a further 17 per cent.

Under the 2013 Base Plan, Transit Police will continued to work in close collaboration with the Transit Security, SkyTrain5, CMBC, jurisdictional police and other law enforcement partners to deliver effective and efficient policing in Metro Vancouver. For 2013, key initiatives include:

enhancing our role in protecting the people, property and revenue, exploring opportunities to collaborate with Transit Security and Jurisdictional Police

Departments, participating in projects or developing programs that reinforce the practice of excellent

customer service and support the protection of our transit community, establishing new methods for how we hold ourselves responsible and how we are accountable

to the transit community,

4 The Transit Police Strategic Plan and the Chief Officer’s Directional Statement are available online www.transitpolice.bc.ca

5 British Columbia Rapid Transit Company (BCRTC), also called SkyTrain, is one of TransLink’s operating subsidiaries.



ensuring that any criminal assault on TransLink frontline staff is relentlessly followed‐up until conclusion,

continuing to protect revenue understanding this goes beyond fare evasion. Our efforts in addressing fare evasion also prove to reduce crime and disorder on the system; and

continuing to seek out additional efficiency opportunities that align with effective delivery of policing services.

Transit Police are committed to zero growth in the police officers it employs in the coming years. With the launch of Compass Card in 2013 Transit Police will assess opportunities to increase police presence on buses and at transit exchanges. The organization will increase productivity and identify new models of deployment to successfully manage the increase in service area expected with the development of the Evergreen Line.

In 2012, Transit Police began the implementations of 30 recommendations identified in an independent Operational Review directed at improving efficiency. The result has been significant cost savings and an increase in productivity such as:

new business practices in the management of overtime reducing overtime costs by $295,000 (51 per cent) during the first six months of 2012. Savings are expected to be over $500,000 in 2012,

return to work programs and stricter management of sick time has resulted in a 30 per cent decrease in the number of police officers on long term sick/injury leave,

new expenditure controls and austerity programs have increased savings through scales of economy by purchasing goods through local police departments (e.g. uniforms, ammunition, fuel), and

decrease in the vehicle fleet from 44 to 36 vehicles. The police vehicles are used for investigations, prisoner transportation, station lockup, victim management, witness interviews, collection of evidence, responding to bus operator assaults and other bus related complaints.

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

The ten‐year Capital Plan includes a three‐year work plan and a seven year‐outlook for enterprise wide capital projects to address corporate priorities that include maintaining existing services (MES), ensure a state of good repair (SOGR), and undertake upgrades or expansion as needed.



Table 15: 2013 to 2015 Capital Plan (in 000s)

Note: The above capital program table includes MRN expenditures, but excludes real estate acquisition

TransLink will undertake some significant capital expenditures during the plan and outlook periods across the organization, including bus, rail, road and IT. As part of CMBC’s fleet replacement program, $237 million will be invested over the plan period in conventional buses to maintain the assets in a state of good repair. This will reduce the conventional fleet size as CMBC adjusts its spare ratio. The second SeaBus is also planned to be replaced over the plan period. Custom Transit will invest $54.6 million over the plan period to maintain its assets in a state of good repair and replace 133 HandyDART vehicles, some of which will include the trial of smaller van‐based units. $108 million will be invested in community shuttles to right‐size the fleet to better serve lower productivity routes. TransLink will also be investing $135 million in transit centres, including the build and start up of the Hamilton Transit Centre and the design and start of construction of the Marpole Transit Centre.

TransLink will also be investing $28 million over the plan period in rail projects, including wayside power propulsion and TransLink’s contribution to the station upgrade projects at Main Street, Scott Road, Metrotown, Commercial‐Broadway, New Westminster, Surrey Central, and Joyce‐Collingwood.

TransLink will invest $40 million to support the MRN, cycling programs and bridge maintenance, including the Pattullo Bridge. $12.5 million in IT investments will be made, which include a new time entry system and new financial systems.

TransLink

Project Description Gross Cost Provincial Federal Other Net Cost

Bike Program 11,063 ‐ ‐ ‐ 11,063$

Bridges 2,716 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,716$

Roads 113,691 ‐ ‐ ‐ 113,691$

Transit 402,575 ‐ (239,838) (163) 162,575$

Rapid Transit 600,661 (76,595) (94,066) ‐ 430,000$

Marine 20,683 ‐ (15,799) ‐ 4,884$

Commuter Rail 24,230 ‐ ‐ ‐ 24,230$

IT 24,653 ‐ ‐ ‐ 24,653$

Total 1,200,272$ (76,595)$ (349,703)$ (163)$ 773,812$

Contributions



APPENDIX C: REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY In 2013, TransLink will initiate an update to the region’s long‐term transportation strategy, as required by the SCBCTA Act. This Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS) update will build on Transport 2040 (the existing long‐term strategy) by establishing more detailed goals and targets and providing more refined policy, investment and funding direction. The RTS will advance solutions that are multi‐modal (considering the movement of people and goods by all modes) and resilient (capable of performing well in multiple possible futures). Taking an explicitly performance‐based approach that seeks to achieve our desired outcomes as cost‐effectively as possible, the RTS will focus in the following key areas:

coordinating transportation and land use in support of Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy,

encouraging smart transport choices, effective system management, maintaining our assets in a state of good repair, network expansion, and financial sustainability.

TransLink will also take this opportunity to prepare a medium‐term (15‐year) transportation strategy that is more implementation‐oriented and focused on TransLink actions, policies, and investments that support of the regional direction established in the long‐term strategy. This document will include a more refined multi‐modal network concept and prioritized projects and initiatives, with agreed upon funding and phasing plans.

In order to reflect the perspectives of all regional partners, this process will be broadly inclusive in collaboration with the Province of British Columbia, local governments and agency partners, stakeholders and the public. Consultation will commence in early 2013.

Some of the key areas of interest for the Regional Transportation Strategy are outlined below.

PERFORMANCE‐BASED DECISION‐MAKING

TransLink seeks to make decisions, introduce policies, and make investments that help us, as a region, to achieve our desired outcomes as cost‐effectively as possible. To this end, and to provide transparency and clarity to its partners, TransLink is working to develop a performance‐based decision‐making policy that defines an outcomes‐based approach to planning and investing in the regional transportation system. The policy is intended to clarify the process for determining the priority, scope and timing of initiatives, and ultimately their inclusion in Plans. Policy development and consultation will occur via the Regional Transportation Strategy dialogue.



MULTI‐MODAL STRATEGIES

The Regional Transportation Strategy will be explicitly multi‐modal and cover both movement of people and goods. The RTS will articulate regional strategies for each of the modes including how they should work together in a multi‐modal context to best achieve our goals. For goods movement, in addition to developing a regional strategy, TransLink will continue to work with agency and industry partners and stakeholders on several initiatives including the applied Freight Research Initiative; the Empty Container Information Management System; and developing technology‐based solutions that benefit goods movement efficiency. Regional‐level strategies will also be developed to support the movement of people by walking, cycling, transit, and driving. For transit, for example, the strategy will establish a coordinated policy framework to ensure on‐going planning and management of the transit network is undertaken in a consistent and cost‐effective manner. Key components will include specific policy direction and principles related to transit investment priorities, route and network design considerations, network quality and service level expectations, and decision‐making processes.

LAND USE STRATEGIES

Having a land use pattern that is supportive of walking, cycling and transit is essential for supporting a high level of performance from the regional transportation system. Transport 2040, the proposed Regional Growth Strategy and municipal Official Community Plans all call for the integration of land use and transportation planning. For its part, TransLink will bring together a range of existing and new initiatives under one policy program to encourage more effective coordination and outcomes in this area. This work will include the development of guidelines for fostering transit oriented communities throughout a range of land use and built environment characteristics as well as strategies and actions that will support investment in the regional transit system.

DEMAND SIDE STRATEGIES

Fare Policy Review Preliminary long‐term fare policy development work will be undertaken including research, peer practice review, and analytical tool and policy development. The Compass card system will provide the necessary planning data to be used as input in the full Fare Policy Review.



SUPPLY SIDE STRATEGIES

Asset Management TransLink is responsible for managing and maintaining assets valued at approximately $11.7 billion – including roads, bridges, tracks, guideways, trolley wires, stations, vehicles, and depots. As these assets age, future capital needs to maintain and renew them are increasing. To ensure that the region’s transportation system remains in a state of good repair, TransLink will continue to prioritize spending on asset maintenance and renewal with projects and programs such as SkyTrain running rail replacement, revenue vehicle replacement, and spending on depots. This plan assumes that TransLink will spend $1.2 billion over the next ten years on asset maintenance and renewal. A discussion on how to most strategically maintain these assets will be had as part of the Regional Transportation Strategy dialogue, and will focus on balancing multiple transportation objectives while ensuring the quality, safety and reliability of the transportation network.

Rapid Transit Studies Several rapid transit studies have been completed or are nearing completion. In 2013 the findings of these studies will be considered in the context of the RTS in order to support decisions on rapid transit investment. Major decisions on system investment are best made as part of a comprehensive regional planning process that considers associated policy measures that are needed to pay for and to ensure optimal performance of any investments. The RTS will document the preferred multi‐modal network for the region and the conditions required to support the various investments. These studies include:

Expo Upgrade Strategy: identified fleet, station, and supporting system upgrades to meet the long term capacity and accessibility needs on the Expo Line, the region’s busiest rapid transit line.

UBC Line and Surrey Rapid Transit Studies: evaluated rapid transit technology and alignment

alternatives for the Broadway corridor to UBC and in Surrey and surrounding communities.

West Coast Express Strategy: assessed the current and future transportation needs for West Coast Express Service and evaluated alternatives for concepts to meet those needs.

Burnaby Mountain Gondola Study and Business Case: assessed options and identified a business

case for replacing a portion of bus service between the Millennium Line and Simon Fraser University and the surrounding residential community on Burnaby Mountain with a gondola‐based transit service.

FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

In 2013, TransLink will continue to work toward identifying a strategy for diversifying revenue sources, and pursuing new and innovative ways to fund transportation. This is important work that, while



difficult and often controversial, is necessary for the organization, public and elected officials to engage in a constructive conversation on how we best develop a funding strategy that is sufficient and appropriate to deliver the programs, services and investments required to serve our growing region. The fact that revenues expected from our second largest funding source, fuel tax revenue, are forecast to be substantially lower than previously assumed underscores the urgency for defining a way forward. Revenues represent one side of the financial sustainability equation; the other side is cost cutting. This includes both reducing the costs of how we deliver our day‐to‐day operations and how we invest and establish policies that enable us to cost‐effectively move us towards the region’s long term objectives. An example of this approach is how we are developing new strategies for more effectively leveraging real estate assets and regional partnerships. How we ensure a stable future for our funding and efficiency and effectiveness in our investment and decision‐making will be topics for the region to discuss as we move forward with development of the Regional Transportation Strategy and decide what we want our transportation future to look like.



APPENDIX D: OUTCOMES This section evaluates regional performance toward the Transport 2040 goals through the Plan and Outlook period. Only modest progress will occur towards most of the Transport 2040 goals through 2015, mostly due to vehicle efficiency improvements and the upcoming Evergreen Line. In spite of significant rapid transit network expansion, these gains will not be sustained through the Outlook period, making the long‐term goals of Transport 2040 more difficult to accomplish. Land use changes are essential in meeting regional and provincial transportation targets. Without transit‐oriented land uses, and increased transit capacity and cycling infrastructure to support it, the ability to shift trips from personal vehicles and reduce GHG emissions will be greatly limited. Under this plan, there will be little progress in the region towards reduced reliance on personal vehicles, traffic congestion and our ability to move people and goods efficiently. This limits our ability to meet the conditions required to fulfill the Transport 2040 aspirations for a sustainable region.

The following analysis uses quantitative methods when possible, supplemented by qualitative analysis. TransLink offers comment on the implications for 2022 if current resource levels are extrapolated into the future.

Goal 1: Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from transportation are aggressively reduced, in support of federal, provincial and regional targets GHGs from transport are a product of distance (vehicle kilometres traveled, or VKT), fuel economy (determined by vehicle fuel efficiency and network operations, such as congestion), and the carbon intensity of fuels.

TransLink works to reduce GHG emissions by:

1. Reducing vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) through initiatives that influence transportation mode shift and support smart land use.

2. Improving system operations and efficiency through improvements to roadway operations, such as bus only lanes and real time traffic information, which can reduce GHG emissions per



kilometre traveled. 3. Greater use of low‐emission fleet technology. Nearly 30 per cent of TransLink’s bus service

hours are powered by electricity or compressed natural gas (CNG). 4. Greater use of low carbon content fuel. The diesel used by TransLink’s fleet contains 5 per cent

renewable content6.

The 2013 Base Plan is expected to deliver moderate progress on GHG emission reductions between 2013 and 2016, with greater gains in the Outlook period due to the opening of the Evergreen Line. TransLink’s average transit fleet fuel‐efficiency and GHG emissions rates compare favourably to peer regions due to the electric‐powered SkyTrain system and trolley buses, hybrid and alternative fuel conventional buses, and community shuttles. Through the period of this Plan and Outlook, TransLink will build on past successes from the replacement of older generation diesel buses through the continued replacement of transit buses and the replacement of one SeaBus in 2013 (new SeaBus vessels are 20 per cent more efficient than older generation vessels).

Goal 2: Most trips are by transit, walking and cycling TransLink supports alternatives to single occupant vehicle trips by:

1. Serving existing transit ridership in an efficient manner by maintaining base transit service levels and through our continued efforts to optimize transit services.

2. Influencing efficient transportation choices through the TravelSmart program and continued use of revenue streams that have a demand management effect.

3. Promoting shifts to transit, cycling and walking by adding new services strategically to catch new ridership demand.

4. Encouraging future shifts to transit, cycling and walking through partnerships with municipalities to integrate transportation and land use planning decisions.

Limited progress toward this goal is expected under this Plan, in part due to decreasing transit service levels per capita (2.61 hours per capita in 2012 declining to 2.25 in 2022), which will occur if additional expansion investments, beyond what is identified in this plan, are not made in the intervening years. As a reference for these forecast impacts, Figure 2 shows the breakdown of regional weekday mode share as revealed in the preliminary results from the 2011 Trip Diary7.

6 B5 biodiesel, which is 5 per cent biodiesel and 95 per cent petrodiesel. 7 The Trip Diary is a house‐hold level survey TransLink carries out about every four to five years to better understand travel behaviours in the region. Participants are asked to provide details about all trips made within a 24‐hour period, including mode, destination and trip purpose.



Figure 2: Regional Weekday Mode Share from the 2011 Trip Diary (preliminary results)8

Preliminary 2011 Trip Diary results indicate that transit mode share has increased substantially since 1999, increasing from 10 per cent to 14 per cent. Under the 2013 Base Plan, transit ridership is expected to grow by about 3.3 per cent by the end of 2015, with an additional 12 million annual boardings expected, as compared to 2012 (Table 16). This increased ridership is due to population growth and ongoing efforts to optimize transit services. Transit’s share of total trips is expected to remain at approximately 14 per cent through the Plan and Outlook periods. This is well below the Provincial Transit Plan’s 2020 target of 17 per cent of weekday trips.

8 These preliminary figures may differ from the final estimates. Figures are rounded.



Table 16: Ridership Forecasts

(millions)

Actual Budget Forecast Outlook

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2022

System Total: Revenue Passenger Trips 225.3 232.9 234.1 237.4 239.8 268.4

Individual Passenger Boardings by Mode*

Conventional Bus and Community Shuttle 227.6 230.0 231.6 234.5 235.4 247.1

SkyTrain: Expo and Millennium Lines 81.1 82.4 82.6 83.5 84.5 90.2

SkyTrain: Canada Line 39.7 45.4 46.3 47.4 49.1 59.0

SkyTrain: Evergreen Line 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8

Rapid Transit Total 120.8 127.8 128.9 130.9 133.6 166.0

SeaBus 6.3 6.5 6.8 7.0 7.2 9.1

West Coast Express 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.5

Total Conventional Transit Boardings 357.5 367.2 370.2 375.4 379.2 425.7

Custom Transit (HandyDART) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

System Total: Passenger Boardings 359.0 368.7 371.7 376.8 380.7 427.2

*A single passenger revenue trip often includes more than one boarding and may also include a combination of transit modes. **2011 Ridership has been re‐estimated using an improved methodology. This means that the 2011 ridership in this Base Plan is inconsistent with the 2011 ridership in the 2011 Annual report and elsewhere.

Figure 3: Transit Mode Share Trends and Forecasts

Preliminary results from the 2011 Trip Diary indicate that walking mode share has declined since the 1990s, remaining steady at the 2004 level of 11 per cent. This is not expected to increase under this Plan. Greater gains have been achieved in cycling, with cycling mode share increasing slightly to nearly 2



per cent (from 1.5 per cent). Achieving greater shifts to walking, cycling, and transit is dependent on investments in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, demand‐side management measures, and supportive land uses.

Goal 3: The majority of jobs and housing in the region are located along the Frequent Transit Network (FTN) By influencing the location of jobs and housing, the Frequent Transit Network (FTN) both supports and is supported by the development of complete communities. The objectives of this goal are to:

1. Encourage complete and transit‐oriented communities 2. Expand access to regional transit and cycling networks 3. Promote regional mobility

Based on data from the recently released 2011 Census of Canada and Pitney Bowes Canada Business Points, this goal has been achieved with 54 per cent of the region’s dwellings and 66 per cent of regional jobs located within walking distance9 of the FTN. This achievement results primarily from expansion of the FTN network, though employment growth has been slightly stronger along the FTN. Employment and residential projections provided by Metro Vancouver indicate that by 2022, growth within walking distance of the Frequent Transit Network will be offset by growth in areas that are less conducive to transit. It is expected that progress on this goal will erode in the Outlook period unless development in the region is concentrated along the FTN.

Goal 4: Traveling in the region is safe, secure and accessible for everyone This Plan maintains the funding for the Transit Police and prioritizes state of good repair projects on TransLink‐owned infrastructure to ensure the highest level of safety on the system. These investments optimize the system by:

1. Encouraging modal integration 2. Improving the resilience of the transportation system 3. Improving system safety 4. Promoting universal accessibility

The Compass card and faregates initiative, which will be implemented in 2013, will increase the public’s sense of safety and security on the transit system, and will be designed to provide full accessibility. TransLink’s fleet will remain fully accessible and custom transit hours will be maintained. Safety and accessibility will be improved at Main Street, Metrotown, Commercial‐Broadway, Surrey Central, New Westminster, and Joyce‐Collingwood SkyTrain stations.

9 Walking distance is defined as within a 5‐minute walk to a frequent bus corridor (400m) or within a 10‐minute walk to a rapid transit station (800m).



On the road network, incidence of traffic‐related fatalities and serious injuries has been declining since 2007. TransLink is working with municipalities to improve safety and security levels through the designation of a Dangerous Good Movement Network on the Major Road Network. In 2012, TransLink summarized baseline conditions for traffic safety on the MRN. In 2013, TransLink will work with the municipalities to consider various initiatives for improving traffic safety for motorists in the region.

Goal 5: Economic growth and efficient goods movement are facilitated through management of the transportation network Projects that further this goal are grounded by the following objectives:

1. Support efficient access to regional centres and economic gateways 2. Manage congestion 3. Improve travel time reliability

The 2013 Base Plan will deliver limited progress towards this goal. TransLink will continue to work with Transport Canada and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure on the Applied Freight Research Initiative (AFRI). Through a series of detailed studies focusing on various freight market sectors, AFRI informs decision makers to help increase the efficiency and reliability of goods movement in the region.

TransLink will also continue to identify opportunities to improve network efficiency. Initiatives such as transit signal prioritization, the Major Road Network review and Goods Movement Strategy, have the potential to improve traffic flow and travel times. Additional congestion relief is expected as personal vehicle trips shift to transit due to the opening of the Evergreen Line and other transit improvements. Efforts to improve congestion must be carefully evaluated as experience worldwide has also shown that gains can be lost to induced travel over time.

Goal 6: Funding for TransLink is stable, sufficient, appropriate and influences transportation choices Investments within this Plan must be sustainable within TransLink’s existing funding structure over the long term. Investments made in this plan meet the following objectives:

1. Maximize leveraging opportunities 2. Make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services 3. Prioritize cost‐effectiveness 4. Prioritize long‐term growth in cost‐effectiveness

TransLink continues to work with the Province and Mayors’ Council to achieve this goal, but faces significant financial challenges. As detailed in Appendix A, the 2013 Base Plan is constrained by less fuel revenue than anticipated, the Commissioner’s rejection of TransLink’s fare increase application, continued reliance on TransLink funding reserves, no new revenue source to fund projects committed to within the 2012 Supplemental Plan (Moving Forward), and is at risk of losing the time‐limited property tax approved as a stop‐gap measure.



Under the 2013 Base Plan, TransLink will leverage significant senior government funding and work to make transit services more productive. Combined with the funding increases put in place under the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan and 2012 Supplemental Plan, this Plan ensures that TransLink is able to maintain current service levels and a state of good repair of the transit system while expanding the rapid transit network. However, reductions in capital and operations programs for roads, bridges, cycling and transit infrastructure were necessary within the identified funding envelope.



APPENDIX E: FINANCIAL INFORMATION Statement of Revenue and Operations Summary

Table 17: Statement of Revenue and Operations Summary (millions)

Debt Service

INTEREST EXPENSE Interest expense is budgeted at $173 million in 2012 and will increase to $211 million in 2015.

Table 18: Debt Interest Expense (millions)


Transit Revenues 444.6$ 456.2$ 497.8$ 533.0$ 549.2$ 724.0$

Toll Revenues 33.7$ 39.0$ 40.1$ 41.2$ 42.7$ 55.6$

User Fees 478.3$ 495.2$ 537.9$ 574.2$ 591.9$ 779.6$

Motor Fuel Tax 311.8$ 330.8$ 335.1$ 332.7$ 332.7$ 339.7$

Property Tax 280.2$ 287.6$ 296.1$ 304.9$ 314.1$ 386.3$


Other Taxes 36.6$ 37.2$ 37.5$ 37.8$ 38.2$ 40.5$

Time‐l imited Property Tax ‐$ ‐$ 29.0$ 29.9$ ‐$ ‐$

Taxation Revenues 682.3$ 707.2$ 750.6$ 759.0$ 739.5$ 827.0$

Senior Government Contributions 82.3$ 82.4$ 85.5$ 94.5$ 106.7$ 125.8$

Amortization of deferred Concessionaire Credit 23.3$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$


Total Revenues 1,292.3$ 1,338.2$ 1,435.0$ 1,493.3$ 1,505.1$ 1,825.1$

Transit Operations 815.9$ 869.0$ 877.1$ 891.4$ 916.3$ 989.9$

Roads, Bridges and Bicycles 95.3$ 115.3$ 104.7$ 79.2$ 68.8$ 73.9$

Transit Corporate & Police 97.5$ 113.5$ 152.9$ 137.0$ 138.5$ 152.8$

Operating Expenditures 1,008.7$ 1,097.8$ 1,134.7$ 1,107.6$ 1,123.6$ 1,216.6$

Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation 283.6$ 240.4$ 300.3$ 385.7$ 381.5$ 608.5$

Interest Expense 171.6$ 172.8$ 178.7$ 188.2$ 210.6$ 251.7$

Depreciation Expense 160.1$ 163.3$ 176.6$ 193.6$ 210.1$ 252.8$

Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items (48.1)$ (95.7)$ (55.0)$ 3.9$ (39.2)$ 104.0$

Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment ‐$ (11.4)$ (14.9)$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Proceeds From Sale of Assets & Other Items (4.4)$ 55.9$ 13.5$ ‐$ 45.0$ ‐$

Surplus/(Deficit) before Funding Adjustments (52.5)$ (51.2)$ (56.4)$ 3.9$ 5.8$ 104.0$

Funding Adjustments 18.0$ 13.3$ 12.8$ (21.2)$ (46.6)$ (59.1)$

Funded Surplus/(Deficit) (34.5)$ (37.9)$ (43.6)$ (17.3)$ (40.8)$ 44.9$

Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus 322.0$ 287.5$ 274.9$ 231.3$ 214.0$ 224.3$

25.3$

Cumulative Funded Surplus 287.5$ 274.9$ 231.3$ 214.0$ 173.2$ 269.2$

Forecasts

The 2012 budgeted cumulative surplus was based on the 2011 year end cumulative surplus forecast in August of 2011The 2013‐2015 forecast reflects the current 2012 year end cumulative surplus forecast

Adjustment for 2012 forecast deficit



Increases through 2015 are due to the additional debt that will be incurred as the organization finances the tail end of the expansion drive implemented prior to 2010, Compass card and faregate project costs, replacement of vehicles and bus infrastructure, and forecast interest rates increases.

DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Depreciation expense expenditures are budgeted at $163 million in 2012 and are forecast to increase to $210 million in 2015.

Table 19: Depreciation Expense Forecasts (millions)

The growth in the depreciation expense primarily reflects the replacement of assets, with new assets being more expensive than the older replaced assets due to inflation.

Funding Adjustments

TransLink is required by the SCBCTA Act to generate sufficient funds to pay for its expenditures and cannot budget for a funding deficit. The legislation specifies that TransLink must retain an accumulated fund surplus. The funded annual surplus/deficit and resulting cumulative fund balance are determined by adjusting the excess (deficiency) of revenue over expenditures (consistent with Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) for the following:

reversing depreciation and other non‐cash expenditures,

reversing restricted capital contributions and capital payments to municipalities for the MRN, and

adding payments to sinking funds and public‐private partnerships (P3) for debt repayment.

A combined negative funding adjustment means further funding is required, while a combined positive funding adjustment means less funding is required.

Table 20: Funding Adjustments (millions)

Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Statement

BALANCE SHEET The balance sheet (Consolidated Statement of Financial Position) is included in Appendix G: Financial Tables. Total assets will increase by $673 million between end of 2012 and 2015, bringing the total assets to $6.6 billion by the end of 2015. The increase in capital assets of $370 million over this period represents additions of $950 million less $580 million in amortization of capital assets during the three‐year forecast period. The balance of the increase in total assets is a $309 million increase in sinking and debt reserve funds and long‐term investments offset by a $6 million decrease in current assets.


Funding Adjustments 18.0$ 13.3$ 12.8$ (21.2)$ (46.6)$ (59.1)$

Forecasts



Between the end of 2012 and 2015, total liabilities will increase by $712 million to fund the above mentioned increase in total assets. The funding comes from both long‐term (direct) debt and senior government contributions.

Over the Outlook period, total assets will decrease by about $277 million. A $822 million decrease in total liabilities is offset by a $545 million increase in the fund balances. This is because the deferred government transfer are amortized over a shorter period than the assets they have helped fund.

The Plan debt level reaches its peak in 2016 at $3,239 million under the existing debt limit of $3.5billion, and then begins to decline slightly in 2017. Figure 5 demonstrates this trend as current debt obligations will be retired through the course of this Plan and Outlook, while limited new debt will be added.

Figure 5: Borrowing Levels for 2012 Base Plan and Outlook

CASH FLOW STATEMENT The cash flow statement (Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows) can be found in Appendix G: Financial Tables. The 2013 Base Plan is able to cover its financing cost through cash from operations for 2013 to 2015. Investing activities are funded by cash on hand and long‐term borrowing over the three years. TransLink actively manages its cash situation and will access its short‐term borrowing facility on a temporary basis within periods.

Total capital expenditures for the period 2013 to 2015 are $950 million excluding contributions to municipalities for roads and bike programs but including real estate purchases of $34 million. Federal and provincial funding finances $354 million of the $950 million.

Cash from operations is $186 million in cash surplus at the end of 2015. The Outlook shows a cash surplus from operations of $314 million at the end of 2022.

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

(Millions $)

Closing Gross Direct Borrowing

Closing Net Direct Borrowing

Established Borrowing Limit



Outlook for 2016 through 2022

Figure 4: Cumulative Surplus Level Forecasts for 2012 through 2022

Note: The dotted green line is the Cumulative Surplus, as a % of operating expenditures, for the 2013 Base Plan.

Assumptions and Risks

Economic assumptions have been developed through research from a variety of sources. A primary source has been the estimates from the Province of British Columbia’s Budget and Fiscal Plan (2011/2012 to 2013/14), which reflect consensus opinion of a blue ribbon panel of economic advisors. Fuel volumes reflect current volumes, provincial growth forecasts to 2013/14 and trending beyond that period.

21.4%

17.1%15.6%

12.0% 11.9%10.3% 10.6%

12.3% 13.1% 14.2%16.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Cumulative Su

rplus a

s a % of O

perating

Expen

diture

Revenu

e an

d Expe

nditures (M

illions)

Operating Expenditure

Revenue

Cumulative Surplus % (Base)

3 Year Plan Outlook



Table 21: Key Assumptions for 2012 Three‐Year Plan with Outlook

OTHER MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS DRIVEN BY TRANSLINK Operation, maintenance and rehabilitation funding for roads is maintained at the 2011 rate,

adjusted for a 2 per cent annual allowance for inflation.

Continuation of senior government funding is assumed in this Plan. TransLink will continue to utilize all available funding where applicable.

SOURCES FOR KEY ASSUMPTIONS Goods and Services Inflation – Rates are based on the Province of British Columbia Budget and Fiscal Plan 2012/13 to 2014/15.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – Rates are based on the Province of British Columbia Budget and Fiscal Plan 2012/13 to 2014/15.

Construction (excluding road construction) Inflation ‐ The rates are based on BC‐specific construction cost data as reported by BTY Group’s Q4‐2011 Market Intelligence, Provincial Snapshot report. BTY Group is a Canadian infrastructure development and advisory services firm.

Road Construction Inflation ‐ These rates are based on US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Construction Cost Index (NHCCI) data.

Assumption Sensitivity Impact

% Change/Rate per Year 2013 2014 2015 2017-2022 Factor (%) $ million / yr

Real GDP growth 2.2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.0%

Goods and Services Inflation 1.5% 1.9% 2.1% Variable 1.0% + / - 2.2

Construction (excluding road construction) Inflation 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 1.0% + / - 0.1

Road Construction Inflation 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Variable 1.0% + / - 0.3

Hydro Cost 2.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 1.0% + / - 1.5

Gasoline Cost (per litre & net of HST rebate) $1.48 $1.51 $1.56 $1.6 to $1.91Diesel Cost (per Litre & net of HST rebate) $1.47 $1.49 $1.53 $1.56 to $1.78 1.0% + / - 0.5

Interest Rates - Short Term 2.30% 3.30% 4.20% 5.25% 1.0% + / - 0.2 - Long Term 4.1% 4.6% 5.3% Variable 1.0% + / - 1.0

Regional Fuel Consumption - Gasoline (million litres) 1,701 1,684 1,679 1679 to 1679 1.0% + / - 3.6 - Diesel (million litres) 271 274 278 283 to 319 1.0% + / - 0.6

* The pretax cost per litre is projected to grow with general inflation of 2% starting 2016.

** 2013-2014 0%, then 2%/year



Diesel Cost – The price forecasts are based on the US Energy Administration forecasts, converted to Canadian prices and reflecting Metro Vancouver taxes.

Interest Rates – The rates for 2012 were determined by calculating a mid‐point average of the forecasts of eight Canadian chartered banks. Subsequent years are based on the Province of British Columbia Budget and Fiscal Plan 2012/13 to 2014/15.

Regional Fuel Consumption ‐ As described previously in the Fuel Tax Revenue section, TransLink’s fuel tax revenue uses historical volumes and extrapolation of trends for 2013‐2015, and provincial growth estimates through the Outlook period, supported by gasoline and diesel cost forecasts.

IDENTIFICATION OF RISK FACTORS AND POTENTIAL RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES TransLink’s risk management strategies, policies and limits are designed to ensure TransLink’s risks and related exposures are aligned with corporate business objectives and risk tolerances. Using an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) process, annual assessments are conducted that focus on strategic, political, reputational, financial, human resources, business effectiveness, health and safety, environmental, reporting and regulatory risks.

All residual risks that are considered high or moderate are incorporated into a corporate risk action plan whereby risks are assigned to an executive who is accountable for reporting back on efforts to mitigate this risk. The Chief Executive Officer provides an update to the Board of Directors at each Board meeting.

TransLink’s governance structure requires that a three‐year Base Plan with Outlook be adopted each year. This structure, along with the alignment of the Budget and the Plan, ensures that TransLink is able to continually monitor all revenues and expenditures and modify its strategy to respond to changes in conditions.

i. ENERGY Fuel Tax Revenue – This high risk factor is the impact of changes in fuel tax revenue assumptions, which are based on projected costs of fuel and consumption growth rates. Fuel consumption is determined by a number of complex factors (including price, population, economic factors, availability of alternatives) and is difficult to forecast. As the projected fuel consumption for gasoline vehicles increases by 1 per cent, the impact on the cumulative surplus would be $3.6 million per year. An additional risk is that reported fuel volumes have become increasingly variable since 2008/2009 due in large part to a shift in the tax collection point. This has resulted in initial over collection of tax revenue and overpayment to TransLink followed by negative adjustments. These adjustments (or refunds) can occur up to 48 months following payment.

Transit Operations Fuel Cost – This is a medium risk factor. To mitigate the risk of volatility, Coast Mountain Bus Company secures future contract prices up to a year in advance on up to 75 per cent of the anticipated diesel volume consumption requirements. A one per cent change to the price of



purchased fuel impacts expenditures by $400,000. TransLink is investigating further hedging opportunities.

BC Hydro – This is a low risk factor. Rate estimates for 2012/13 to 2014/15 are provided in the provincial budget estimates. As rates are not yet available for beyond that point, the assumption is based on inflation. If the rate exceeds 2 per cent, it would be managed through cost containment.

ii. TRANSIT FARE REVENUES This is a medium risk factor. Fares are one of the largest revenue sources, contributing more than 35 per cent of TransLink’s total revenues. Ridership assumptions are the inherent driver for fare revenue projections. A 1 per cent change in ridership will result in a fluctuation of approximately $5 million per year in revenues.

iii. ECONOMIC FACTORS This is a low risk factor. Future interest rates, inflation and general economic growth are notable risk factors that increase over the planning horizon. The economic factor assumptions are based primarily upon the provincial three‐year budgets. As the economy emerges from the present downturn, general inflation may exceed the annual rate increases allowed under the SCBCTA Act. A 1 per cent increase in general inflation over the plan and outlook period would have a $9 million financial impact on TransLink expenditures.

iv. SENIOR GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION This is a low risk factor. The continuation of federal and provincial capital contributions is essential for TransLink’s 2013 Base Plan and Outlook. This plan assumes that the Federal Government’s Strategic Priorities Fund is entirely directed to TransLink.

v. GAIN (LOSS) FROM THE SALE OF ASSETS This is a medium to high risk factor. TransLink will manage the financial risk of surplus assets not being sold at forecasted amounts. Strategies would include additional cost containment and a re‐evaluation of the capital investment plan.

vi. OPERATIONAL SAVINGS

This is a medium‐high risk factor.

This Plan assumes notable reductions in recovery time which will have impacts on customers and requires CMBC identify schedule efficiencies.

This Plan assumes cost reductions through increased use of smaller vehicles. Achieving these savings depend on being able to procure smaller vehicles and allocating them to services where ridership will not be impacted.



APPENDIX F: EFFICIENCIES & KEY PERFORMANCE

INDICATORS This section provides an overview of past efficiencies TransLink has achieved and are continued forward in this plan, new efficiencies being introduced, and information on Key Performance Indicators for conventional and custom transit services.

Efficiencies

TransLink is continuing to take steps to improve its efficiency. For TransLink, becoming more efficient means looking at both sides of the ledger to find ways to reduce costs and increase revenues, while continuing to provide a quality transportation system that the region can rely on. This approach includes finding ways to increase revenues from the services we provide, because TransLink’s perspective is that “a dollar earned is a dollar saved”.

Recognizing challenges to its funding, in late 2009 TransLink decided to cut its 2010 Operations Budget as an essential cost‐saving component of the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan. These changes, in addition to other cost‐saving measures that followed between 2010 and 2012, carry over into the 2013 Base Plan. The benefit of these past decisions will continue to provide savings into future years. On top of these efficiencies and savings, new efficiencies are being introduced in this Plan that will provide savings that are over and above the savings that are attributed to these earlier decisions. Table 22 provides more information about the different efficiency measures advanced by TransLink.

EFFICIENCIES AND NEW REVENUES CARRIED ON FROM PREVIOUS PLANS

In late 2009 TransLink cut $30 million from its 2010 Operations Budget as an essential component of the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan. These savings were achieved through a wide‐range of cost‐cutting initiatives, including:

• Reduction of over 90 professional and management positions across the organization • Reductions in overtime and labour costs associated with operating and maintaining the system • No economic increases to exempt staff salary levels since 2009 • Reduced cost of buying goods and services through consolidation of orders and more effective

contracting • Reduced discretionary spending for studies, consulting services, administration, marketing and

communications • Decreased fuel costs from anti‐idling initiatives and greater use of hybrid and CNG vehicles

TransLink outperformed this budget target in both 2010 and 2011 and actual controllable spending was lower in 2011 than 2010. These reductions in costs were achieved at the same time TransLink absorbed the administration of parking sales tax and continued to invest in Information Technology which external reviews indicated were required to manage risk. These cost‐reduction measures have been



carried forward and continue to pay dividends each year and will contribute a total cost savings of $90 million between 2013 and 2015.

Table 22: Cost Saving and Revenue Efficiency Initiatives in the 2013 Base Plan

During the same period TransLink put in place an aggressive Service Optimization initiative to increase the effectiveness of transit services by shifting bus service to routes or times of day where there are more riders, and in so doing increase ridership and fare revenue at no additional cost. By the end of 2012, TransLink will have reallocated over 170,000 bus hours. In 2012, Service Optimization will accommodate 5 million more annual boardings and contribute an estimated $7 million in additional fare revenue. When shifting services to higher demand routes and times of day, the benefit of increased ridership carries forward, and continues to increase in future years.

Service Optimization helps increase productivity of the system, but higher demand across the whole system is also forecast, with the result of an additional $13 million in revenues on top of the Service



Optimization effects previously described. These trends are forecast to continue as population and employment grows and the region increases in density, and energy costs remain high.

The combination of previously planned Service Optimization and general higher demand are forecast to contribute an additional $70 million in revenue between 2013 and 2015.

NEW EFFICIENCIES AND REVENUES INTRODUCED IN THE 2013 BASE PLAN

TransLink is committed to ensuring that it is managing the transportation network as efficiently as possible. Over the 2013 Base Plan period, TransLink will pursue a number of initiatives to achieve new efficiencies and revenues.

New Cost‐Saving Efficiencies Scheduling efficiencies: The 2013 Base Plan sets a target of further reductions in recovery time

to 16 per cent of total service hours in 2016 and to just over 15 per cent by the end of the outlook period. TransLink will work to minimize service impacts for customers, including monitoring impacts on reliability and customer satisfaction, making adjustments as required. TransLink’s increased provision of real‐time transit information will help mitigate some customer impacts that may arise. Also, SkyTrain has instituted new scheduling software that will allow for cost‐savings through reductions to non‐revenue service kilometres.

Right‐sizing the fleet: This means ensuring that each transit route is served by the appropriate vehicle based on customer demand. Lower demand routes may be better served with smaller vehicles such as a Community Shuttle, while high demand routes may be better served by an articulated bus. TransLink works with CMBC to analyze boardings and make adjustments with as little impact on the customers’ experience as possible. To take advantage of a lower cost per hour of service, the Plan will increase the share of service operated by Community Shuttles.

Maintenance and operation efficiencies: A number of initiatives will be undertaken to improve maintenance practices. Most significantly, this includes reducing the vehicle spare ratio. TransLink’s fleet contains spare vehicles that allow for routine maintenance activities and responding to unforeseen events. TransLink’s spare ratio (the ratio of spare vehicles to vehicles required for operation) has been high because TransLink retained vehicles to provide extra service during the Olympics. Spare vehicles have also been in long‐term storage with the expectation that service will be expanded as contemplated in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan. In 2012, targets were established for spare ratios by fleet type. Through a combination of retirements and fewer replacement purchases, the fleet will be reduced to meet the new spare ratio targets. This will result in capital cost savings over the Plan period. Fewer spare vehicles in reserve will require more time for TransLink to expand service should such a decision be made in the future. Waits of up to two years for new fleet orders are typical.

Reducing SkyTrain frequency: SkyTrain service will run less frequently on weekends from 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on the Expo and Millennium Lines. Running less frequent service during these times will save an average of approximately $0.5 million per year between 2013 and 2015.



New Revenue‐Increasing Efficiencies TransLink will undertake a number of initiatives to increase revenue from its assets and services. This includes establishing an ongoing program of service optimization with a reallocation of approximately 25,000 transit service hours each year of the plan. Other revenue‐increasing opportunities will be pursued through the leveraging of real estate assets to deliver sustained revenues to fund operations, as well as introducing or increasing pricing rates at park and ride lots. In total, it is forecast that these initiatives will generate an average of $24 million in additional revenue per year between 2013 and 2015.

Through past and current actions, TransLink has achieved total efficiencies that will provide an average of $98 million per year in savings and new revenue between 2013 and 2015. So far, TransLink has been successful in identifying efficiencies and cost reductions while maintaining a record high level of customer satisfaction. However, in the future it may become more challenging to continue to put in place additional cost‐saving measures without having a negative impact on our customers.

Key Performance Indicators

Key Performance Indicators for TransLink conventional and custom transit services are summarized in Table 23.

Table 23: Key Performance Indicators for the 2013 Base Plan

Under development



APPENDIX G: FINANCIAL TABLES Table 24: Consolidated Statement of Financial Position

Budget

for the years ending 31 Dec. thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

AssetsCurrent assets

Cash & Short Term investments 387,908 369,977 363,410 370,286 316,057 214,313 180,528 220,154 246,001 297,535 358,808Accounts receivable 81,431 83,874 86,390 88,982 91,651 94,401 97,233 100,150 103,154 106,249 109,436Supplies inventory 40,617 41,836 43,091 44,383 45,715 47,086 48,499 49,954 51,452 52,996 54,586Prepaid expenses 7,676 7,906 8,143 8,387 8,639 8,898 9,165 9,440 9,723 10,015 10,315

517,632 503,592 501,033 512,038 462,061 364,698 335,425 379,698 410,331 466,795 533,146

0Long-term investments 117,838 123,141 128,682 134,473 140,524 146,848 153,456 160,362 167,578 175,119 182,999Debt reserve Fund 45,245 45,383 44,190 44,791 43,298 41,549 38,162 37,100 36,612 34,859 31,168Debt sinking fund 647,855 741,899 813,536 940,370 1,004,945 1,029,321 1,027,145 1,124,124 1,195,424 1,291,558 1,308,492Capital assets 4,610,186 4,785,785 4,926,980 4,979,995 4,915,242 4,874,541 4,805,219 4,687,652 4,563,429 4,416,342 4,279,164

Total Assets 5,938,756 6,199,800 6,414,422 6,611,666 6,566,071 6,456,958 6,359,407 6,388,936 6,373,374 6,384,672 6,334,969

Liabilities and Fund BalancesCurrent liabilities

Other Short term borrowing 89,205 89,795 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 182,432 184,970 190,519 196,235 202,122 208,186 214,431 220,864 227,490 234,315 241,344Total Current Liabilities 271,637 274,765 280,519 286,235 292,122 298,186 304,431 310,864 317,490 324,315 331,344

Employee future benefits 77,865 88,587 97,446 107,190 117,909 129,700 142,670 156,937 172,631 189,894 208,883Deferred government transfer 1,240,553 1,296,472 1,343,307 1,365,792 1,286,454 1,187,664 1,079,318 975,521 877,676 777,829 682,624SkyTrain Canada Line - Deferred concessionaire credits 642,474 619,396 596,318 573,240 550,162 527,084 504,006 480,928 457,850 434,772 411,694Golden Ears Bridge Contractor liability 1,032,200 1,044,515 1,050,832 1,050,370 1,048,478 1,045,014 1,039,834 1,032,805 1,023,759 1,012,534 998,969Long-term debt 2,616,132 2,871,686 3,033,393 3,210,459 3,184,542 3,139,427 3,081,166 3,130,461 3,146,907 3,185,653 3,137,752

Total Liabilities 5,880,861 6,195,422 6,401,815 6,593,286 6,479,666 6,327,074 6,151,426 6,087,515 5,996,313 5,924,997 5,771,266

Fund balances 57,892 4,376 12,605 18,378 86,402 129,881 207,979 301,418 377,058 459,673 563,700

Total Liabilities and Fund Balances 5,938,756 6,199,800 6,414,422 6,611,666 6,566,071 6,456,958 6,359,407 6,388,936 6,373,374 6,384,673 6,334,969

FORECAST OUTLOOK



Table 25: Statement of Operations

SCBCTA

Actual Budget2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Transit Revenues 444.6$ 456.2$ 497.8$ 533.0$ 549.2$ 575.7$ 606.3$ 630.9$ 658.6$ 683.6$ 704.5$ 724.0$

Toll Revenues 33.7$ 39.0$ 40.1$ 41.2$ 42.7$ 44.5$ 46.4$ 48.4$ 50.2$ 52.1$ 53.8$ 55.6$

User Fees 478.3$ 495.2$ 537.9$ 574.2$ 591.9$ 620.2$ 652.7$ 679.3$ 708.8$ 735.7$ 758.3$ 779.6$

Motor Fuel Tax 311.8$ 330.8$ 335.1$ 332.7$ 332.7$ 333.6$ 334.6$ 335.6$ 336.6$ 337.6$ 338.6$ 339.7$

Property Tax 280.2$ 287.6$ 296.1$ 304.9$ 314.1$ 323.5$ 333.2$ 343.2$ 353.5$ 364.1$ 375.0$ 386.3$

Parking Rights Tax 53.7$ 51.6$ 52.9$ 53.7$ 54.5$ 55.3$ 56.2$ 57.0$ 57.9$ 58.7$ 59.6$ 60.5$

Other Taxes 36.6$ 37.2$ 37.5$ 37.8$ 38.2$ 38.5$ 38.8$ 39.1$ 39.5$ 39.8$ 40.1$ 40.5$

Time‐l imited Property Tax ‐$ ‐$ 29.0$ 29.9$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Taxation Revenues 682.3$ 707.2$ 750.6$ 759.0$ 739.5$ 750.9$ 762.8$ 774.9$ 787.5$ 800.2$ 813.3$ 827.0$

Senior Government Contributions 82.3$ 82.4$ 85.5$ 94.5$ 106.7$ 118.4$ 130.2$ 141.2$ 138.1$ 131.2$ 128.8$ 125.8$

Canada Line Concessionaire credit 23.3$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$ 23.1$

Interest Revenue 26.1$ 30.3$ 37.9$ 42.5$ 43.9$ 51.8$ 55.0$ 56.5$ 56.9$ 60.6$ 63.9$ 69.6$

Total Revenues 1,292.3$ 1,338.2$ 1,435.0$ 1,493.3$ 1,505.1$ 1,564.4$ 1,623.8$ 1,675.0$ 1,714.4$ 1,750.8$ 1,787.4$ 1,825.1$

Roads, Bridges and Bicycles 95.3$ 115.3$ 104.7$ 79.2$ 68.8$ 66.0$ 67.3$ 68.4$ 69.8$ 71.2$ 72.6$ 73.9$

Transit Operations 816.0$ 869.0$ 877.1$ 891.4$ 916.3$ 939.8$ 931.3$ 941.0$ 953.3$ 967.4$ 979.9$ 989.9$

TransLink Corporate & Police 97.5$ 113.5$ 152.9$ 137.0$ 138.5$ 141.2$ 142.8$ 146.8$ 146.7$ 148.5$ 151.6$ 152.8$

Operating Expenditures 1,008.8$ 1,097.8$ 1,134.7$ 1,107.6$ 1,123.6$ 1,147.0$ 1,141.4$ 1,156.2$ 1,169.8$ 1,187.1$ 1,204.1$ 1,216.6$

Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation 283.5$ 240.4$ 300.3$ 385.7$ 381.5$ 417.4$ 482.4$ 518.8$ 544.6$ 563.7$ 583.3$ 608.5$

Interest Expense 171.6$ 172.8$ 178.7$ 188.2$ 210.6$ 235.3$ 237.6$ 235.8$ 238.6$ 242.9$ 250.3$ 251.7$

Depreciation Expense 160.1$ 163.3$ 176.6$ 193.6$ 210.1$ 224.1$ 231.3$ 234.9$ 237.6$ 245.2$ 250.4$ 252.8$

Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items (48.2)$ (95.7)$ (55.0)$ 3.9$ (39.2)$ (42.0)$ 13.5$ 48.1$ 68.4$ 75.6$ 82.6$ 104.0$

Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment ‐$ (11.4)$ (14.9)$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Proceeds From Sale of Assets & Other Items (4.4)$ 55.9$ 13.5$ ‐$ 45.0$ 110.0$ 30.0$ 30.0$ 25.0$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Surplus/(Deficit) before Funding Adjustments (52.6)$ (51.2)$ (56.4)$ 3.9$ 5.8$ 68.0$ 43.5$ 78.1$ 93.4$ 75.6$ 82.6$ 104.0$

Funding Adjustments 18.0$ 13.3$ 12.8$ (21.2)$ (46.6)$ (62.1)$ (67.7)$ (72.7)$ (65.9)$ (60.2)$ (61.2)$ (59.1)$

Funded Surplus/(Deficit) (34.6)$ (37.9)$ (43.6)$ (17.3)$ (40.8)$ 5.8$ (24.3)$ 5.4$ 27.5$ 15.4$ 21.4$ 44.9$

Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus 322.0$ 287.4$ 274.8$ 231.2$ 213.9$ 173.1$ 178.9$ 154.6$ 160.0$ 187.5$ 202.9$ 224.3$

25.3$

Cumulative Funded Surplus 287.4$ 274.8$ 231.2$ 213.9$ 173.1$ 178.9$ 154.6$ 160.0$ 187.5$ 202.9$ 224.3$ 269.2$

Forecasts

Adjustment for 2012 forecast deficit


Outlook



Table 26: Funded Statement of Operations

SCBCTA

Actual Budget2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Transit Revenues 444.6$ 456.2$ 497.8$ 533.0$ 549.2$ 575.7$ 606.3$ 630.9$ 658.6$ 683.6$ 704.5$ 724.0$

Toll Revenues 33.7$ 39.0$ 40.1$ 41.2$ 42.7$ 44.5$ 46.4$ 48.4$ 50.2$ 52.1$ 53.8$ 55.6$

User Fees 478.3$ 495.2$ 537.9$ 574.2$ 591.9$ 620.2$ 652.7$ 679.3$ 708.8$ 735.7$ 758.3$ 779.6$

Motor Fuel Tax 311.8$ 330.8$ 335.1$ 332.7$ 332.7$ 333.6$ 334.6$ 335.6$ 336.6$ 337.6$ 338.6$ 339.7$

Property Tax 280.2$ 287.6$ 296.1$ 304.9$ 314.1$ 323.5$ 333.2$ 343.2$ 353.5$ 364.1$ 375.0$ 386.3$

Parking Rights Tax 53.7$ 51.6$ 52.9$ 53.7$ 54.5$ 55.3$ 56.2$ 57.0$ 57.9$ 58.7$ 59.6$ 60.5$

Other Taxes 36.6$ 37.2$ 37.5$ 37.8$ 38.2$ 38.5$ 38.8$ 39.1$ 39.5$ 39.8$ 40.1$ 40.5$

Time‐l imited Property Tax ‐$ ‐$ 29.0$ 29.9$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Taxation Revenues 682.3$ 707.2$ 750.6$ 759.0$ 739.5$ 750.9$ 762.8$ 774.9$ 787.5$ 800.2$ 813.3$ 827.0$

Senior Government Contributions 21.7$ 19.2$ 19.3$ 19.3$ 19.3$ 19.3$ 19.3$ 19.3$ 19.3$ 19.3$ 19.3$ 19.3$

Interest Revenue 3.9$ 2.2$ 6.0$ 6.5$ 6.7$ 8.7$ 9.4$ 9.9$ 11.0$ 11.7$ 12.9$ 15.3$

Total Revenues 1,186.2$ 1,223.8$ 1,313.8$ 1,359.0$ 1,357.4$ 1,399.1$ 1,444.2$ 1,483.4$ 1,526.6$ 1,566.9$ 1,603.8$ 1,641.2$

Roads, Bridges and Bicycles 46.5$ 49.1$ 40.4$ 43.2$ 44.3$ 45.6$ 46.9$ 48.0$ 49.4$ 50.8$ 52.2$ 53.4$

Transit Operations 816.0$ 869.0$ 868.5$ 879.8$ 912.4$ 938.4$ 930.0$ 941.0$ 953.3$ 967.4$ 979.9$ 989.9$

TranLink Corporate & Police 97.5$ 113.5$ 152.9$ 137.0$ 138.5$ 141.2$ 142.8$ 146.8$ 146.7$ 148.5$ 151.6$ 152.8$

Operating Expenditures 960.0$ 1,031.6$ 1,061.8$ 1,060.0$ 1,095.2$ 1,125.2$ 1,119.7$ 1,135.8$ 1,149.4$ 1,166.7$ 1,183.7$ 1,196.1$

Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation 226.2$ 192.2$ 252.0$ 299.0$ 262.2$ 273.9$ 324.5$ 347.6$ 377.2$ 400.2$ 420.1$ 445.1$

Interest Expense 105.5$ 106.0$ 111.1$ 119.9$ 142.2$ 167.0$ 169.5$ 168.0$ 171.2$ 176.0$ 184.1$ 186.3$

Capital Repayments 150.8$ 168.6$ 183.0$ 196.4$ 205.7$ 211.1$ 209.4$ 204.4$ 203.5$ 208.9$ 214.7$ 214.0$

Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items (30.2)$ (82.4)$ (42.1)$ (17.3)$ (85.8)$ (104.2)$ (54.4)$ (24.7)$ 2.5$ 15.3$ 21.4$ 44.9$

Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment ‐$ (11.4)$ (14.9)$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Proceeds From Sale of Assets & Other Items (4.4)$ 55.9$ 13.5$ ‐$ 45.0$ 110.0$ 30.0$ 30.0$ 25.0$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Funded Surplus/(Deficit) (34.6)$ (37.9)$ (43.5)$ (17.3)$ (40.8)$ 5.8$ (24.4)$ 5.3$ 27.5$ 15.3$ 21.4$ 44.9$

Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus 322.0$ 287.4$ 274.8$ 231.3$ 213.9$ 173.2$ 179.0$ 154.6$ 159.9$ 187.3$ 202.6$ 224.0$

Adjustment for 2012 forecast deficit 25.3$

Cumulative Funded Surplus 287.4$ 274.8$ 231.3$ 213.9$ 173.2$ 179.0$ 154.6$ 159.9$ 187.3$ 202.6$ 224.0$ 268.9$


Forecasts Outlook



Table 27: Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

Budget

for the years ending 31 Dec. thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Cash provided by (used for):

Operations:Excess of revenue over expenses (41,137) (53,516) 8,229 5,773 68,024 43,479 78,098 93,439 75,640 82,615 104,027Items not involving cash:

Amortization of capital assets 164,911 176,771 193,727 210,098 224,078 231,336 234,897 237,567 245,163 250,420 252,823Net change in contractor liability 66,757 67,566 68,258 68,353 68,276 68,101 67,819 67,420 66,896 66,236 65,428Amortization of deferred government transfers (60,855) (66,038) (75,200) (87,400) (99,100) (110,900) (121,900) (118,800) (111,900) (109,500) (106,500)Amortization of bond issue costs 1,285 1,209 1,146 1,003 797 720 676 490 408 216 225Amortization of debt issue costs 590 590 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Amortization of Deferred Concessionaire credits (23,078) (23,078) (23,078) (23,078) (23,078) (23,078) (23,078) (23,078) (23,078) (23,078) (23,078)

Items not involving cash 149,610 157,020 165,059 168,976 170,974 166,179 158,414 163,600 177,489 184,294 188,897Changes in non-cash working capital:

(Increase)/decrease in accounts receivable (2,372) (2,443) (2,516) (2,592) (2,669) (2,750) (2,832) (2,917) (3,004) (3,095) (3,187)(Increase)/decrease in supplies inventory (1,183) (1,219) (1,255) (1,293) (1,331) (1,371) (1,413) (1,455) (1,499) (1,544) (1,590)(Increase)/decrease in prepaid expenses (224) (230) (237) (244) (252) (259) (267) (275) (283) (292) (300)Increase/(decrease) in accounts payable and accrued liabilities 1,423 2,538 5,549 5,716 5,887 6,064 6,246 6,433 6,626 6,825 7,029Employee future benefit contributions 10,721 10,722 8,859 9,745 10,719 11,791 12,970 14,267 15,694 17,263 18,989

Changes in non-cash working capital 8,366 9,368 10,399 11,331 12,354 13,474 14,704 16,053 17,533 19,158 20,941

116,839 112,872 183,688 186,080 251,351 223,133 251,216 273,092 270,662 286,067 313,866

Investing:Decrease/(increase) in long-term investments (5,074) (5,303) (5,541) (5,791) (6,051) (6,324) (6,608) (6,906) (7,216) (7,541) (7,880)Decrease/(increase) in debt reserve fund deposits (2,995) (138) 1,193 (601) 1,493 1,749 3,387 1,062 488 1,753 3,692Purchase of capital assets (excluding MRN) (348,693) (352,370) (334,922) (263,112) (159,325) (190,636) (165,574) (120,001) (120,940) (103,333) (115,645)

(356,762) (357,811) (339,270) (269,504) (163,884) (195,210) (168,795) (125,844) (127,667) (109,122) (119,834)

Financing:Short-term debt repayments (6,236) (8,683) (10,255) (13,254) (12,820) (10,092) (9,064) (8,652) (6,691) (6,251)Government transfers received for capital additions 122,057 121,957 122,034 109,886 19,761 12,110 13,554 15,002 14,056 9,653 11,295Golden Ears Bridge contractor liability payment (54,706) (55,251) (61,942) (68,815) (70,168) (71,565) (72,998) (74,450) (75,942) (77,461) (78,993)Bonds issued 277,153 298,520 241,474 209,805 80,203 98,926 107,420 110,398 112,284 114,080 114,823Bonds matured (33,467) (37,939) (72,230) (23,487) (93,665) (131,940) (156,266) (52,529) (87,593) (68,859) (156,697)Sinking Funds Maturities 30,053 35,957 71,249 21,208 92,586 131,193 153,679 51,938 86,520 66,224 154,261Sinking Fund interest (25,656) (29,392) (33,258) (35,852) (41,313) (43,760) (44,625) (43,851) (47,486) (50,219) (53,630)Sinking Fund payments (93,363) (100,609) (109,629) (112,189) (115,849) (111,809) (106,879) (105,066) (110,334) (112,139) (117,565)

222,070 227,007 149,016 90,300 (141,698) (129,665) (116,207) (107,621) (117,148) (125,412) (132,758)

Increase/(decrease) in cash (17,853) (17,932) (6,567) 6,877 (54,230) (101,742) (33,786) 39,627 25,847 51,533 61,274

Cash, beginning of period 405,764 387,910 369,978 363,411 370,288 316,058 214,316 180,529 220,156 246,003 297,537

Cash, end of period 387,910 369,978 363,411 370,288 316,058 214,316 180,529 220,156 246,003 297,537 358,811

FORECASTS OUTLOOK



Table 28: Projected Borrowing Compared to Borrowing Limit and Select Financial Ratios

$ Millions2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Opening Gross Direct Borrowing 2,371 2,645 2,901 3,062 3,239 3,214 3,168 3,110 3,159 3,176 3,215 Retirements/Other (32) (43) (80) (33) (106) (144) (166) (61) (96) (75) (163) Short term borrowings - - - - - - - - - - - Borrowing in Yr - Capital 306 299 241 210 80 99 107 110 112 114 115

Closing Gross Direct Borrowing 2,645 2,901 3,062 3,239 3,214 3,168 3,110 3,159 3,176 3,215 3,167 Less: Sinking funds (648) (743) (816) (943) (1,009) (1,035) (1,034) (1,132) (1,204) (1,302) (1,320) Less: Debt Reserve Funds (46) (46) (44) (45) (44) (42) (38) (37) (37) (35) (31)

Closing Net Direct Borrowing 1,952 2,112 2,202 2,251 2,161 2,092 2,038 1,990 1,935 1,878 1,815

Established Borrowing Limit 2,800 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500

Reconciliation of Borrowing During Year to Annual Capital Expenditures:

Captial Expenditures (including MRN) 466 448 415 313 184 214 186 140 141 124 136 Less: Sr Gov't Contributions (163) (150) (173) (104) (104) (115) (79) (30) (29) (10) (21) Less: Other Contributions (0) (0) (0) - - - - - - - -

Net Expenditures 303 299 241 210 80 99 107 110 112 114 115

Add: Gross-up for Debt Reserve Fund 3 - - - - - - - - - - Net Borrowing amount for capital 306 299 241 210 80 99 107 110 112 114 115

FORECASTS OUTLOOK



APPENDIX 5 : CAPITAL CASH FLOWS - PROJECTS APPROVED AND PROPOSEDSCBCTA

$ Thousands 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Projects Approved or Underway 438,983 396,591 228,240 115,168 53 - - - - - -

TransitTra Vehicles Conventional Replace - - 46,000 69,617 72,579 99,963 65,620 - - - - Tra Vehicles Custom Replace - 41 10,741 6,204 6,711 14,300 13,460 18,929 15,564 8,202 9,990 Tra Vehicles Community Shuttle Replace - 30 14,293 2,925 12,501 10,303 8,202 14,407 16,720 2,524 13,671 Tra Vehicles Non Revenue - 1,010 1,456 1,322 2,056 3,097 2,026 1,260 1,475 2,196 1,628 TransitTra Exchanges - 431 - 6,000 7,000 11,000 4,000 - - - - Tra Depots 28,700 - 27,755 17,744 18,505 20,176 - - - - - Tra Infrast - 5,360 7,638 5,359 6,980 6,709 54,981 61,486 66,683 71,566 69,605 Tra Facilities - - 250 - 1,106 - 250 250 250 250 330 Tra Equipment - - 2,053 6 - - - - - - - Tra IT / ITS - 870 700 450 - 1,000 - - - - - Tra Other - 3,000 - - - - - - - - -

Subtotal Transit 28,700 10,742 110,885 109,628 127,439 166,549 148,539 96,332 100,692 84,738 95,224

Rapid TransitRapVehicles Non Revenue - - - 165 - - - - - - -

RapWayside Power Propulsion - - - - 10,269 3,606 - - - - 699 RapStation & Station area Upgrades & Programs - 16,976 49,158 29,664 7,994 5,597 - - - - - RapInfrast - 7,177 9,750 7,236 8,278 4,748 6,675 11,563 8,334 6,845 6,394 RapFacilities - 467 3 - - - - - - - - RapEquipment - - 258 47 - 649 1 1,311 874 656 164 RapEvergreen Line - - 6,667 7,500 833 - - - - - - RapOther - - - - - - - - - - -

Subtotal Rapid Transit - 24,620 65,835 44,612 27,375 14,600 6,676 12,874 9,208 7,501 7,257

Commuter Rail - 409 1 23,820 - - - - - - -

Bike Program - 230 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 523

RoadsRoaMRN and Bike Capital Rehabilitation Program - 12,503 14,198 16,014 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 RoaOther - - - - - - - - - - -

Subtotal Roads - 12,503 14,198 16,014 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950

Bridges - - - - - - - - - - -

Marine - 2,000 1,000 1,000 3,575 2,500 - - - - -

IT - 9,685 5,643 6,548 6,440 11,037 10,359 10,795 11,040 11,094 13,164

Total Gross Cost 467,683 456,779 426,253 317,240 185,282 215,086 185,974 140,401 141,340 123,733 136,118

ContributionFed (115,530) (119,313) (144,027) (86,363) (100,892) (113,014) (78,554) (30,002) (29,056) (9,653) (21,295) Prov (47,549) (30,229) (29,157) (17,209) (2,744) (1,810) - - - - - Other (117) (162) (1) - - - - - - - -

Total Contribution (163,196) (149,704) (173,184) (103,572) (103,637) (114,823) (78,554) (30,002) (29,056) (9,653) (21,295)

Total Net Cost 304,487 307,075 253,068 213,668 81,645 100,262 107,420 110,398 112,284 114,080 114,823

FORECASTS OUTLOOK



Table 29: Transit Service Hours

Actual BudgetService Hours in Thousands 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Conventional Bus & Community Shuttle 4,909 4,923 4,929 5,006 5,024 5,023 5,022 5,019 5,009 5,009 5,002 4,997

SkyTrain Expo and Millennium Lines 1,166 1,171 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126

SkyTrain Canada Line 182 195 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196

SkyTrain Evergreen Line ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 69 138 138 138 138 138 138

Rapid Transit Total 1,348 1,366 1,322 1,322 1,322 1,391 1,460 1,460 1,460 1,460 1,460 1,460

SeaBus 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

West Coast Express 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

Total Conventional Transit 6,310 6,342 6,304 6,381 6,399 6,467 6,535 6,532 6,522 6,522 6,515 6,510

Custom Transit (HandyDART) 603 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598 598

Total Service Hours 6,913 6,940 6,902 6,979 6,997 7,065 7,133 7,130 7,120 7,120 7,113 7,108

Forecasts Outlook



Table 30a: Schedule of Transit Fares

Note: The fares shown in the table above assume TransLink’s reapplication for the supplemental increases from the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan are approved by the Commissioner.



Table 30b: Schedule of Transit Fares

Note: The fares shown in the table above assume TransLink’s reapplication for the supplemental increases from the 2010 Funding Stabilization Plan are approved by the Commissioner.


GStanese

Text Box

6538652

2013 Base Plan and Outlook Milestones and Decision Points: September 7 Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee received a TransLink

presentation

September 17 Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook was released for consultation

September 20 Finance Committee received a TransLink presentation

September 22 TransLink consultation session for elected officials

October 1 TransLink Transportation Forum for stakeholders

October 5 Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee receives staff report

October 11 Finance Committee receives staff report

October 13 TransLink consultation session for elected officials (reporting out)

October 18 Mayors’ Council meeting

October 24 TransLink Board meeting (likely plan adoption at this meeting)

On or before November 1

Regional Transportation Commissioner receives 2013 Base Plan and Outlook and provides his opinion within 30 days

6549477

ATTACHMENT 2


Evaluation of Major Investment Element relative to the Regional Growth Strategy The major investment elements in the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook are evaluated at a high-level relative to its support for the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy:

○ ◔ ◑ ◕ ●Does not

support RGSMostly does not

support RGSModerately

supports RGSMostly

supports RGSFully

supports RGS

Key

Elements Support for

RGS Relevant RGS Goals

and Commentary Removal of 306,000 additional annual transit service hours

[RGS Goals 1, 3, 5]: By not fully funding 306,000 of additional transit service hours, the region is likely to see a slower pace of travel mode shift and discourage ridership in under-served areas.

Partial King George Boulevard B-Line ◕

[RGS Goals 1, 3, 5]: Connects three important Urban Centres in Surrey (Guildford, Surrey Metro Centre, and Newton). Decision to not extend the B-Line south from Newton to Semiahmoo Municipal Town Centre is undesirable because it reduces transit service between adjacent Urban Centres.

Partial Highway 1 Rapid Bus ◕

[RGS Goals 1, 3, 5]: Establishes transit service for the first time in decades on the Port Mann Bridge/Highway 1 corridor. The service will initially connect the new Carvolth Transit Exchange in Langley Township to Braid Station in New Westminster and, eventually, Lougheed Municipal Town Centre. Reduction to 30 minute headways outside peak hours will affect ridership.

Rapid Transit Station Upgrades ◕

[RGS Goals 1, 3, 5]: Accommodates high passenger volumes and upgrades to meet accessibility guidelines. As TransLink staff describes it, the conditions associated with the cost-sharing funding agreement with the Federal government (Building Canada Fund) coupled with the immediate needs of the Expo Line stations resulted in the Lonsdale Quay being ranked lower for this round of funding.

Removal of $25 million to fund pedestrian/cycling facilities in Evergreen Line Station Areas

○ [RGS Goals 1, 3, 5]: A key thrust of the Regional Growth Strategy is the promotion of alternative modes of travel, in addition to transit. Walking and cycling are necessary elements in transit-oriented communities and safe and convenient access to transit. Foregoing these facilities now along the Evergreen Line is a missed opportunity.

Major Road Network and Bike Upgrade ◑

[RGS Goals 1, 2, 5]: TransLink, in collaboration with municipalities, established a new funding formula for cost-sharing improvements to the Major Road Network and municipal cycling infrastructure. The formula places a priority on maintaining MRN roads, followed by capital upgrades. Municipalities can apply to reallocate block grants towards upgrades.

6561088

ATTACHMENT 3


Recent Metro Vancouver Board Resolutions related to Property Tax Increases for Transportation October 29, 2010 Metro Vancouver Board Resolution: That the Board recommend that:

a) The Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation reject any supplement that relies on property taxes as a source of additional revenue as it may jeopardize Metro Vancouver’s ability to support other necessary regional projects in the future; and,

b) The Mayors’ Council and Municipal Finance Authority (MFA) reject any future TransLink borrowing that serves to increase the joint and several liability of Metro Vancouver, or its members.

November 26, 2010 Metro Vancouver Board Resolution: That the Board advise the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation to:

a) Reject the “Moving Forward’ Supplemental Plan and “Delivering Evergreen Line and North Fraser Perimeter Road” Supplemental Plan on the basis that both plans are dependent on new property tax increases only; and,

b) Request the TransLink board prepare a sustainable funding policy to fund the supplemental plan.

6561267

ATTACHMENT 4


6613646


To: Board of Directors From: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Date: October 5, 2012 Subject: 2012 Board Approval of TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Recommendation: That the Board: a) endorse the 2012 list of projects that TransLink intends to forward to the Strategic

Priorities Fund Management Committee for approval as Approved Eligible Projects under the Strategic Priorities Fund agreement; and

b) encourage municipalities to write to their local Members of Parliament to include bike lane funding as an eligible project under the Strategic Priorities Fund.

At its October 5, 2012 meeting, the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee considered the attached report titled “2012 Board Approval of TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application”, dated October 1, 2012. The Committee subsequently amended the recommendation as presented above in underline style. Attachment: Report titled “2012 Board Approval of TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application”, dated October 1, 2012


Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012

Finance Committee Meeting Date: October 11, 2012

To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Finance Committee From: Gaëtan Royer, Manager Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department Date: October 1, 2012 Subject: 2012 Board Approval of TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Recommendation: That the Board endorse the 2012 list of projects that TransLink intends to forward to the Strategic Priorities Fund Management Committee for approval as Approved Eligible Projects under the Strategic Priorities Fund agreement. Finance Committee Recommendation: That the Finance Committee receive for information the report dated September 26, 2012, titled “2012 Board Approval of TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application”.

1. PURPOSE This report provides comments and recommendations on the projects TransLink intends to forward to the Strategic Priorities Fund Management Committee for approval. 2. CONTEXT New Metro Vancouver Approval Procedure The Metro Vancouver Board endorsed a new procedure in early 2012 that requires the Board to first approve the projects which TransLink intends to forward to the Strategic Priorities Fund Management Committee for approval as “Approved Eligible Projects” under the Strategic Priorities Fund agreement. Eligible Projects Under the Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement, TransLink can use the funds only for eligible regional transportation projects. Local roads, bridges, tunnels, bike lanes, walking paths, and sidewalks are not eligible transportation projects. Proposed Projects for 2012 Application At the September 20, 2012 Finance Committee meeting, TransLink presented an overview of the Strategic Priorities Fund; the amount of money received to date; the investments made, committed, or revised; and the proposed projects for 2012 and assumed in the 2013-2015 period of the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook (Attachment 1).

Section E 3.2


KBirks

Text Box

ATTACHMENT

2012 Board Approval of TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: October 11, 2012 Page 2 of 4 For 2012 (year 8 of the Strategic Priorities Fund agreement), TransLink has identified the following projects to be considered for funding under the Strategic Priorities Fund. The total cost is $136 million, of which $123 million is being sought from the Strategic Priorities Fund. TransLink’s contribution is $13 million.

FY2012 (Year 8) Vehicle

Type # of

Vehicles Anticipated In-Service

Year

Total Cost ($ millions)

SPF Funding ($ millions)

TransLink Contribution ($ millions)

HandyDART Fleet Replacement (155 vehicles)

57 2013 8.49 7.64 0.85

65 2014 11.26 10.13 1.13

33 2015 5.97 5.37 0.60

Community Shuttle Fleet Replacement (50 vehicles)

8 2015 2.38 2.14 0.24

42 2016 12.53 11.28 1.25

Conventional 40-ft Bus Fleet Replacement

97 2015 70.00 63.50 6.50


26 2016 25.00 22.50 2.50

TOTAL - - 135.63 122.56 13.07 These are practical investments that are consistent with TransLink’s “fix it first” principle. According to TransLink, all of the new vehicles will replace existing fleet vehicles nearing the end of their useful lives. None of the new vehicles will be allocated to expand the spare fleet. In fact, according to the draft 2012 Base Plan and Outlook, the spare fleet will be reduced as one out of a menu of cost-efficiency measures. Proposed Projects in 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Because TransLink assumes continued receipt of Federal gas tax funding, this source of funding is assumed as an established funding source in each and every base plan, including the draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook. However, the current Strategic Priorities Fund Agreement expires in March 2015. If no new agreement is struck then the last year of funding will be 2014 (fiscal year 2014 ends in March 2015). TransLink has prepared the anticipated project list using these funds for the 2013-2015 period. The flavour is the same as in 2012 – the focus in on keeping assets in a state of good repair by replacing aging rolling stock. Information about TransLink’s current fleet of bus, rail, and marine fleet (active and spare) is included also.


2012 Board Approval of TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012



Type # of


Year





39 2016 6.78 6.10 0.68 65 2017 13.99 12.59 1.40 60 2018 13.46 12.11 1.35

Conventional 40-ft Bus Fleet Replacement (138 vehicles)

84 2016 63.15 55.22 7.93

54 2017 40.60 36.54 4.06

TOTAL - - 137.98 122.56 15.42


Type # of


Year





37 2017 10.20 9.18 1.02

29 2018 8.20 5.95 2.25


92 2018 65.62 59.06 6.56


52 2017 55.42 48.37 3.05

TOTAL - - 139.44 122.56 16.88


Type # of


Year





55 2019 18.93 17.04 1.89 55 2020 15.56 14.01 1.55 33 2021 8.20 7.38 0.82 39 2022 9.99 8.99 1.00


49 2019 14.41 12.97 1.44 65 2020 16.72 15.05 1.67 8 2021 2.52 2.27 0.25 42 2022 13.67 12.30 1.37

TOTAL - - 100.00 90.01 9.99


2012 Board Approval of TransLink Strategic Priorities Fund Application Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: October 11, 2012 Page 4 of 4

Current Fleet Vehicle Type Units (Active and Spares)

HandyDART 332 Community Shuttles 173 Conventional 40-ft and 60-ft Buses

1,333

SeaBus 3 SkyTrain Mark 1 150 SkyTrain Mark 2 108 Canada Line 20 sets of 2-car consists West Coast Express 6 locomotives and 44 double-deck

commuter rail cars 3. ALTERNATIVES That the Board may: a) Endorse the recommendation as listed in this report. Or b) Identify alternative directions for staff or TransLink.

4. CONCLUSION

Metro Vancouver received a list of projects that TransLink intends to submit to the Strategic Priorities Fund Management Committee for approval as Approved Eligible Projects under the Strategic Priorities Fund agreement. Staff finds the list of projects for 2012 to be acceptable, and recommends that the Metro Vancouver Board approve the list in order to authorize the transfer of funds to TransLink for these specific expenditures. ATTACHMENT Gas Tax Fund (TransLink presentation to Finance Committee, September 20, 2012) (Doc. #6561479) 6559249


Gas Tax FundGas Tax FundMetro Vancouver

Finance Committee MeetingSeptember 20 2012September 20, 2012


GStanese

Text Box

ATTACHMENT

Agendag

Gas Tax Fund program overviewGas Tax Fund program overview

Review of Year 1 through 7 (2005/06 to 2011/12)

2013 2015 B Pl P d G T F di 2013‐2015 Base Plan Proposed Gas Tax Funding

Summary


Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Funds Programg

Federal initiative started in 2005/06 fiscal year

• Provides predictability

f d• Long‐term funding

Tied to environmental improvements

• Reduced GHG’s• Reduced GHG s

• Clean air

• Clean waterClean water


Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Funds Program

M V h 100% f h S i P i i i F d (SPF)

Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Funds Program

Metro Vancouver chose to put 100% of the Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) to transit

• 3 Part Agreement:

• Metro Vancouver,

• TransLink, and

• UBCM• UBCM

• Administered by UBCM through the Gas Tax Fund Management Committee

• Tier 3 SPF limited to development or improvement of public transit system

• Federal Government has indicated program will continue beyond current agreement


Approval and Funding Processpp g

Projects are approved by application to the Management Committee

Funds are received after successful applicationFunds are received after successful application

Changes to projects must be approved by Management Committee

Funds are held in a restricted account and interest earned is also restricted to approved projects

Funds audited annually by external auditors

TransLink reports annually to UBCM and Metro Vancouver


Gas tax funds have allowed TransLink to:

Replace older buses with new fuel‐efficient vehicles

• Air quality improvements

• Reductions in GHG’s

Expand the transit fleet

• Provide better coverage

I f• Improve frequency

136 new HandyDART vehicles

• Improve service for customers with mobility impairmentsImprove service for customers with mobility impairments

100% accessible fleet

• Greater overall accessibilityy


Gas tax funds have allowed TransLink to:Gas tax funds have allowed TransLink to:

A new SeaBus passenger ferry

• Increase capacity

14 new expansion SkyTrain vehicles

• Increase capacity

As a result, TransLink was able to expand service 22.6% between 2006 and 2011


Vehicles and Infrastructure Supportedpp

Year Conventional Bus

Community Shuttle

HandyDART SkyTrain SeaBus Supporting InfrastructureBus Shuttle

1 119

2 139

3 199

4 108 19 55 SkyTrain MaintenanceFacility Expansion

5 32 81 14 SkyTrain Yard Expansion5 32 81 14 SkyTrain Yard ExpansionExpo Line Propulsion Power System Upgrade

6 41 13 114* 1 Compass card equipment for busesfor buses

7 91 69 Hamilton Transit Centre

Total 729 101 136 128 1

* Refurbishment and modernization of 114 Mark 1 cars to extend the life of the vehicles by 15 years


TransLink was able to $purchase $1 Billion in assets

for $466 Million$


Gas Tax Funding Received/Spentt D b 31 2011at December 31, 2011

Gas Tax Funding Years 1 to 7 (up to March 31, 2012)

120,000,000

140,000,000

Received with Interest Remaining Spent

80,000,000

100,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

‐

20,000,000

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7


2013‐2015 Base PlanP d G T P j tProposed Gas Tax Projects

Year Conventional Bus

Community Shuttle

HandyDART Costmillions

Fundingmillions

TransLink’sContributionBus Shuttle millions millions Contribution

6 +55*

7 ‐31+52**

8 123 50 155 $136 $122

9 138 164 $138 $122

10 144 66 $139 $12210 144 66 $139 $122

11 160 186 $100 $90

Total 426 331 505 $513 $456 $57 million

* Modernization of 114 Mark 1 cars canceled, TransLink will be applying to replace this with the 2014 community shuttles** 2013 conventional bus order canceled to reduce spare ratio, TransLink will be applying to replace this with the 2014 conventional buses


Summaryy

This program has enabled our region to:

• Expand service by 22.6%

• Invest $466 Million to secure $1 Billion in Assets

• Have the most modern fleet in North America.


End of Presentation


GStanese

Text Box

6561479

6613554


To: Board of Directors From: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Date: October 5, 2012 Subject: Consideration of Regional Growth Strategy Compliance - Corporation of

Delta Request to Expand the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area Sewerage Area within the Agricultural Designation (Delta Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery, Hawthorne Grove Park)

Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Recommendation: That the Board resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to the subject properties, Delta Engineering Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery and Hawthorne Grove Park sites is consistent with the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy, and that the requested FSA expansion applications proceed for consideration by the GVS&DD Board. At its October 5, 2012 meeting, the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee considered the attached report titled “Consideration of Regional Growth Strategy Compliance - Corporation of Delta Request to Expand the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area Sewerage Area within the Agricultural Designation (Delta Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery, Hawthorne Grove Park)”, dated September 19, 2012. Staff recommended that the Committee withdraw section b) of the recommendation to allow time for further legal review of the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and regional sewer extension issues. Attachment: Report titled “Consideration of Regional Growth Strategy Compliance - Corporation of Delta Request to Expand the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area Sewerage Area within the Agricultural Designation (Delta Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery, Hawthorne Grove Park)”, dated September 19, 2012.



To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee From: Heather McNell, Regional Planning Division Manager

Terry Hoff, Senior Regional Planner Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Date: September 19, 2012 Subject: Consideration of Regional Growth Strategy Compliance - Corporation of

Delta Request to Expand the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area within the Agricultural Designation (Delta Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery, Hawthorne Grove Park)

Recommendation: That the Board: a) resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to the subject properties,

Delta Engineering Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery and Hawthorne Grove Park sites is consistent with the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy, and that the requested FSA expansion applications proceed for consideration by the GVS&DD Board; and

b) delegate to the Chief Administrative Office (CAO) or her delegates, the authority to determine technical compliance with the Regional Growth Strategy for the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to Agricultural, Rural and Conservation / Recreation areas outside the Urban Containment Boundary.

1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek a GVRD Board decision regarding Regional Growth Strategy compliance for a request from the Corporation of Delta to expand the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area within the Regional Growth Strategy Agricultural Designation. 2. CONTEXT Following adoption of Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) on July 29, 2011, Metro Vancouver procedures regarding the extension of GVS&DD regional sewer services outside of Metro Vancouver’s Urban Containment Boundary are subject to compliance with the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy. In a report dated, August 16, 2012, titled “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation and Sewerage Area Expansion Requests”, the Board was advised of the changes to policy stemming from the new RGS, and that staff are preparing guidelines for RGS policy implementation. The guidelines are anticipated for Board Consideration in late 2012.

Section E 3.3


KBirks

Text Box

ATTACHMENT

Consideration of Regional Growth Strategy Compliance - Corporation of Delta Request to Expand the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area within the Agricultural Designation (Delta Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery, Hawthorne Grove Park) Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Page 2 of 4 In the interim, the Corporation of Delta requests that Metro Vancouver Boards proceed with consideration of a sewerage area expansion requests submitted for the properties located at 5404 64 Avenue (Delta Engineering Works Yard), 4026 Arthur Drive (Hawthorne Grove Park) and 3890 Arthur Drive (Augustinian Monastery) (Map 1). Pending Board approved RGS guidelines, Metro staff have prepared an assessment and recommendations for Board consideration of RGS compliance for each of the extension requests. If the GVRD Board determines that the requests are not compliant with the RGS, the extension requests will be forwarded to the GVS&DD Board for denial. If the GVRD Board determines that the requests are compliant with the RGS, the request will be forwarded to the GVS&DD Board for further consideration and final decision. Corporation of Delta Engineering Works Yard 5404 64 Street The Delta Engineering Works Yard has operated as a Public Utility land use at this location for over 40 years. Delta has recently completed plans to upgrade the works yard facility, and intends to replace the on-site wastewater treatment system with a connection to the regional sewer system. Delta has determined that the regional service connection is necessary to ensure future safe disposal of wastewater generated by the expanded Works Yard facilities and operations. Due to its isolated location, the Works Yard property was integrated into the Agricultural Land Reserve in 1973 as a non-farm use. Subject to the Agricultural Land Commission Act, this status is valid unless, or until, the use is changed. Because the Works Yard was an accepted use within the ALR, it was included in the LRSP Green Zone in 1998, and subsequently included the RGS Agricultural Land Use Designation in 2011. The extension of the GVS&DD sewerage area exclusively to serve this existing municipal facility would not affect the provisions of the RGS. An extension to this site is unlikely to trigger additional extension requests among surrounding ALR properties in the vicinity, and any potential request would be subject to a separate sewerage extension application to the GVS&DD. Therefore, subject to RGS Section 6.8, it is recommended that the GVRD Board pass a resolution that the extension of sewerage services to this established facility / site is consistent with the provisions of the RGS, and that the requested FSA expansion application proceed for consideration by the GVS&DD Board. Augustinian Monastery 3890 Arthur Drive The subject site is located on one of three bequeathed properties making up the Augustinian facility which includes Sacred Heart Church and School, Augustinian House Residence and the Augustinian Monastery. The property containing the Church and School, and the property containing the Augustinian House Residence, had previously been approved for FSA expansion by the GVS&DD Board. The 1.2 hectare Monastery site, located between the church/school and the residence within the overall complex, was not included in the previous FSA extension application, but has connected to the system. The Corporation of Delta is now requesting the Monastery site be formally included along with the other Augustinian facilities already within the FSA. From a RGS perspective, the requested expansion of the FSA is a rationalization of the existing sewer area boundary and connections within the established Augustinian facility, and would not affect the intent or implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy. The sewerage service expansion would have no significant impact on GVS&DD services.


Consideration of Regional Growth Strategy Compliance - Corporation of Delta Request to Expand the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area within the Agricultural Designation (Delta Works Yard, Augustinian

Monastery, Hawthorne Grove Park) Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012

Page 3 of 4 Therefore, subject to RGS Section 6.8, it is recommended that the GVRD Board pass a resolution that the extension of sewerage services to this established facility / site is consistent with the provisions of the RGS, and that the requested FSA expansion application proceed for consideration by the GVS&DD Board. Hawthorne Grove Park 4026 Arthur Drive The subject property functions as a municipal park which includes existing and proposed facilities illustrating Delta’s agricultural history. The park contains the historic Kirkland House, and it is envisioned that the site will include additional historic agricultural buildings and provide a local venue for community events. Delta indicates that wastewater from the proposed facilities will exceed the capacity of the current on-site septic system which cannot be expanded due to site constraints, and will experience periods of heavy use with community events. The subject property is within the RGS Agricultural Designation, abutting the UCB and Fraser Sewerage Area boundary. Given the established land use and community / agricultural amenity status of the property, the extension of sewer services to the property would not affect the intent or implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy. Given the relatively small size of the property (1.7 hectare), and multiple potential facilities on the site, it would be practical to include the complete property within the FSA. The sewerage service expansion would have no significant impact on GVS&DD services. Therefore, subject to RGS Section 6.8, it is recommended that GVRD Board pass a resolution that the extension of sewerage services to this established site is consistent with the provisions of the RGS, and that the requested FSA expansion application proceed for consideration by the GVS&DD Board. Map 1. Proposed GVS&DD Sewerage Area Extension Locations


Consideration of Regional Growth Strategy Compliance - Corporation of Delta Request to Expand the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area within the Agricultural Designation (Delta Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery, Hawthorne Grove Park) Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Decisions Procedures Regarding Technical Compliance with RGS Provisions As specified in the recommendations for each of the preceding sewerage extension applications, RGS Section 6.8 provides for GVRD Board judgment in determining whether the nature of development is inconsistent with the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy. Each application for sewerage service extension is subject to a staff review and assessment of RGS implications. For those applications where staff review determines there are no significant RGS implications, it may be prudent to avert such minor decisions proceeding through GVRD Committee and Board decision procedures, and to allow the applications to proceed directly through the GVS&DD Board and Committee procedures. For more substantive sewerage extension applications where staff review deem there are potentially significant implications for the RGS, the application would more appropriately proceed through Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and GVRD Board decision procedures. Therefore, to streamline the RGS review of GVS&DD sewerage area extensions, it is recommended that the GVRD Board delegate to the Chief Administrative Office (CAO) or her delegates, the authority to determine technical compliance with the Regional Growth Strategy for the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to Agricultural, Rural and Conservation / Recreation areas outside the Urban Containment Boundary. 3. ALTERNATIVES That the Board: a) Resolve that the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to the subject Delta

Engineering Works Yard, Augustinian Monastery and Hawthorne Grove Park sites is consistent with the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy, and that the requested FSA expansion applications proceed for consideration by the GVS&DD Board (recommended); and

b) Delegate to the Chief Administrative Office (CAO) or her delegates, the authority to

determine technical compliance with the Regional Growth Strategy for the extension of GVS&DD sewerage services to Agricultural, Rural and Conservation / Recreation areas outside the Urban Containment Boundary.

or c) Provide alternate direction to staff. 4. CONCLUSION Expansion of the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area must be consistent with the provisions of Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. A GVRD Board decision on RGS compliance will be forwarded to the GVS&DD Board.

6520038



To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee From: Regional Planning Advisory Committee Date: September 14, 2012 Subject: Regional Growth Strategy - Defining Regional Significance Recommendation: The Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee recommend that the Board:

Endorse the procedure for maintaining consistency and clarity around the application of the concept of “Regional Significance” in implementing the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy, as proposed in the report titled “Regional Growth Strategy - Defining Regional Significance”, dated September 14, 2012. 1. CONTEXT An Implementation Agreement was signed by Metro Vancouver and the City of Coquitlam on July 19, 2011 on mechanisms to address Coquitlam's objections to certain aspects of the proposed Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). With the Agreement in place, the RGS was accepted by the City of Coquitlam, and adopted by the Board on July 29, 2011. One of Coquitlam's objections to the RGS was that it lacks a clear definition of what is deemed to have “regional significance.” The Coquitlam Implementation Agreement included a clause stating that:

Metro Vancouver will support and fund an immediate referral by the Metro Vancouver Board to TAC, with the authority to seek any third party assistance that TAC deems necessary or advisable, to report back on the feasibility of developing consistency and clarity around the application of the concept of “regional significance” as used in the proposed RGS with the objective of TAC reporting back to the Metro Vancouver Board within one year of the referral.

In early 2012, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was renamed Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) with essentially the same membership and mandate. For a variety of reasons, consideration of this matter by staff and the Committee has been delayed. 2. DISCUSSION Much of the efforts involved in drafting the RGS were to achieve an appropriate balance between local autonomy in land use matters and Metro Vancouver’s role in managing regional growth. It is important that this balance not be compromised when trying to define more precisely what is and is not regionally significant. It is also felt important that future

Section E 3.4


Regional Growth Strategy – Defining Regional Significance Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Page 2 of 6

decisions about what is and what is not regionally significant be made by elected officials based on the direction established in the RGS. The word “significant” and the expression “regionally significant” are used repeatedly throughout the RGS and apply to a variety of matters:

• regionally significant habitat (p. 5) • significant ecological and recreation assets (p. 10) • Greenway … connections of regional significance (map 9) • the more regionally significant an issue, the higher the degree of Metro Vancouver

involvement (p. 57) • amendments that would significantly affect … regional transportation (p. 62) • significant change in the growth projections assumptions (p. 63).

The potential feasibility of establishing a regional significance definition was investigated by Regional Planning Advisory Committee members, through research of other regional plans, discussions with staff, and considering the potential for differing views on regional significance definitions from member municipalities. Reviewing other regional plans and documents illustrated a general lack of definitions for the term regional significance (or equivalent). The results of this investigation contributed to the development of the approach proposed in this report. Regionally Significant Land Uses The first paragraph in Section D (Land Use Designations) of the RGS states (p. 9):

The following regional land use designations and overlays are key tools in achieving the five goals of the Regional Growth Strategy. They establish a long-term regional land use framework and provide the basis for defining matters of regional significance.

From the outset, these designations and map overlays are intended to be read in conjunction with applicable strategies and actions under each of RGS goals. There is no prioritization of how each of the five goals is to be applied to specific cases and how competing priorities (such as, between supporting a sustainable economy and protecting the environment for example) may be resolved. While the RGS states that the regional land use designations provide the basis for defining matters of regional significance, it also states that these designations and map overlays are to be interpreted by municipalities in their Regional Context Statements (RCS). Given the RGS recognizes local autonomy; it is not intended to contain the level of detail typical of an Official Community Plan (OCP) or a Zoning Bylaw. Municipal OCPs use a variety of descriptions to define land use designations that meet the aspirations of each community. The purpose of the RCS, a document that requires adoption by the Metro Vancouver Board, is to identify how the RGS strategies and actions are reflected in each municipality’s OCP. To a large extent, the RCS describes what is regionally significant in each municipal OCP in relation to the RGS. Using Section D of the RGS as a point of reference and land use as the subject matter, a difference of opinion between a municipal Council and the Board regarding what is regionally significant should ultimately be resolved at the time of considering acceptance of

Each Municipality’s Regional Context

Statement describes what is regionally significant

in their OCP.


Regional Growth Strategy – Defining Regional Significance Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2011

Page 3 of 6 that municipality’s RCS. This would be done through either political decisions or the facilitation and settlement process set out in Local Government Act sections 856, 858 to 862 and 864. Local Government Act Definition The Local Government Act Part 25 (Regional Growth Strategies) defines "regional matter" as: a matter that involves coordination between or affects more than one municipality, more than one electoral area, or at least one of each, in a regional district. Section 849 of the Act defines the purpose of the RGS and the matters which the RGS should deal with, and section 850 describes the required content of regional growth strategies. The Act also notes that the RGS is not limited to the matters identified in the Act, and may address additional matters. It is important to note that the method and degree that an RGS addresses matters are not defined in the Act, but are left to the regional board and affected local governments to determine through the RGS preparation, acceptance and approval process. There is no standard in BC for what is regionally significant. Whereas, in other jurisdictions (e.g., Ontario), the senior government (e.g., Province) defines the degree of authority and scope which a regional board has when it is established – and this is not negotiable or decided by the regional board or local governments. The Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy goals and policies fully comply with the Act – the RGS addresses the minimum requirements of the Act, and includes components addressing other matters which were identified as regionally significant by Metro Vancouver and affected local governments during the RGS development process. The RGS has been designed to balance regional consistency and regional goals with local autonomy and flexibility. In this regard, it could be said that Metro Vancouver’s RGS only addresses matters that are regionally significant and does not deal with any matters that are regionally insignificant. Degree of Regional Significance Another difficulty with the task assigned to Regional Planning Advisory Committee is that “regional significance” was never meant to be narrowly defined. Table 4, copied from the RGS, deliberately illustrates “regional significance” as a continuum spanning from regionally significant to local government autonomy. The RGS implementation framework and its amendment procedure prescribe different voting and acceptance processes depending on the degree of regional significance of the matter at hand. The more regionally significant the proposed change, the more rigorous the process. In Table 4 below, thresholds are defined between different types of RGS amendments; however, some of the qualifiers used are general in nature. Similarly in the RGS, some elements are unequivocally defined (the Urban Containment Boundary is delineated for each parcel) while others are general in nature (such as the concept of Complete Communities).



The best tool to settle a difference of opinion about regional significance between Metro Vancouver and a municipality is the administrative and political process set in the Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1 Regional Context Statements adopted by the Board on March 2, 2012 (Attachment 2). Procedure to Resolve the Interpretation of Regional Significance The Local Government Act provides mechanisms to monitor and refine / amend the Regional Government Strategy, as follows: 1) Consider possible amendments to the RGS to better balance regional consistency and

local autonomy as a result of the preparation and acceptance of the municipal Regional Context Statements (as required within two years of the adoption of the new Regional Growth Strategy).

2) Consider possible amendments to the RGS at the time of the five year review as a result of performance measures for that period.

Beyond these two options, for any specific requests to amend the RGS, it is proposed that the following procedure be used to maintain consistency and clarity around the application of the concept of “regional significance” as used in the RGS.


Regional Growth Strategy – Defining Regional Significance Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2011

Page 5 of 6 When a municipal Council identifies a specific matter in the RGS which it believes is not regionally significant: 1. the municipality may:

a. submit a RGS amendment to the Board to address the specific matter; b. submit a RCS amendment that does not address the relationship between the

municipality’s OCP and the RGS for that specific matter and seek the Board’s concurrence that the specific matter is not regionally significant; or

c. submit a RCS amendment and concurrent RGS amendment to address that specific matter.

2. Metro Vancouver may then:

a. adopt a RGS amendment to address the specific matter in accordance with the RGS Implementation Framework;

b. accept the municipality’s RCS and, if applicable RGS amendment; or c. in the event Metro Vancouver and the municipality require assistance to achieve

acceptance of the RCS / RGS, seek the appointment of a facilitator or arbitrator as provided for under the Local Government Act.

The effectiveness of the Regional Growth Strategy will be monitored through performance measures published annually. This could also include a review of the Regional Context Statement acceptance process. The reporting process may inform potential amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy. 3. ALTERNATIVES The Regional Planning & Agriculture Committee recommends that the Board: a) Endorse the procedure for maintaining consistency and clarity around the application of

the concept of “Regional Significance” in implementing the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy, as proposed in the report titled “Regional Growth Strategy - Defining Regional Significance”, dated September 14, 2012. [Recommended]

or b) Refer the matter back to the Regional Planning Advisory Committee for further

consideration. 4. CONCLUSION The purpose of this exercise and report was to determine the feasibility of maintaining consistency and clarity around the application of the concept of “regional significance” as used in the Regional Growth Strategy. The Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Advisory Committee has reviewed this matter, indicating how the RGS has achieved consistency and clarity around the term “regional significance”, and finds that there is no need to further study this matter. The Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy only deals with regionally significant matters and none of the matters found in the RGS are regionally insignificant. Interpretation of whether a specific matter is or is not regionally significant should involve a political process that gives the Board an opportunity to consider its implications on a case-by-case basis and from a regional perspective.



If a municipality proposes that a specific matter is not regionally significant, Metro Vancouver and the municipality should settle this difference of opinion at the time of amending that municipality’s Regional Context Statement and / or through a Regional Growth Strategy amendment, as outlined in the proposed procedure to maintain the interpretation of regional significance. ATTACHMENT Report dated January 17, 2012, titled “Guideline for the Preparation of Regional Context Statements” to Metro Vancouver Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee meeting on February 10, 2012, with attachment (Adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board on March 2, 2012) (Doc. #6522307). 6521802


metrovancouver Greater Vancouver Regional District – Greater Vancouver Water District

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District – Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5H 4G8 604-432-6200 www.metrovancouver.org

Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: February 10, 2012 To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee

From: Lee-Ann Garnett, Senior Regional Planner

Metropolitan Planning, Environment and Parks Department

Date: January 17, 2012

Subject: Guideline for the Preparation of Regional Context Statements Recommendation: That the Board adopt the document titled “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1 – Regional Context Statements” attached to this report. 1. PURPOSE To request Board adoption of “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1 – Regional Context Statements”. 2. CONTEXT With the adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy in July, 2011, Metro Vancouver municipalities will begin preparing Regional Context Statements. The Local Government Act (section 866) requires that all municipalities submit a new Regional Context Statement within two years of the Regional Growth Strategy being adopted. Regional Context Statements are the policy link that identifies how member municipalities are advancing regional goals through their Official Community Plans. The Regional Growth Strategy contains direction for Metro Vancouver to prepare “guidelines to assist in the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy, including but not limited to, guidelines for the preparation of Regional Context Statements (RCS), for amendment of a Regional Context Statement...” (section 6.15.1). These guidelines will help assist municipalities meet legislated requirements. The overall intent of the guidelines is to provide clarity on the preparation and content of Regional Context Statements. The Regional Context Statement Guideline is to be read in conjunction with the Regional Growth Strategy. The main sections of the Regional Context Statement Guideline are:

Context and legislative authority for Regional Context Statements; Overview of process for developing and amending Regional Context Statements; Overview of concept of general consistency between Regional Context Statements

and the Regional Growth Strategy; Guidance on mapping regional land use designations and overlays; Guidance on population and employment projections and targets; and Guidance on selected RGS strategies and actions.

The Guideline was prepared by Metro Vancouver staff and reviewed by the Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC – Municipal Directors of Planning). Staff is hosting a


http://www.metrovancouver.org/

gstanese

Text Box

ATTACHMENT

workshop in the spring of 2012 for municipal staff to discuss the preparation of Regional Context Statements and other Regional Growth Strategy implementation matters. 3. ALTERNATIVES That the Board may: a) Adopt the “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1 – Regional

Context Statements” [Recommended]; or b) Propose amendments to the “Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1

– Regional Context Statements; or c) Provide other direction to staff. 4. CONCLUSION The Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1 – Regional Context Statements” is attached for Board adoption. The intent of the guideline is to assist in the preparation of Regional Context Statements, and to provide better clarity on the content and process for their development. ATTACHMENT Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1 – Regional Context Statements.


Adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board on _______________, 2012

www.metrovancouver.org

SUSTAINABLE REGION INITIATIVE... TURNING IDEAS INTO ACTION

Regional Growth Strategy

IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE #1

Regional Context Statements

Metro Vancouver 2040 Shaping Our Future

5.4 ATTACHMENT - Replacement

On table item - Regional Planning and

Agriculture Committee - February 10, 2012


Table of Contents

1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 The Local Government Act and Regional Context Statements ...............................................................2

2.1 Developing Regional Context Statements ...............................................................................................3

2 Developing and Amending Regional Context Statements .................................................................................3

2.2 Regional Context Statement Disputes .......................................................................................................5

2.3 Amending Accepted Regional Context Statements ................................................................................5

2.4 Amending Existing Regional Context Statements ..................................................................................6

2.5 Regional Context Statements that Trigger Regional Growth Strategy Amendments ...........................8

3 General Consistency Between Regional Growth Strategy and Regional Context Statements .........................................................................................................................10

4 Mapping ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................11

4.1 Regional Land Use Designations and Urban Containment Boundary ...................................................11

4.1.1 Boundary Adjustments for Regional Land Use Designations ....................................................12

4.2 Regional Overlays ......................................................................................................................................13

4.2.1 Urban Centres ................................................................................................................................13

4.2.2 Frequent Transit Development Areas ..........................................................................................13

4.2.3 Boundary Adjustments for Regional Overlays ...........................................................................14

4.3 Additional Mapping Features: Local Centres and Special Employment Areas ....................................14

4.3.1 Local Centres ................................................................................................................................14

4.3.2 Special Employment Areas ..........................................................................................................14

4.4 Reference Maps ..........................................................................................................................................14

4.5 Special Study Areas and Sewerage Extension Areas ..............................................................................15

4.6 Map Updates ..............................................................................................................................................15

5 Population, Dwelling Unit and Employment Projections ....................................................................................16

6 Guidance on Selected RGS Strategies ..........................................................................................................................................17


6.1 GOAL 1

Create a Compact Urban Area ........................................................................................................................17

6.1.1 Strategy 1.3 Protect rural areas from urban development ........................................................17

6.2 GOAL 2

Support a Sustainable Economy .....................................................................................................................17

6.2.1 Strategy 2.2 Protect the supply of industrial land .......................................................................17

6.2.2 Strategy 2.3 Protect the supply of agricultural land and promote

agricultural viability with an emphasis on food production .......................................................18

6.3 GOAL 4

Develop Complete Communities ...................................................................................................................18

6.4 GOAL 5

Support Sustainable Transportation Choices ................................................................................................19

6.4.1 Strategy 5.1

Coordinate land use and transportation to encourage transit,

multiple-occupancy vehicles, cycling and walking .....................................................................19

6.4.2 Strategy 5.2

Coordinate land use and transportation to support the safe

and efficient movement of vehicles for passengers, goods and services ................................19

7 Format of Regional Context Statement .....................................................................................................................................21

APPENDIX 1 Regional Land Use Designation Areas by Municipality ......................................................22

APPENDIX 2 Resources ..........................................................................................................................................................................................23

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Regional Context Statement Acceptance Process ..........................................................................7

Figure 2 Process for Amending Regional Context Statements and Regional Growth Strategy ................9

Table 1 Summary of Mapping Elements to Include in Regional Context Statements:

Required and Optional Elements ...................................................................................................................12


1


Region Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1

Metro Vancouver adopted a new Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) on July 29, 2011, following acceptance by all affected local governments, namely Metro Vancouver’s member municipalities, Tsawwassen First Nation, TransLink, the Fraser Valley Regional District and the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District. The RGS represents consensus among Metro Vancouver and affected local governments to work collaboratively to meet our collective regional planning goals of creating a compact urban area, supporting a sustainable economy, protecting the environment, responding to climate change impacts, developing complete communities and supporting sustainable transportation choices.

Successful implementation of the RGS depends on cooperation between Metro Vancouver, and affected local governments and the ability of local plans, policies and programs to contribute to the regional planning objectives identified in the RGS. The Regional Context Statements are the key documents that identify the relationship between the RGS and local Official Community Plans (OCPs) and as such, are the main implementation tool of the Regional Growth Strategy.

Under the RGS, Metro Vancouver is responsible for preparing guidelines to assist in implementing the RGS (section 6.15, p. 64). This set of guidelines provides guidance to municipalities on developing Regional Context Statements. This document should be read in conjunction with the RGS, and it does not replace or supersede the content of, or the requirements set out in, the RGS. This document is one in a series of guidelines related to the RGS.

1 Introduction


2 Region Growth Strategy Implementation Guideline #1


1.1 The Local Government Act and Regional Context StatementsSection 866 of the Local Government Act establishes the requirement for local governments to prepare Regional Context Statements. Section 866 provides, among other things:

“ (1) If a regional growth strategy applies to all or part of the same area of a municipality as an official community plan, the official community plan must include a regional context statement that is accepted in accordance with this section by the board of the regional district for which the regional growth strategy is adopted.

(2) A regional context statement under subsection (1) must specifically identify:

(a) the relationship between the official

community plan and the matters

referred to in section 850(2) and any

other regional matters included under

section 850(3), and

(b) if applicable, how the official community

plan is to be made consistent with the

regional growth strategy over time.

(3) A regional context statement under subsection (1) and the rest of the official community plan must be consistent.”

Municipalities must submit a Regional Context Statement within two years of the adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy (Local Government Act, Section 866(8)). This means that Metro Vancouver’s member municipalities must submit new Regional Context Statements before July 29, 2013.

After a new Regional Context Statement has been accepted by the Metro Vancouver Board there are three instances in which municipalities will be required to submit a revised or new Regional Context Statement:

1. When a new Official Community Plan is being developed.

2. When amendments to an existing Official Community Plan are proposed that are not consistent with the accepted Regional Context Statement.

3. Within five years of the Board’s latest acceptance of the Regional Context Statement.


3



2.1 Developing Regional Context Statements It is anticipated that Regional Context Statements will be developed as follows:

! Initiation of an Official Community Plan and Regional Context Statement

Municipality initiates the OCP review

Municipal staff contacts Metro Vancouver staff and advises of OCP review process and development of Regional Context Statement and proposed timeline

Metro Vancouver staff review Regional Context Statements that have been previously accepted by the Metro Vancouver Board to identify any past regional issues or policies specific to that municipality that may still be relevant in the development of the new Regional Context Statement

Municipality develops draft OCP and RCS, including maps

" Metro Vancouver Staff Review of Draft OCP and Regional Context Statement

Municipality provides draft OCP and Regional Context Statement, including maps, to Metro Vancouver staff. This step is typically undertaken when a municipality releases a draft OCP for public comment

Municipality identifies Frequent Transit Development Areas (if applicable), in consultation with TransLink, and requests TransLink review and written comment on proposed FTDAs

Metro Vancouver staff informs Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee that OCP Review and Regional Context Statement development is underway. Municipality may also wish to present information about its OCP Review and Regional Context Statement to the Regional Planning Advisory Committee at this time

Metro Vancouver staff (all departments – Parks, Housing, Utilities, Aboriginal Relations) provides comments

Municipal staff and Metro Vancouver staff work together to refine the draft Regional Context Statement

2 Developing and Amending Regional Context Statements




# Formal Submission of Regional Context Statement by Municipality

Municipality gives first and second reading to the OCP bylaw

Municipality refers municipal bylaw to Metro Vancouver staff (and other agencies/organizations) for comments prior to public hearing. Metro Vancouver staff review and comment on Regional Context Statement prior to public hearing (this includes coordinating comments from staff other Metro Vancouver departments)

Municipality holds public hearing on OCP bylaw

After public hearing, municipality gives third reading to OCP bylaw and submits the Regional Context Statement to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance. Submission of the Regional Context Statement to the Board by the municipality is done by Council resolution. Municipality also forwards TransLink’s written comments on proposed FTDAs (if applicable) (section 6.2.2) to the Metro Vancouver Board.

It is important to note that municipalities may submit a Regional Context Statement to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance either before or after the municipality holds its public hearing on the OCP bylaw. It is recommended that municipalities forward the Regional Context Statement to Metro Vancouver after public hearing and third reading. If a municipality submits its Regional Context Statement to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance before holding the public hearing and, as a result of the public hearing the municipality revises its Regional Context Statement, the municipality will be required to re-submit its Regional Context Statement to the Metro Vancouver Board.

$ Metro Vancouver Consideration of Regional Context Statement

Metro Vancouver staff prepares report

Metro Vancouver’s Regional Planning Committee receives staff report and makes recommendation to the Metro Vancouver Board

Metro Vancouver Board considers acceptance of the Regional Context Statement

Metro Vancouver staff informs municipality of Metro Vancouver Board’s acceptance or non-acceptance

If the Regional Context Statement is accepted by the Metro Vancouver Board, municipality gives third and final reading to the bylaw and adopts OCP


5



Municipalities are advised to contact Metro Vancouver staff early in the development of the Regional Context Statement. Early collaboration helps to ensure that municipal and regional expectations regarding the process and content of a Regional Context Statement are clear before moving to formal bylaw readings.

Similarly, municipalities are advised to contact TransLink early in the development of Regional Context Statements to discuss and receive input on transportation or other components that may have an impact on regional transportation systems or priorities. Metro Vancouver can assist with population, dwelling unit and employment projections and mapping. Working with regional agencies early in the process allows regional staff to review more quickly a Regional Context Statement once the official referral has been made. Municipalities can also request Metro Vancouver staff and TransLink staff provide early feedback on any proposed Frequent Transit Development Areas.

Regional Context Statements are accepted by resolution, meaning a 50% + 1 weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board is needed. A regional public hearing is not required. Metro Vancouver must respond within 120 days of receiving a proposed Regional Context Statement from a municipality. If Metro Vancouver does not respond within 120 days, the Board is deemed to have accepted the Regional Context Statement (Local Government Act, section 866(5)). Municipalities may wish to contact Metro Vancouver staff to discuss the timelines for Metro Vancouver Committee and Board meetings.

2.2 Regional Context Statement DisputesIf the Board declines to accept a Regional Context Statement, it must indicate each provision to which it objects, and the reasons for its objections (Local Government Act, section 866(5)). The Local Government Act sets out a process for resolving a dispute between the regional district and the municipality (see sections 866(7), 856, 858 to 862, and 864). If the Metro Vancouver Board declines to accept a Regional Context Statement, the Board must notify the provincial Minister, who then determines whether a non-binding or binding dispute resolution process will be used. If the parties are directed to a non-binding process, they design the process that they wish to use to resolve the dispute.

2.3 Amending Accepted Regional Context Statements A Regional Context Statement and an OCP must be consistent (Local Government Act, section 866(3)). If a municipality wishes to amend a policy or land use designation in its OCP that is inconsistent with its accepted Regional Context Statement the municipality must submit a revised Regional Context Statement to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance. For example, to allow residential development on a parcel of land with an Industrial regional land use designation, the municipality must first submit its revised Regional Context Statement to change the regional land use designation from Industrial to General Urban to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance.




The process for amending an accepted Regional Context Statement is the same as the process for initial acceptance of the Regional Context Statement, described in section 2.1 of this document. Municipalities are encourages to contact Metro Vancouver (and Translink, if appropriate), early in the amendment process. Municipalities must forward to TransLink for written comment any Regional Context Statement amendments that would impact the regional transportation system or significantly affect the demand for regional transportation services (RGS section 6.6.1).

2.4 Amending Existing Regional Context Statements There may be instances where a municipality wishes to amend its existing Regional Context Statement that was prepared in accordance with the Livable Region Strategic Plan prior to submitting its new Regional Context Statement. In these cases, the municipality must submit the Regional Context Statement amendment to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance. However, this will not satisfy the municipality’s obligation to submit a new Regional Context Statement under section 866(2) of the Local Government Act.

During the period between the adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy and the acceptance of the municipality’s first Regional Context Statement prepared in accordance with the new RGS, section 6.2.11 requests municipalities to seek comment from the Metro Vancouver Board on proposed amendments to the municipality’s Official Community Plan that are inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. Requests for comments should be made in writing to the Metro Vancouver Board.


7



Figure 1 Regional Context Statement Acceptance Process

Metro Vancouver Process

Initial staff review

Referral for MV staff comment

Municipality initiates RCS/OCP

amendment process

Municipality introduces RCS/OCP

amendment bylaw

RCS/OCPamendment bylaw is given

1st and 2nd reading

RCS/OCP amendment bylaw

municipal public hearing and 3rd reading

Municipality adoptsRCS/OCP

amendment bylaw

Municipal Process

Metro Vancouver staffprovided with draftOCP/RCS bylaw for

initial comments

Metro Vancouverstaff provide

comment on draftbylaw

Metro Vancouverstaff prepare

covering report

Report and RCS to Regional Planning

and AgricultureCommittee

Formal request for RCSacceptance by MV Board

Metro VancouverBoard acceptance by

resolution (50%+1 weighted vote)

Note: Municipalities have the option to submit the bylaw to Metro Vancouver at any time before fourth reading. Submitting the bylaw to Metro Vancouver before a municipal public hearing could introduce the possibility that the municipality will change the bylaw as a result of the public hearing, and thus have to re-submit the Regional Context Statement to Metro Vancouver. Submtting the Regional Context Statement after third reading reduces this possibility.




2.5 Regional Context Statements that Trigger Regional Growth Strategy Amendments

A municipality may anticipate that its proposed Regional Context Statement is not generally consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and therefore would not be accepted by the Metro Vancouver Board. As set out in Section 6.2.4 (p. 58) of the RGS, the municipality may, at the time of submitting its Regional Context Statement to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance, also request an RGS amendment.

If the Regional Context Statement and the request for amendment to the RGS are submitted at the same time, Metro Vancouver will process the two items concurrently (guidelines on amending the Regional Growth Strategy are forthcoming). Refer to Figure 2. Metro Vancouver will endeavour to process Regional Growth Strategy amendments that are a result of Regional Context Statement amendments within the 120-period for acceptance of Regional Context Statements.

The following scenarios provide clarification on when an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy may be required:

Scenario #1 - Municipality amends OCP,

and no Regional Context Statement or

RGS amendment is required – in this scenario, the municipality proposes to make amendments to its OCP land use designations that fall within the flexibility provided for in section 6.2.7 of the RGS. In this case, no amendment to the Regional Context Statement or RGS is required. After the OCP is amended, the municipality notifies Metro Vancouver that the amendment has been made.


and Regional Context Statement

amendment required – in this scenario, the municipality proposes to make amendments to its OCP land use designations that are beyond the flexibility provided for in section 6.2.7 of the RGS, and are not consistent with the municipality’s accepted Regional Context Statement. However, the municipality believes that the proposed amendments are generally consistent with the RGS. In this case, the municipality submits a revised Regional Context Statement to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance. There is always the possibility that the Board may not agree with the municipality’s assessment of general consistency.


and Regional Context Statement and

RGS amendment required – in this scenario, the municipality proposes amendments to its OCP land use designations that are beyond the flexibility provided for in section 6.2.7 of the RGS, are not consistent with the municipality’s accepted Regional Context Statement, and are generally not consistent with the RGS. In this case, the municipality submits a revised Regional Context Statement to the Metro Vancouver Board and at the same time, requests the Board to amend the RGS.


9



*Note: This figure illustrates a process for amending Regional Context Statements and the Regional Growth Strategy

concurrently. Regional Growth Strategy amendments can be submitted independent of Regional Context Statements.

Figure 2 Process for Amending Regional Context Statements and Regional Growth Strategy

Non-Acceptance: Metro Vancouver Boardwill not proceed withRGS amendment

RGS amendment application is terminated;

RCS is not accepted

Municipality has three options:

Municipality prepares Regional Context

Statement andmay request an

RGS amendment

Municipality submits Regional Context

Statement to MetroVancouver Board

for acceptance and RGS amendment

Metro VancouverBoard Decision

RGS amendment process

Acceptance: Metro VancouverBoard will proceed withRGS amendment

Amended RegionalGrowth Strategy and

concurrent acceptanceof Regional

Context Statement

1. Municipality revises RCS and re-submits;2. Municipality withdraws proposed changes to RCS;3. Metro Vancouver and municipality proceed with dispute resolution process outlined in the LGA.




The Local Government Act (section 866(2)(b)) requires that Regional Context Statements must “. . . identify (a) the relationship between the official community plan and the matters referred to in section 850(2) and any other regional matters included under section 850(3), and (b) if applicable, how the official community plan is to be made consistent with the regional growth strategy over time.” Acknowledging the language in the Act and the allowance for consistency over time, section 6.2.6 of the RGS (p. 58) sets out expectations for “general consistency” between Regional Context Statements and the RGS’s goals, strategies, actions and parcel-based regional land use designations.

Metro Vancouver expects that Regional Context Statements will address all of the goals, strategies and municipal actions identified in the RGS. In instances where an RGS action is not applicable to the municipality, the Regional Context Statement should note that those actions do not apply. For example, if a municipality does not contain certain regional land use designations within its boundaries, it does not need to incorporate those land use designations or policies in its Regional Context Statement. Where consistency is not yet achieved, the Regional Context Statement can include “work toward clauses,” which should set out the actions and timeline that the municipality intends to pursue in order to achieve consistency between its Regional Context Statement and the RGS goals, strategies and actions and land use designations.

3 General Consistency Between Regional Growth Strategy and Regional Context Statements

A fundamental principle guiding the preparation of the RGS was to provide as much clarity in the RGS goals, strategies, actions and land use designation intent statements as possible, so that municipalities have sufficient understanding of how to respond in Regional Context Statements and so that there would be some level of consistency amongst municipalities in their responses. In practice, each municipality’s OCP and Regional Context Statement will respond to the context of the individual municipality, and to that extent, there will be variations in Regional Context Statements from one municipality to the next to accomodate local situations and solutions. Over time the concept of “general consistency” will evolve, as Regional Context Statements are developed, and as the Board makes decisions on whether to accept Regional Context Statements and proposed amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy.


11



4.1 Regional Land Use Designations and Urban Containment BoundaryThe Regional Growth Strategy establishes an Urban Containment Boundary and the following regional Land Use Designations:

Land Use Designations and the Urban Containment Boundary are depicted on a parcel-based map in the Regional Growth Strategy (Map 2, p. 11). Metro Vancouver maintains the parcel based Land Use Designations and Urban Containment Boundary in a Geographic Information System database, and can provide the maps electronically and at any appropriate scale. Regional Context Statements must contain a parcel-based map that identifies the regional Land Use Designations and Urban Containment Boundary within the municipality. All regional land use designations can be shown on one map. When submitting Regional Context Statements, municipalities are requested to also submit a GIS digital file to Metro Vancouver.

4 Mapping

The RGS contains Land Use Designations, Overlays and an Urban Containment Boundary (Section D, p. 9). These establish the regional land use framework and identify the geographic areas that are subject to regional policies.

Regional Context Statements must contain maps depicting the regional Land Use Designations, Overlays and the Urban Containment Boundary. These maps may be contained in the main body or in an appendix of the Regional Context Statement, and will form a part of the Regional Context Statement. Regional Land Use Designations, Overlays and the Urban Containment Boundary must not be identified by referring to maps outside of the Regional Context Statement (e.g. may not be identified by referring to an Official Community Plan, Local Plan or Area Plan map).

Parcel boundaries for Land Use Designations in Regional Context Statements should be the same as those shown in the Regional Growth Strategy. Where there are differences, the municipality must provide a map showing the variations and explain the reasons for the variations.

Metro Vancouver municipalities have different practices for mapping land use boundaries. When developing the RGS maps, Metro Vancouver generally followed each municipality’s mapping practice for land within that municipality. However, at the parcel-level there are variations as to how the designations have been mapped. It is likely that when developing maps for Regional Context Statements, municipalities will identify adjustments to boundaries to reflect mapping practices. It is anticipated that the Metro Vancouver Board would consider that these types of mapping variations are generally consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy.




Map Elements Required Optional

LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (parcel-based)

General Urban

Industrial

Mixed Employment

Rural

Agriculture

Conservation and Recreation

URBAN CONTAINMENT BOUNDARY (parcel-based)

OVERLAYS (parcel-based)

Urban Centres

Frequent Transit Development Areas * (if included)

Routes for Goods and Service Vehicles (not parcel-based)

OVERLAYS (not parcel-based)

Local Centres

Special Employment Areas

REFERENCE MAPS

Map 1 – Metro Vancouver Municipalities

Map 9 – Greenway Network

Map 10 – Natural Features

Map 12 – Special Study Areas and Sewerage Extension Areas

Map B.1 – Frequent Transit Network (FTN) Concept

Map B.2-Major Roads Network (MRN), Highways

*Note - Frequent Transit Development Areas are not required, but if included in the Regional Context Statement, should show parcel-based boundaries.

Table 1 Summary of Mapping Elements to Include in Regional Context Statements: Required and Optional Elements

4.1.1 Boundary Adjustments for Regional Land Use Designations

The RGS provides municipalities with the flexibility to amend Official Community Plan land use designations without amending the Regional Context Statement under certain circumstances (see Section 6.2.7, p. 58 of the Regional Growth Strategy). Municipalities are requested to notify Metro Vancouver of any map changes that are made using this RGS provision. Metro Vancouver will update the Regional Growth Strategy maps, in consultation with municipalities, and maintain a record of those map changes.

In order to use the provisions in Section 6.2.7,

Regional Context Statements must include

language permitting amendments to Official

Community Plans to adjust the boundaries of

regional land use designations and must cite

the circumstances outlined in 6.2.7 where this

can occur. These clauses are necessary to ensure municipal Official Community Plans comply with the Local Government Act, Section 866(3) which says “A regional context statement under subsection (1) and the rest of the official community plan must be consistent.”


13



If a municipality wishes to make an OCP boundary adjustment, and the requisite language is not included in the Regional Context Statement, the OCP boundary adjustment would result in an inconsistency with the Regional Context Statement, and would thus necessitate a Regional Context Statement amendment.

Appendix 1 is a summary of the percentage of land in each regional land use designation, by municipality.

4.2 Regional Overlays The Regional Growth Strategy contains the following overlays:

Urban Centres

Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDAs)

4.2.1 Urban Centres

Urban Centres are the region’s primary focal points for concentrated growth and transit service. The general locations of Urban Centres are shown symbolically on RGS Map 2 (p. 11). Regional Context Statements must show the parcel-based boundaries of the Urban Centres. These boundaries should be generally consistent with the locations shown on Map 2 and the “Guidelines for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas” in the RGS (Table 3, p. 19). As the Urban Centres are overlay boundaries only, the existing land use designations will remain and apply within the Urban Centre boundary. Urban Centres can be shown on the same map that shows regional Land Use Designations.

If a municipality wishes to add or delete an Urban Centre from RGS Map 2, a Regional Growth Strategy Type 2 Minor Amendment is required (see section 6.3.3, p. 60).

4.2.2 Frequent Transit Development Areas

Frequent Transit Development Areas are additional priority areas for accommodating

growth, and as the name suggests, are located at appropriate locations along TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network. The FTDA concept is included in the RGS to provide more growth options in proximity to frequent transit service, to strengthen the connections between land use and transportation, and to support the investments made in frequent transit service. The FTDAs complement the Urban Centre network. As transit infrastructure grows over time, and as municipalities review their urban structure to accommodate growth, so too will the identification of FTDAs.

Regional Context Statements must indicate how the municipality intends to accommodate growth consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. FTDAs may be a useful growth management concept in some municipalities, but other municipalities may have an Urban Centres-oriented urban structure and therefore may choose not to establish FTDAs.

It is anticipated that FTDAs will be determined by municipalities in consultation with Metro Vancouver and TransLink at the time of updating or amending their Official Community Plan and identifying locations for growth. FTDA locations should meet the “Guidelines for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas” set out in Table 3 (p. 19) of the RGS.

If a municipality chooses to establish a FTDA, the municipalities must include TransLink’s comments on the proposed FTDA at the time of submitting the Regional Context Statement to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance.

While the term “FTDA” is used in the RGS and must be used in the Regional Context Statement, municipalities may refer to FTDAs in their OCPs with terminology that is more commonly used in their communities. “Station Areas,” “Transit Villages,” “Neighbourhood Centres,” “Transit-Oriented Development,” or “Transit-Oriented Community” or other similar terms may be used in the Official Community Plan.




Unlike Urban Centres, FTDA overlays are not yet identified on RGS Map 2. When FTDAs are established in Regional Context Statements, the general locations of the FTDAs will be shown symbolically on RGS Map 2. Regional Context Statements must show the parcel-based boundaries of the FTDAs in a manner generally consistent with the “Guidelines for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas” in the RGS (Table 3).

Adding the general locations of FTDAs to RGS Map 2 is a “Type 3 Amendment”. Metro Vancouver will initiate this Type 3 RGS amendment.

4.2.3 Boundary Adjustments for Regional Overlays

As noted above, Regional Context Statements must include parcel-based boundaries for the Urban Centre and Frequent Transit Development Area overlays. In certain circumstances municipalities may amend the boundaries of these overlays in an OCP without amending the Regional Context Statement (see Section 6.2.8, p. 59). Municipalities must include appropriate

language within the Regional Context

Statement in order to have this flexibility.

4.3 Additional Mapping Features: Local Centres and Special Employment Areas

4.3.1 Local Centres

Local Centres are smaller scale areas of activity, and provide a mix of housing types and local commercial services in communities. Local Centres are shown on RGS Map 11 (p. 48). Each municipality will elect whether or not to identify the general locations for Local Centres in Regional Context Statements. Parcel-based boundaries are not required. Map 11 is a reference map only and does not require municipalities to site Local Centres in particular locations, however, section 4.2.4(h) of the RGS

emphasizes that Local Centres should preferably be located within Frequent Transit Development Areas.

From time to time, Metro Vancouver will amend Map 11 to add Local Centres that have been identified in accepted Regional Context Statements.

4.3.2 Special Employment Areas

Special Employment Areas are places in the region that are characterized by large amounts of employment activity and transportation trips, although they may also have a host of additional features, including housing, retail, recreation or other uses. Special Employment Areas are shown on Map 11 (p. 48). The map identifies four Special Employment Areas: British Columbia Institute of Technology (Burnaby campus), Simon Fraser University (Burnaby campus), University of British Columbia (Point Grey campus), and the Vancouver International Airport. Each municipality will elect whether or not to identify Special Employment Areas in its Regional Context Statement. Parcel-based boundaries are not required. Municipalities may wish to indicate the employment projections for the Special Employment Areas.

4.4 Reference MapsThe RGS contains a number of maps that have been included for reference:

Electoral Area

Secondary Institutions

Gateways


15



These maps, and the information depicted on them, do not need to be referred to in the Regional Context Statements, although municipalities may find it useful to do so.

4.5 Special Study Areas and Sewerage Extension AreasRGS Map 12 shows Special Study Areas and Sewerage Extension Areas. Sections 6.9 and 6.10 of the RGS are the relevant provisions for these areas. There is no requirement in the Regional Growth Strategy to map these areas or include reference to them in a Regional Context Statement.

4.6 Map UpdatesMap amendments resulting from accepted Regional Context Statements and from boundary adjustments resulting from section 6.2.7 of the RGS will be processed under a “Type 3 – Minor Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy” (section 6.3.4 (h)) process, as soon as practicable, or upon annual review of the RGS, whichever is sooner. Metro Vancouver will post amended maps on its website, and will distribute GIS digital files to municipalities upon request.




5 Population, Dwelling Unit and Employment Projections

combined target for growth for all of the Urban Centres and all of the FTDAs within the municipality.

Metro Vancouver will continue to work with municipalities and offer technical assistance to jointly develop projections for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas that reflect municipal planning considerations and meet regional growth objectives.

In Table 2 of the RGS, under “Dwelling Units,” regional totals are also provided for General Urban areas. Also in Table 2, dwelling unit totals have been combined for the non-urban designations of Rural, Agricultural, and Conservation and Recreation. Although not required, municipalities may include dwelling unit projections for General Urban areas and non-urban areas in Regional Context Statements.

In Table 2 of the RGS, under “Employment,” regional totals are also provided in the “All Other Areas” category and would include employment in all regional land use designations outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas. Regional Context Statements may provide employment projections for areas outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas.

A key aspect of the RGS is projecting future population, dwelling unit and employment growth distribution within the region. The projections are intended to establish general agreement among regional agencies and municipalities on growth expectations for the region, and to provide the basis for planning transportation and infrastructure improvements and investments at the regional and local levels.

Policy 1.1.3 (p. 14) indicates that Regional Context Statements are to include municipal population, dwelling unit and employment projections. The projections contained in Table A.1 (p. 68) are guidelines only. Regional Context Statements should reference these projections and indicate how the municipality intends to accommodate projected growth. The regional and municipal growth projections are expected to be used as guidance, and Regional Context Statements should attempt to illustrate the municipality’s best efforts to achieve the projections over time. Regional Context Statements should indicate growth projections for the same time periods as indicated in the RGS: 2021, 2031 and 2041.

The RGS contains dwelling unit and employment growth targets for Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas (Table 2, p. 18). These are policy targets and indicate Metro Vancouver’s emphasis on focusing growth in regionally-significant priority growth areas. These targets are intended to support future development of frequent transit service. Accordingly, these policy targets will be reviewed from time to time in response to updated growth forecasts, accepted Regional Context Statements, and the outcomes of strategic transportation planning processes.

With general guidance from RGS Table 2, Regional Context Statements must indicate the amount of dwelling unit growth and employment growth that a municipality is targeting for the Urban Centre(s) and Frequent Transit Development Area(s) within its boundaries. The Regional Context Statement may include a


17



6.2 GOAL 2 Support a Sustainable Economy

6.2.1 Strategy 2.2 Protect the supply of industrial land

Encouraging higher density commercial development in Mixed Employment areas that are located in Urban Centres and FTDAs

Under Policy 2.2.4(d)(iv), the role of municipalities is to indicate “where Mixed Employment areas are located within Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas, support higher density commercial development and allow employment and service activities consistent with the intent of Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas” (p. 27)

The intent of this strategy is to reinforce the objective of locating job growth and services in areas with good transit service. Regional Context Statements therefore must include policies that encourage higher density commercial development to accommodate employment growth in Mixed Employment areas within Urban Centre or FTDA overlays and discourage higher density commercial development in those Mixed Employment areas that are outside of Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas.

Conversely, Policy 2.2.4(d)(v) indicates that municipalities are required to include in Regional Context Statements policies for Mixed Employment areas which “allow low density infill/ expansion based on currently accepted local plans and policies in Mixed Employment areas and support increases in density only where the Mixed Employment area has transit service or where an expansion of transit service has been identified in TransLink’s strategic transportation plans for the planned densities.”

6 Guidance on Selected RGS StrategiesMany of the RGS strategies and actions are self-explanatory; this section provides guidance for selected RGS strategies and actions.

6.1 GOAL 1 Create a Compact Urban Area

6.1.1 Strategy 1.3 Protect rural areas from urban development

Specifying densities and urban form for Rural areas

Under Policy 1.3.3(c)(i), the role of municipalities is to “specify the allowable density and form, consistent with Action 1.3.1, for land uses within the Rural land use designation.” The RGS does not specify any densities for the Rural land use designation, but instead sets out the region’s intention for Rural areas, as those that include “low density residential development, small scale commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, and agricultural uses that do not require the provision of urban services such as sewer or transit” (p. 9).

Previous to the adoption of the RGS, some rural lands were considered areas where future urban expansion was likely to occur. This is not the intent of the Rural designation in this RGS. The RGS recognizes that there are differences from one municipality to the next in how density and form are approached in Rural areas. Therefore, the RGS is flexible in how Regional Context Statements respond to the intent statements for the Rural land use designations. Regional Context Statements will set out density levels and urban form for Rural areas, or specify urban form that would not compromise the overall character, landscape or environmental qualities of the Rural area. Densities that would necessitate expansion to the sewer system are not consistent with the intent of the Rural area.




6.3 GOAL 4 Develop Complete CommunitiesThe RGS focuses on two strategies for developing complete communities: ensuring there is an adequate housing supply to meet future housing demand, and encouraging the development of neighbourhoods that are accessible for people of all ages and physical abilities, promote transit, cycling and walking and provide access to employment, social and cultural opportunities.

For Strategy 4.1 (Provide diverse and affordable housing choices), the RGS includes an estimate of future housing needs, and recognizes that meeting these needs depends on participation from all levels of government. Municipalities are the key to implementing this strategy because of their role in the development process. The intent of the strategy is to ensure that local OCPs align to support regional housing goals. Specifically, Regional Context Statements will need to address the actions required in section 4.1.7 (p. 46), which includes indicating how the municipality will work towards meeting the estimated future housing demand in the municipality.

While not required by the RGS, municipalities are requested to prepare and implement “Housing Action Plans.” The RGS sets out the general content for Housing Action Plans. Many municipalities have existing Housing Action Plans, or have adopted plans or policies that are similar in content. Metro Vancouver has committed to assisting municipalities in developing Housing Action Plans (section 4.1.2, p. 46). Housing Action Plans can be developed concurrently with Regional Context Statements. Alternatively, the municipality can indicate its anticipated timeline for completing its Housing Action Plan.

The RGS recognizes municipalities may have existing local plans permitting expansion of Mixed Employment areas outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas. However, in general, the RGS does not support increased densities of Mixed Employment areas outside of Urban Centres or FTDAs beyond what has been established in existing zoning.

6.2.2 Strategy 2.3 Protect the supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability with an emphasis on food production

Most of the land designated as Agriculture is located in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), but the regional designation also includes non-ALR land that has been designated for agriculture by municipalities. For municipalities that contain regionally designated Agricultural lands, there are a number of actions that Regional Context Statements must include (specifically section 2.3.6 (a), (b)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (vi)).

The provincial Ministry of Agriculture has produced many resources to guide planning on agricultural lands (see Appendix 2– Resources for link to website). All municipalities, whether they have regionally designated Agricultural lands or not, are asked to respond to Strategy 2.3 by indicating support for economic development opportunities for agricultural operations (2.3.6(b)(v)), and support for educational programs on agriculture (2.3.6(b) (vii)).


19



The RGS recognizes that accommodating growth will mean change over time for communities, and Strategy 4.2 (p. 47) identifies a number of policies to guide future development so that the result is healthy and complete communities. The RGS recognizes that municipalities have integrated healthy and complete community policies into their plans and programs. Each municipality will elect whether or not it wishes to address section 4.2.4 in its Regional Context Statement.

6.4 GOAL 5 Support Sustainable Transportation ChoicesTransLink is the regional transportation authority responsible for planning, managing, and operating the regional transportation system. Under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act (section 3) TransLink is required to “provide a regional transportation system that:

(a) moves people and goods, and

(b) supports

(i) The regional Growth Strategy

(ii) provincial and regional environmental

objectives, including air quality and

greenhouse gas emission reduction

objectives, and

(iii) the economic development of

transportation in the region.”

TransLink’s long range plan sets out goals and strategies for the regional road, transit, and cycling networks as well as other matters affecting the regional transportation system under the applicable legislation. The Regional Growth Strategy and regional transportation plans must be mutually reinforcing to be successful.

6.4.1 Strategy 5.1 Coordinate land use and transportation to encourage transit, multiple-occupancy vehicles, cycling and walking

Strategy 5.1 acknowledges TransLink’s mandate for preparing and implementing the regional transportation system and conveys to TransLink Metro Vancouver’s objectives for a transportation system that aligns with the goals of the RGS. To complement this, the RGS sets out actions that must be referenced in Regional Context Statements and includes examples of policies and programs that would achieve them (e.g. encouraging a greater share of trips made by transit, multiple-occupancy vehicles, cycling and walking, developing and implementing transportation demand management strategies, and enhancing municipal infrastructure to support other modes of transportation).

6.4.2 Strategy 5.2 Coordinate land use and transportation to support the safe and efficient movement of vehicles for passengers, goods and services

Identifying goods and service vehicle routes on a map

Under Policy 5.2.3(a) the role of municipalities is to “identify routes on a map for the safe and efficient movement of goods and service vehicles to, from, and within Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas, Industrial, Mixed Employment and Agricultural areas, Special Employment Areas, ports, airports, and international border crossings.”

Therefore, Regional Context Statements need to




include a map that shows the areas listed in the policy, and identify routes for goods and service vehicles. Routes should include the Major Road Network elements shown in Map B.2 (a reference map, which is updated by TransLink from time to time). As routes are shown for reference, a change in the route, either by TransLink or by the municipality, does not require a change to the Regional Context Statement.

6.4.3 TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network

Reference to “TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network” (FTN) is made throughout the Regional Growth Strategy. The FTN is a concept developed, managed and implemented by TransLink in consultation with the municipalities. TransLink has provided this explanation for the FTN, which can be found on page 19 of the RGS:

“TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network is a part of the regional transit system that provides frequent, reliable transit service on designated corridors throughout the day, every day. The Frequent Transit Network comprises a family of services, including rapid transit (busways/rail) and frequent local and limited stop transit service. For more information refer to Appendix Map B.1: Frequent Transit Network Concept (provided by TransLink).”

Over time, the FTN corridors and service levels will change. TransLink strategic plans should be consulted for updated information on the current and planned FTN. Metro Vancouver will endeavour to keep the RGS concurrent with transportation planning initiatives, including changes to the FTN, however, as municipalities consider development of their Regional Context Statements, consultation with TransLink on the status of the FTN for portions in their municipality is advised.


21



7 Format of Regional Context Statement

Municipalities can format their Regional Context Statement in a manner that best suits their needs and the format of their Official Community Plan. Some municipalities may choose to write the Regional Context Statement in a prose-style, while others may use a table format that outlines the Regional Growth Strategy’s municipal roles as one column, with corresponding OCP responses in another column. Specific reference to the corresponding OCP policy should be provided. Regional Context Statements should acknowledge all of the items for municipalities set out in the RGS. If a municipality is unable to respond to a particular item, the Regional Context Statement should set out an explanation as to why the Regional Context Statement does not respond, or alternatively, how the municipality’s OCP will be made consistent with the action over time.

Regional Context Statements are not “stand alone” documents, and must be included in the Official Community Plan bylaw. They may be included as a chapter or an appendix within an OCP.




Agricultural Conservation & Recreation

Industrial Mixed Employment

Rural Urban

Hectares 2% Hectares 2% Hectares 2% Hectares 2% Hectares 2% Hectares 2%

Anmore — 2,242 45 — — 507 10.1 —

Belcarra — 371 7.4 — — 160 3.2 —

Burnaby 152 3.0 1783 35.7 534 10.7 627 12.5 5,893 117.9

Coquitlam 355 7.1 6,240 124.8 67 1.3 298 6.0 416 8.3 5,050 101.0

Delta 9,371 187.4 3,875 77.5 1,612 32.2 132 2.6 1 0.0 3,372 67.4

Electoral Area A 598 12.0 75,531 1,510.6 — — 221 4.4 —

Langley City 43 0.9 115 2.3 63 1.3 24 0.5 — 778 15.6

Langley Township 21,321 426.4 1,335 26.7 815 16.3 256 5.1 2,495 49.9 4,922 98.4

Lions Bay — — — — — 269 5.4

Maple Ridge 3,547 70.9 15,674 313.5 621 12.4 — 3,128 62.6 3,806 76.1

New Westminster — 109 2.2 162 3.2 3 0.1 — 1,315 26.3

North Vancouver City

— 116 2.3 96 1.9 49 1.0 — 963 19.3

North Vancouver District

— 12,254 245.1 192 3.8 — 123 2.5 3,786 75.4

Pitt Meadows 5,287 105.7 1,747 34.9 173 3.5 — 781 15.6 836 16.7

Port Coquitlam 334 6.7 646 12.9 457 9.1 7 0.1 — 1,574 31.5

Port Moody — 1,143 22.9 469 9.4 7 0.1 35 0.7 952 19.0

Richmond 4,580 91.6 1,090 21.8 2,301 46.0 562 11.2 — 4,619 92.4

Surrey 9,263 185.3 1,648 33.0 1,829 36.6 1,258 25.2 620 12.4 17,286 345.7

Tsawwassen First Nation

181 3.6 96 1.9 141 2.8 — 269 5.4

UBC UEL — 800 16.0 — — — 641 12.8

Vancouver 280 5.6 946 18.9 673 13.5 181 3.6 9,604 192.1

West Vancouver — 4,545 90.9 — — — 4,473 89.5

White Rock — 44 0.9 — — — 467 9.3

Total Hectares 55,313 132,351 10,207 3,406 8,487 70,856

Notes:

1. All land use designation figures refer to gross land area within that designation. Gross land area includes all properties and rights-of-ways within the boundaries of the designation.

2. Metro Vancouver will track amendments to land use designations and land area that is changed under sections 6.2.7 and 6.2.8 of the Regional Growth Strategy.

As per RGS section 6.2.7, municipalities may re-designate up to two percent of land within each regional land use designation. This table shows the amount of land and the two percent limit, in each designation, for each municipality.

APPENDIX 1 Regional Land Use Designation Areas by Municipality


23



APPENDIX 2 Resources

METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY, RELATED REPORTS, MAPS AND GUIDELINES:

www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/Pages/default.aspx

MUNICIPAL REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENTS AND OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLANS:

www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/Pages/RegionalContextStatements.aspx

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT:

www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96323_29

REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGIES REGULATION:

www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/77_192_98

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY, SPORT & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT WEBSITE AND RESOURCES:

www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/planning/growth_strategies.htm

www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov_relations/library/RGS_Explanatory_Guide_2005.pdf

www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov_relations/library/Reaching_Agreement_Growth_Strategies.pdf

TRANSLINK

Transport 2040 (Regional Transport Strategy))

Can be found at: www.translink.ca

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

Guide to Bylaw Development in Farm Areas (2011)

Guide to Edge Planning (2009)

A Guide to Using and Developing Trails in Farm and Ranch Areas (2006)

Can be found at: www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/Publications.htm#plan_ag

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

Planning for Agriculture (1998)

Can be found at: www.alc.gov.bc.ca/publications/publications.htm


gstanese

Text Box

6522307

6604942


To: Board of Directors From: Mayors Committee Date: October 3, 2012 Subject: Proposed All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations Mayors Committee Recommendation: That the Board endorse the principles, rationale and next steps for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations, as presented in the report dated September 18, 2012, titled “Proposed All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations”. At its October 3, 2012 meeting, the Mayors Committee considered the attached report titled “Proposed All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations”, dated September 18, 2012. The Committee subsequently forwarded the report to the Board for its consideration. Attachment: “Proposed All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations”, dated September 18, 2012.

Section ? ?.?

Section E 4.1


6533929

Mayors Committee Meeting Date: October 3, 2012

To: Mayors Committee

From: Lori Wanamaker, Deputy Solicitor General, Ministry of Justice & Co-Chair, IPREM Jake Rudolph, CAO, City of Pitt Meadows & Co-Chair, IPREM

Date: September 18, 2012

Subject: Proposed All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations Recommendations:

1) Endorse the principles, rationale and next steps for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations

2) Following further stakeholder consultation, this matter be brought back to the Mayors Committee with an update and recommendations on “refining the principles and process”

1. PURPOSE To receive information from IPREM and RAAC, on the “Principles, Rationale and Process for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations” and to provide input on the draft principles, involvement of Elected Officials and the proposed process. 2. CONTEXT The draft principles, rationale and proposed process for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations (Concept) was presented and unanimously endorsed by RAAC, on June 27, together with a recommendation that this presentation be shared with Metro Vancouver Mayors Committee. The purpose of this Concept is:

• To agree on how Local Authorities will share information, collaborate on decisions impacting the region and coordinate resources for regional emergencies

• To identify and clarify the roles and authority of elected and appointed officials and other agencies likely to be involved in regional emergencies

Attachment


Proposed All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations Mayors Committee Meeting Date: October 3, 2012 Page 2 of 2

The Working Group developed the following nine draft principles, which will form the basis for developing an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations:

1. Local Authorities maintain autonomy 2. Utilize existing structures to achieve regional coordination 3. Utilize existing resources 4. Pro-active leadership 5. Scalable, flexible and layered approach 6. Model(s) focuses on process(es) to determine outcomes 7. Local Authorities commitment 8. Collaborative decision making 9. Preparedness, training and exercises

A description of the consultation process and further background information on the context and draft principles is included in the attached report. At the Mayors Committee meeting, Jake Rudolph (CAO, City Of Pitt Meadows) and Lori Wanamaker (Deputy Solicitor General, Ministry of Justice), IPREM Co-Chairs, will give a brief overview on IPREM followed by a presentation from Francis Cheung (CAO, City of Langley) and Paul Daminato (CAO, City of New Westminster), RAAC Members, providing further details on the proposed Consultation and Approval Process for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations to support the vision, “Metro Vancouver: A Disaster Resilient Region”. Heather Lyle, IPREM Partnership Manager will be in attendance to support the presentations. 3. ALTERNATIVES None offered. 4. CONCLUSION Accept a joint RAAC/IPREM delegation, receive the report and presentation, and provide input to the draft principles and rationale, and the proposed consultation and approval process. Attachments: 1. All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations PowerPoint Presentation

(Orbit doc #6534415) 2. Draft Principles, Rationale and Process Document (Orbit doc #6534575) 3. NRCAN 7.3 Strait of Georgia Earthquake Scenario (Developed for and used in the

February 16, 2012, IPREM Regional Table Top Exercise) (Orbit doc #6534411) 4. IPREM Fact Sheet (Orbit doc #6534488) 5. June 2012 IPREM Bulletin (Orbit doc #6534412)


All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations

Metro Vancouver Mayors’ CommitteeJoint Presentation by RAAC and IPREM

October 3, 2012

1


gsellste

Typewritten Text

Attachment 1

gsellste

Typewritten Text

Presentation Outline

1) Overview of IPREM)

2) All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations initiative

3) Discussion

4) Recommendations

2


Local and Regional: RAAC (2), MV (1) & REPC (1)Provincial: MoJ (EMBC), MoTI, MoE and MoH

Chair, Metro Vancouver Board & Minister of Justice

( ), ,

Partnership Manager, Partnership Advisor & Emergency Management Planning Coordinators (2)

Working Groups: Local and Regional Authorities, Provincial and Federal Governments, Crown Corporations, Translink,

33

g p g , , p , ,Utilities, Universities, Private Sectors and Subject Matter Experts as required



• Utilizing an integrated team of local, regional, provincial and other stakeholder agencies (including private sector), develop an all hazard, integrated framework for coordinating regional emergency

ievents in Metro Vancouver

• Establish a regional concept of operations for emergency events that either cross jurisdictional boundaries or may have a regional impact

4


Project to Date• Regional Tabletop Exercise (TTX) utilizing an earthquake• Regional Tabletop Exercise (TTX) utilizing an earthquake

scenario and identified 10 recommendations including objectives and scope for the project

• Initial Working Group:

– Comprised of CAO’s and Emergency Planning Coordinators (EPC) from nine Local Authorities and EMBC

– Developed context, purpose, draft principles and proposed processproposed process

– Reviewed with RAAC, REPC and EMBC

• Presentation to the Metro Vancouver Mayors’Presentation to the Metro Vancouver Mayors Committee

5REPC = Regional Emergency Planning Committee


Regional TTX Key Recommendations

1) Continue to work on the All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations initiative

2) Research additions to BCERMS model to support collective regional priority setting and decision making (from Local Authorities’ EOC to PREOC)

3) EMBC to review and validate capacity of the PREOC to meet Local Authorities’ expectations

BCERMS = British Columbia Emergency Response Management System

6

g y p g yEOC = Emergency Operations CentrePREOC = Provincial Regional Emergency Operations Centre


Project Purpose

• To agree on how Local Authorities will share information, collaborate on decisions impacting the region and coordinate resources for regional emergenciesresources for regional emergencies

• To identify and clarify the roles and authority of elected and i t d ffi i l d th i lik l t b i l d iappointed officials and other agencies likely to be involved in

regional emergencies

• To agree on the consultation and approval process for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations

7


Project Context

• Metro Vancouver has not experienced a major event that has caused widespread damage across the region requiring extensive cooperation coordination andrequiring extensive cooperation, coordination and support

M t V h i d t f i l• Metro Vancouver has experienced events of regional emergency significance requiring cooperation, coordination and support from across the regionpp g

• Opportunity to take a leadership role in enhancing regional emergency coordination into BCERMSregional emergency coordination into BCERMS

8


Draft Principles

1) Local Authorities maintain autonomy

2) Utilize existing structures to achieve regional coordination ) g g

3) Utilize existing resources

4) Pro‐active leadership

5) Scalable, flexible and layered approach

6) Model(s) focus on process(es) to determine outcomes

7) Local Authorities commitment

8) Collaborative decision making

9) Preparedness, training and exercises9


Proposed Consultation and Approval Process

TABLE TOP EXERCISES (TTX) – IDENTIFIED GAPS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

DEVELOP PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSDEVELOP PRINCIPLES AND PROCESS, INCLUDING VALIDATION

REFINE PRINCIPLES AND PROCESS 2012REFINE PRINCIPLES AND PROCESS 2012

PRINCIPLES AND PROCESS APPROVED 2012/13

VALIDATE AND PRACTICE THROUGH IPREM TTX 2013/14

DEVELOP MODEL(S), WORK PROGRAM AND PRIORITIES 2013/14

DOCUMENT PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALL HAZARD INTEGRATED

VALIDATE AND PRACTICE THROUGH IPREM TTX 2013/14

IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALL HAZARD INTEGRATED REGIONAL CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS

10


DEVELOP PRINCIPLES AND PROCESS, INCLUDING VALIDATION

Initial Working Group Formed (CAOs/EPCs) and Developed:• Draft Principles

RAAC – June 27• Draft Principles (Endorsed)

• Draft Principles• Proposed Process

Draft Principles (Endorsed)• Process (Agreed and Recommended)

REPC – July 20 (Supported)

Mayors’ Committee – Octobera) Review Draft Principles

EMBC – August 23 (Supported)

b) Discuss Involvement with Elected Officials c) Obtain Support and Endorsement

Next Steps – Consultation with other Stakeholdersa) Identify Stakeholders (e.g. Transportation, Energy and Utilities)b) Review Principlesc) Obtain Support on Process 11


RAAC RecommendationsSupported by REPC and EMBCSupported by REPC and EMBC

1) Endorse the principles, rationale and next steps for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of OperationsAll Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations, including RAAC making a joint presentation with IPREM to an upcoming Mayors' Committee meeting

2) Following the initial stakeholder consultation and the Mayors' Committee meeting, the matter be brought back to RAAC with an update and specific recommendations on “refining the principles and process”process

Unanimously Endorsed12


Discussion

1) Comments on:

Draft Principles and RationaleDraft Principles and Rationale

Involvement with Elected Officials

Proposed overall process

2) Seek Mayors’ Committee support and2) Seek Mayors Committee support and endorsement

13


Recommendations to the Mayors’ CommitteeCommittee

1) Endorse the principles rationale and next steps for an1) Endorse the principles, rationale and next steps for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations

2) Following further stakeholder consultation, this matter be brought back to the Mayors' Committee with anbe brought back to the Mayors Committee with an update and recommendations on “refining the principles and process”

14


Draft September 04, 2012 Page 1 of 3

IPREM DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION – Updated September 04, 2012

Principles, Rationale and Process for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations

Purpose:

1. To agree on how the local authorities will share information, collaborate on decisions impacting the region and coordinate resources for regional emergencies

2. To identify and clarify the roles and authority of elected and appointed officials and other agencies, likely to be involved in regional emergencies (e.g. regional traffic management; regional disaster debris management)

3. To agree on the consultation and approval process for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations (see attachment – Chart 1)

Context:

• Metro Vancouver has not experienced a major regional emergency event that has caused widespread damage across the region requiring extensive cooperation, coordination and support (e.g. earthquake)

• Metro Vancouver has experienced events of regional emergency significance requiring cooperation, coordination and support from across the region (e.g. 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games)

• Following the current British Columbia Emergency Response Management System (BCERMS) structure, each Local Authority Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) liaises with, and receives support from the Provincial Regional Emergency Operations Centre (PREOC)

o Note: there is no current process to collectively engage Local Authorities in PREOC priority setting and decision making that may impact the region

• A Regional Table Top Exercise (TTX) held February 16, 2012, involved multiple stakeholders who reviewed and evaluated the existing regional component of the BCERMS for response to a major regional emergency event impacting the entire Metro Vancouver region:

o Participants concluded that the current BCERMS concept of operations reflects the positive relationship between Local Authority EOC’s and the PREOC for dealing with smaller emergency events and does meet many needs in support of a large-scale regional emergency

o Participants recommended that IPREM research potential additions to the current BCERMS concept of operations model to support regional priority setting and decision making by Local Authorities

o Participants found there were required response/coordination functions for regional emergencies that currently have no protocol in place or where an existing agency has not been identified to take the lead

• Assumption - Definition of an Event of Regional Emergency Significance

A major event that has (or has the potential to have) an extraordinary level of risk to lives, property, environment, social and/or economic wellbeing across jurisdictional boundaries in the region, which could require: o Non-routine levels of coordination o Sharing of situational awareness information o Joint decision making o Prioritizing resources o Allocating resources o Response by multiple stakeholders (agencies and jurisdictions)

Attachment 2



Principles:

1. Local Authorities maintain autonomy o Local Authorities will remain the lead authority and maintain their autonomy

with regards to emergencies within their jurisdictions

2. Utilize existing structures to achieve regional coordination o The All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations (Concept) is based on

the integration of existing agencies and authorities who play a role in planning, responding, and recovering from regional emergencies (Note: the Concept does not include the creation of a new regional emergency response function, organization, or facility)

3. Utilize existing resources

o The Concept utilizes existing resources and facilities to the greatest extent possible and recognizes that in regional emergencies additional resources may be required

4. Pro-active leadership o The Concept is built on pro-active leadership aimed at identifying regional issues

and clarifying roles, responsibilities and protocols prior to any regional emergency

5. Scalable, flexible and layered approach o The Concept is scalable, flexible, and involves layers of authority and

responsibility that reflect current structure (Note: the Concept does not create new layers of authority)

6. Model(s) focus on process(es) to determine outcomes o The model is based on continual improvement and uses a practical approach

focused on functions and decisions required to successfully manage regional emergencies

7. Local Authorities commitment o Local Authorities will continue to commit available resources to save lives and

minimize injury and damage to property and infrastructure within their jurisdiction, with a commitment to assisting other jurisdictions to the best of their ability

8. Collaborative decision making o The Concept uses collaborative decision making and is consensus based

9. Preparedness, training and exercises

o The Concept promotes and facilitates ongoing preparedness, training and exercises for regional emergencies

Proposed Consultation and Approval Process for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of

Operations (See Chart 1):

*Initial Working Group Members

(Chief Administrative Officers-CAOs, Emergency Program Coordinators-EPCs)

Jake Rudolph (CAO, Pitt Meadows), Paul Daminato (CAO, New Westminster), Ken Tollstam (CAO, City of North Vancouver), Delia Laglagaron (Deputy CAO, Metro Vancouver), Francis Cheung (CAO, Langley City), Tony Chong (former CAO, Port Coquitlam), Dorit Mason (NSEMO), Deborah Procter (Richmond), Dave Jones (New Westminster), Rob Nicholls (Metro Vancouver), John Oakley (EMBC), Andrew Morrison (EMBC, formerly IPREM), Heather Lyle (EMBC/IPREM), Doug Allan (IPREM), and Clarence Lai (IPREM)



Chart 1: Proposed Consultation and Approval Process for an All Hazard Integrated Regional Concept of Operations

TABLE TOP EXERCISES (TTX) - IDENTIFIED GAPS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

• Past Local Regional Exercises (e.g., JELC, Olympics) • February 16, 2012 – IPREM Regional Concept of Operations Table Top

Exercise (TTX)

REFINE PRINCIPLES AND PROCESS 2012 • Refine Principles and Process based on feedback above

Mayors’ Committee – October a. Review Draft Principles b. Discuss Involvement with Elected Officials c. Obtain Support and Endorsement

REPC – July 20 (Supported)

RAAC – June 27 • Draft Principles (Endorsed) • Process (Agreed and Recommended)

EMBC – August 23 (Supported)

Next Steps – Consultation with Other Stakeholders a. Identify Stakeholders (e.g. Transportation, Health,

Communication, Energy and Utilities) b. Review Principles c. Obtain Support on Process

APPROVE PRINCIPLES AND PROCESS 2012/13 • Principles and Process agreed to and approved by the appropriate

stakeholders

DOCUMENT PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALL HAZARD INTEGRATED REGIONAL

CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS

VALIDATE AND PRACTICE THROUGH IPREM TTX (2013/14)

DEVELOP MODEL(S), WORK PROGRAM AND PRIORITIES 2013/14 • Identify gaps, top priorities and protocols that require resolution • Develop and implement work plans to resolve • Seek approval of protocols/agreements/guidelines as required • Develop ongoing communication with all stakeholders to report on progress

and issues

DEVELOP PRINCIPLES AND PROCESS, INCLUDING VALIDATION

Initial Working Group* Formed (CAOs/EPCs) and Developed: • Draft Principles • Proposed Process


110

1001,000

10,000100,000

Fatalities

110

1001,000

10,000100,000

USD (Millions)

RedAlert

EarthquakeShaking

Red alert for shaking-related economic losses and orange alert for shaking-relatedfatalities. High casualites and extensive damage are probable and the disaster is likely widespread. Past red alerts have a national or international response.

M 7.3 STRAIT OF GEORGIA, NEAR VANCOUVER, CANADAOrigin Time: Thur 2012-02-16 14:05:24 UTC (06:05:24 local)Location: 49.27 N

o123.53 W

oDepth: 10 km

Estimated Fatalities Estimated Damage

- -* - -* - -* - -* - -* 986k* 1,095k* 42k* 0EXPOSURE (k = x1000)ESTIMATED MODIFIEDMERCALLI INTENSITY

PERCEIVED SHAKING Not felt Weak Light Moderate Strong Very Strong Severe Violent Extreme

POTENTIALDAMAGE

ResistantStructuresVulnerableStructures

none

none

none

none

none

none

V. Light

Light

Light

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate/Heavy

Moderate/Heavy

Heavy

Heavy

V. Heavy

V. Heavy

V. Heavy

*Estimated exposure only includes population within the study region.

Estimated Population Exposed to Earthquake ShakingESTIMATED POPULATION

Estimated economic losses are ~1% GDP of Canada.

Structures:Overall, the population in this region resides in structures that are resistant to earthquake shaking, though some vulnerable structures exist. The predominant vulnerable building types are non-ductile reinforced concrete frame and heavy wood frame construction.

Historical Earthquakes (with MMI levels):

Date(UTC)

Dist.(km)

Mag. MaxMMI

ShakingDeaths

2001-02-28 230 6.8 VII-VIII 11946-06-23 170 7.3 VII-VIII 2

Recent earthquakes in this area have causedsecondary hazards such as tsunamis, landslides, and fires that might have contributed to losses.

Selected City Exposure

MMI Municipality PopulationIX West VancouverVIII Vancouver

Richmond

42k

Burnaby

578kVIII

Delta

174kVIII

Surrey

216k

VII 102kVII 474k

CoquitlamVII 121k

Langley and TownshipVII 117k

City of North VancouverVIIIDistrict of North VancouverVIII

Pitt MeadowsVII 17k

45k82k

(k = x1000)

Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Cenus

Port Coquitlam

Maple RidgePort Moody

VIIVIIVII

55k31k69k

MMI Intensity and PGA (%g)

Georgia Strait EventGround Shaking Intensities

~ 5 km

CAN-PAGERVersion 1

Planning Scenario Only

At 0605 Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) 16 February 2012 (1405 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), 0905 Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)) a simulated 7.3 Mw earthquake occurs at 49.27º North and 123.53º West. The earthquake is a crustal, surficial event along a northwards dipping fault in the Strait of Georgia with epicenter 30 km west of Vancouver. The earthquake lasts for over 60 seconds and causes violent to strong shaking across Greater Vancouver and light to strong across southwestern BC, northwestern Washington State (WA), and southern Vancouver Island. The shaking is intense enough to cause moderate to heavy damage in Vancouver and on Vancouver Island and very light to light damage across the rest of southern BC. Aftershocks of the crustal event range from 4.0 to 6.0 magnitude.

EXERCISE EXERCISE EXERCISE


gsellste

Typewritten Text

Attachment 3

Debris Generation

# Buildings Damaged per Area

Building Damage

S tate o f D am ageto B u ild ings

None182,000 bldgs

(38%)

Complete8,000 bldgs

(2%)

Extensive30,000 bldgs

(6%)

Moderate91,000 bldgs

(19%)

Slight172,000 bldgs

(35%)

NoneSlightModerateExtensiveComplete

~ 5 km

~ 5 km

Damage to Essential Facilities

Essential Facilities include - Police Stations- Fire Stations- Hospitals- Schools

Probability of Extensive Damage

Disclaimer: The risk results were generated using Hazus-MH. There are some inaccuracies and deficiencies associated with the asset inventory information that was used to create the risk values. We recommend that the risk values be used with the understanding that these numbers are estimated values. The given results provide a capability to plan for and understand some of the poten-tial impacts from this earthquake scenario. All risk results were created by Natural Resources Canada risk assessment team in collaboration with the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, and Emergency Management Britiish Columbia using best available dataand reasonable assumptions.

Scenario results are developed in collaboration between Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Public Safety Geoscience Program (PSGP); Simon Fraser University (SFU) Centre for Natural Hazard Research (CNHR); University of British Columbia (UBC) Earthquake Engineering Research Facility (EERF) and School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP); and Emergency Management BC (EMBC).


Vision A disaster–resilient region where

all levels of government and key

stakeholders work together

seamlessly.

Mission Statement To develop and deliver a

coordinated seamless regional

emergency management

strategy supported by an

integrated concept of emergency

operations, strategic priorities

and supporting plans.

Connecting Emergency Management Organizations IPREM is an intergovernmental entity working to improve emergency management at all levels of government in Metro Vancouver. It was established in 2009 with full support from local, regional and provincial governments. Emergency Management is a shared responsibility – various public and private agencies operate under the British Columbia Emergency Response Management System (BCERMS) with the common aim of ensuring our region is prepared and resilient. IPREM’s role is to facilitate multi‐sector cooperation between private and public organizations involved in emergency management.

What Does IPREM do?

• Assesses the state of regional emergency management systems and capabilities within Metro Vancouver

• Establishes benchmarks, recommendations and best practices for improvements to regional emergency management systems

• Develops harmonized emergency management concepts, platforms and priorities

• Provides oversight and support mechanisms

• Facilitates communication between partners

• Leverages opportunities

• Pilot initiatives with public and private sector groups

• Systematically identifies and proposes options to resolve complex issues

• Defines regional priorities leading to solutions in the short and longer term

• Empowers partners to achieve success through cooperation, education and training

• Shares best practices and experience with emergency management groups outside of the region


gsellste

Typewritten Text

Attachment 4

IPREM, 14275 – 96th Avenue, Surrey, BC V3V 7Z2 www.iprem.ca Email: [email protected]

July 2011

2011‐2012 Priorities This year, IPREM is • Developing an Integrated Regional Concept of Operations

• Establishing a Regional Emergency Communication Strategy

• Developing a Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment

• Enhancing Critical Infrastructure Assurance

and continuing work on:

• Disaster Response Routes and supporting the provincial work on a proposed Integrated Network for Emergency Transportation (iNET)

• Regional Disaster Debris Management Plan

Funding IPREM is funded by the Province of BC and Metro Vancouver, with additional grants and in‐kind contributions from public and private safety and security organizations.

Organization POLICY GROUP leads IPREM, engaging relevant agencies and providing political oversight and policy direction. It is co‐chaired by the B.C. Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Metro Vancouver Board Chair. STEERING COMMITTEE has eight members from local, regional and provincial governments. It reports to the Policy Group and is supported by an Operational Steering Committee and Partnership Manager.

In consultation with the Operational Steering Committee the Project Manager coordinates the work plan initiatives with 2 Emergency Management Planning Coordinators and a Partnership Advisor. WORKING GROUPS focus on specific regional initiatives. Membership may include staff from municipalities, Metro Vancouver, responder agencies, utilities, provincial ministries, crown corporations, federal departments, private companies and other organizations who may be involved in emergency management. IPREM provides overarching coordination and support to encourage full participation by engaged organizations and seeks to continuously improve the regional emergency management system.

Metro Vancouver: A Disaster Resilient Region


Recommendations from the Regional Tabletop Exercise Participants of the February 16, 2012, All Hazard Regional Concept of Operations regional exercise

were encouraged to review and evaluate the existing regional component of the British Columbia

Emergency Response Management System (BCERMS), in order to look at regional situational

awareness, priority setting, decision making and resource sharing for the Metro Vancouver Region.

The exercise was co‐facilitated by the Justice Institute of BC and Emergency Management BC and

included 72 participants (from 34 agencies) who identified three priority recommendations:

• IPREM should continue work on the Integrated Regional Concept of Operations initiative

• IPREM should research potential additions to the current BCERMS concept of operations

model to support regional priority setting and decision making from Local Authority

Emergency Operations Centres (EOC) to the Provincial Regional Emergency Operations

Centre (PREOC)

• Given the high expectations of the PREOC that participants identified (regional priority

setting and decision making), EMBC should review and validate the capacity of the

PREOC to meet these expectations

Seven additional recommendations are embedded into the following project updates.

I n s ide Th i s I s sue : All Hazard Integrated

Regional Concept of

Operations

2

Regional Emergency

Communications

Strategy

2

Regional Hazard/Risk

Assessment

3

Disaster Response

Routes

3

Critical Infrastructure

Assurance

4

Regional Disaster Debris

Management

4

2011 Stanley Cup Riot

Review

4

2012 Emergency

Management Events

4

Bulletin

Jake Rudolph

IPREM Co‐Chair

Chief Administrative Officer

City of Pitt Meadows

Lori Wanamaker, FCA

IPREM Co‐Chair

Deputy Solicitor General

Ministry of Justice

Province of BC

At the April Steering Committee meeting, the 2012 and 2013 IPREM Strategic Plan supported by

work plan deliverables, received formal approval. The focus continues to support our collective

vision of Metro Vancouver as a disaster‐resilient region through identification of primary and sec‐

ondary regional emergency initiatives. Please visit our website to learn more at www.iprem.ca

Advanced Planning for the 2012 Freshet provided opportunities to highlight many of IPREM’s

project initiatives including Critical Infrastructure, Disaster Response Routes and Disaster Debris

Management.

IPREM staff, Working Groups and workshop participants have been hard at work, and as a result,

significant progress has been achieved. IPREM is cognisant of the major time commitment asked of

its stakeholders and therefore, welcomes your suggestions on how we can better utilize every‐

one’s knowledge, expertise and time. IPREM projects rely on your engagement to ensure the ini‐

tiatives reflect the current needs and priorities of the region. Feedback can be forwarded to Lori

and Jake, IPREM Co‐Chairs at [email protected]

P a g e 1

IPREM Vision

A disaster–resilient

region where all levels of

government and key

stakeholders work

together seamlessly

Message IPREM Co‐Chairs

IPREM Project Focus

The Integrated Partnership for Regional Emergency Management in Metro Vancouver

J u n e 2 0 1 2 I s s u e 3


gsellste

Typewritten Text

Attachment 5

Regional Emergency Communications Strategy


• Workshops in the Fall validated the Lower Mainland Emergency Communications:

• Interoperability Vision “We can communicate as required and authorized through a

collaborative and sustainable regional framework in support of a disaster resilient

region”, and

• Strategic Framework, which is based on a modification to the Canadian Communica‐

tions Interoperability Continuum and include consideration of:

• Governance

• Standard Operating Procedures

• Technology (Voice and Data)

• Education, Training and Exercises

• Frequency of Use and Familiarity

• A Focus Group met on May 31 and identified a process for building awareness of the project

and a method for seeking further “buy in” from key stakeholder entities

• Following the successful Tabletop Exercise (TTX), an initial Working Group (consisting of

Chief Administrative Officers and Emergency Planning Coordinators) was established to

bring forward proposed principles, rationale and process for a Regional Concept of

Operations to include:

1) Agree on how the local authorities will share information, collaborate on deci‐

sions impacting the region and coordinate resources for regional emergencies

2) Identify and clarify the roles and authority of elected and appointed officials

and other agencies, likely to be involved regional emergencies (e.g., regional

traffic management; regional disaster debris management)

3) Agree on the consultation and approval process for an All Hazard Integrated

Regional Concept of Operations

Next Steps:

• Presentation to the Regional Adminis‐

trative Advisory Committee (RAAC),

review with them the draft principles

and agree on a proposed consultation

and approval process

• Working with the BCERMS Advisory

Committee to coordinate the IPREM

All Hazard Integrated Regional

Concept of Operations initiative with

the BCERMS’ review

P a g e 2

J u n e 2 0 1 2

IPREM Mission

To develop and deliver a

coordinated seamless

regional emergency

management strategy

supported by an

integrated concept of

emergency operations,

strategic priorities and

supporting plans.

IPREM Projects Update British Columbia Emergency Response Management System (BCERMS) Response Goals :

‐ Provide the Safety

and Health for All

Responders

‐ Save Lives

‐ Reduce Suffering

‐ Protect Public Health

‐ Protect Government

Infrastructure

‐ Protect the

Environment

‐ Reduce Economic and

Social Losses

# of

Participants

# of

Agencies

Local and

Regional 48 21

Provincial 15 4

Federal 3 3

Partnering

Agencies 5 5

Private Sector 1 1

TOTAL 72 34


Regional Hazard/Risk Assessment • Subject Matter Experts helped developed a

variety of scenarios to complete the five Hazard

Category Rating Workshops

• Preliminary workshop results were presented to

participants on March 28

Next Steps:

• Work with Defence Research and Development

Canada to analyze the results and help establish

a prioritized list of hazards and risks for the

region

• Establish a Working Group to develop terms of

reference and work plan for completing the

Regional Hazard Risk/Assessment project

• Package the workshop materials (scenarios,

definitions, assessment tools, etc) for use during

future local and regional exercises

• Finalize Regional Hazard Risk/Assessment Report

P a g e 3

IPREM Projects Update

Natural 14

Human Accidental 11

Technological 10

Human Intentional 10

Terrorism CBRNE 7

TOTAL 52

Hazard Category # of Scenarios

Functional Areas Represented in the Hazard/Risk Assessment Workshops:

• Agriculture (Food and

Animal)

• Ambulance

• Animal Response

• Border Services

• Economics

• Emergency Management

• Emergency Social

Services

• Engineering

• Environmental

• Finance

• Fire

• Hazmat and CBRNE

• Health

• Hydro and Gas

• Insurance

• Meteorological

• Police

• Private Sector

• Public Works

• Research (Geological and

Climate Change)

• Risk Management

• Telecommunications

• Transportation

# of

Participants

# of

Agencies

Local and

Regional

Authorities

31 16

Provincial 15 7

Federal 5 4

Partnering

Agencies 14 10

TOTAL 76 45

Non Government/

Private Sectors 8 7

Post Secondary 3 1

Disaster Response Routes (DRR) • The DRR Working Group is following up on the specific recommendations

identified from the All Hazard Regional Concept of Operations TTX:

• EMBC/PREOC, in conjunction with the Ministry of Transportation

and Infrastructure (MoTI), be assigned the role of coordinating

authorization of inter‐jurisdictional disaster response routes as well

as coordinating movement of resources and supplies on those

routes across the region

• EMBC, in conjunction with the MoTI, establish pre‐arranged agreements and

protocols with route owners/regulators for the use of their routes including how

they link into the network, use and control, and contact procedures

• All levels of government and other stakeholders need to proactively educate the

public and responders about Disaster Response Routes

J u n e 2 0 1 2


Regional Disaster Debris Management (RDDM)

Critical Infrastructure Assurance

• Guidelines have been shared with the Japanese Tsunami Debris Coordination Committee

• The Working Group is following up on the specific recommendations identified from the All

Hazard Regional Concept of Operations TTX:

• EMBC, Metro Vancouver and Local Authorities investigate approving and jointly fund‐

ing the RDDM program (as per the Draft RDDM Working Plan) including identifying a

plan owner and Regional Disaster Debris Management Program Coordinator

• Until the above recommendation is achieved, that EMBC/PREOC, use the Draft RDDM

Working Plan as a tool for making regional decisions on disaster debris management

• Working with EMBC’s South West PREOC Advance Planning Unit, to reach out to Critical

Infrastructure (CI) owners to anticipate impacts of flooding, discuss strategy for re‐

sponse and recovery as needed and update their 24/7 contact information

• The Working Group is following up on the specific recommendations identified from the

All Hazard Regional Concept of Operations TTX:

• IPREM collaborate with EMBC to develop a formal procedure for the ongoing

identification of CI, their interdependencies and priority restoration

• IPREM collaborate with EMBC to develop common processes for establishing

and communicating regional restoration priorities for Critical Infrastructure

P a g e 4

IPREM Projects Update 10 Critical

Infrastructure Sectors:

1.Energy and Utilities

2.Finance

3.Food

4.Government

5.Health

6.Information and

Communications

Technology

7.Manufacturing

8.Safety

9.Transportation

10.Water

The Integrated Partnership for

Regional Emergency

Management in Metro Vancouver

IPREM SCHEDULE The next issue of the Bulletin will include a schedule of proposed IPREM workshop dates

October 18 ‐ 19 4th Annual CATA First Responder Vendor Outreach Forum, Vancouver, British Columbia http://www.cata.ca/Media and Events/FR_VOF/BC/

October 24 ‐ 26 9th Annual Canadian Risk and Hazards Network Symposium, Vancouver, British Columbia http://www.crhnet.ca/annualsymposium/annualsymposium.htm

November 6 ‐ 8 25th Annual Emergency Preparedness Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia http://host.jibc.ca/epconference/index.htm

2012 Emergency Management Events

The Stanley Cup recommendations assigned to IPREM have been referred to the relevant IPREM project initiatives and will be considered as part of their work plans

2011 Stanley Cup Riot Review

Visit us at

www.iprem.ca

Questions or Comments?

[email protected]

J u n e 2 0 1 2



To: Board of Directors From: Kelly Birks, Office Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information

Department Date: October 3, 2012 Subject: Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – September

2012 Recommendation: That the Board receive for information the report dated October 3, 2012 titled Delegations’ Executive Summaries Presented at Committee – October 2012 containing summaries received from the following delegates: A. Pamela Zevit, South Coast Conservation Program This report is provided in response to Board direction to keep the Board informed of delegation activities at Committee by providing delegations’ executive summaries presented at Committee. Attachment A.Pamela Zevit, South Coast Conservation Program 6605687

Section E 5.1


GVRD Meeting Date: October 12, 2012

To: Board of Directors From: Heather Schoemaker, Department Manager, Corporate Relations Date: October 1, 2012 Subject: International Regions Benchmarking Consortium (IRBC) Fifth Annual

Conference Recommendation:

That the Board authorize the Chair to appoint a Metro Vancouver Director to participate in the Fifth Annual International Regions Benchmarking Consortium (IRBC) conference in Helsinki, Finland, November 27-30 2012, in accordance with the approved 2012 budget and current travel policy.

1. PURPOSE

To provide the Intergovernmental Committee with information on and recommend participation in the Fifth Annual International Regions Benchmarking Consortium (IRBC) conference in Helsinki, Finland, November 27-30, 2012.

2. CONTEXT The goals for Metro Vancouver’s International Engagement Program are in order of priority:

a) The acquisition of knowledge and skills which directly benefit the Metro Vancouver organization and region; b) The influence on decisions elsewhere in cities or regions which have a direct or indirect benefit for Metro Vancouver, including those which are long run and global in scope; c) The provision of assistance to other cities or regions in the world, directly or through federal or other agencies, where such assistance is greatly needed and where Metro Vancouver has the capability to provide such assistance; d) The enhancement of Metro Vancouver’s reputation in the international community.

Specific organizations, UCLG, ICLEI, PlusNetwork, Metropolis, and IRBC, have been identified as forums for Metro Vancouver to participate in to advance an agenda of collective local government action on:

• mitigating and responding to climate change; • an international approach to zero waste; and • capacity building in local government.

Participation in international conferences forms a key component of the international engagement program approved by the Board in the 2012 budget.

Section E 5.2


GVRD Meeting Date: October 12, 2012 International Regions Benchmarking Consortium (IRBC) Fifth Annual Conference Page 2

International Regions Benchmarking Consortium The IRBC is a network of sophisticated city-centered metropolitan regions that “find it mutually beneficial to compare and learn from each other through economic and social data statistics, in-depth research into specific issues of common interest and face-to-face interactions among representatives of the member regions”. Metropolitan regions that currently participate in the IRBC include Barcelona (Spain), Cape Town (South Africa), Daejeon (South Korea), Dublin (Ireland), Fukuoka (Japan), Glasgow-Edinburgh (Scotland), Helsinki (Finland), Melbourne (Australia), Munich (Germany), Seattle (USA), Singapore, Stockholm (Sweden) and Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver has been an active participant in the International Regions Benchmarking Consortium since its inaugural meeting in June 2008 in Seattle, Washington, and in 2011, hosted the Fourth Annual IRBC Conference and Members’ Meeting. Fifth Annual IRBC Conference, Helsinki, November 27-30, 2012 The Fifth Annual IRBC Conference, “Design Driven Cities”, will be co-hosted by the Finnish cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Lahti from November 27-30, 2012. The Conference will focus on three themes – designing public services, designing urban environment, and designing business success – and participants will debate “the role of design as a source of well-being” through a series design-related case studies, site visits and small group discussions. A letter of invitation (Attachment 1) and provisional program (Attachment 2) are attached. Metro Vancouver’s input into the IRBC Conference would be centred on the unique design aspects incorporated into the Maple Ridge and Columbia Street pump stations, design considerations contemplated for Metro Vancouver’s enhanced waste-to-energy capacity and secondary upgrades to the Lions Gate Wastewater Treatment Plant, the success of the design challenge portion of Metro Vancouver’s 2012 Zero Waste Conference, and Metro Vancouver’s long-established practice of incorporating sustainability into all aspects of our capital planning process. Participation in the conference provides the opportunity for Metro Vancouver engage with and learn from metropolitan regions that are facing similar challenges to Metro Vancouver, and the continued enhancement of Metro Vancouver’s international reputation with the influential global metropolitan centres that constitute IRBC membership.

3. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Financial support for participation in international conferences is included in the international engagement program approved by the Board in the 2012 budget. 4. ALTERNATIVES

The Board may: a) Authorize the Chair to appoint a Metro Vancouver Director to participate in the Fifth Annual International Regions Benchmarking Consortium conference


GVRD Meeting Date: October 12, 2012 International Regions Benchmarking Consortium (IRBC) Fifth Annual Conference Page 3

in Helsinki, Finland, November 27-30 2012 in accordance with the approved 2012 budget and current travel policy. b) Provide alternate direction to staff. c) Receive this report and take no further action.

5. CONCLUSION As part of its Sustainability Framework, Metro Vancouver has a commitment to

“Sharing our experience with the world and learning from others; a sustainable region helping make a sustainable planet”. Metro Vancouver’s international engagement program is built on the premise that its focus should be on achieving what is directly or indirectly going to benefit the citizens of this region. Important components include strategic engagement with international organizations where Metro Vancouver can advance an agenda of collective local government action on climate change, zero waste and capacity building in local government. The International Regions Benchmarking Consortium has been identified as a key component/organization of Metro Vancouver’s International Engagement Program. The 2012 Conference in Helsinki represents an opportunity for Metro Vancouver to share best practices with a number of metropolitan centres that are very similar to the Metro Vancouver region in terms of common challenges and experiences, and to transfer its own knowledge and expertise to those regions that might benefit from it.

Attachments: 1. Invitation to IRBC annual meeting from Jussi Pajunen, Mayor of Helsinki 2. Provisional Program for 2012 IRBC Helsinki Conference


ATTACHMENT 1


Tentative Program of the IRBC Helsinki Conference 27 Sep 2012 NOTE: THE PROGRAM IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNTIL LATE OCTOBER!!! Tuesday 27th November 13.00–13.30 Bus transfer from hotel Klaus K to the Abattoir

13.30–15.00 Welcome Lunch Hosted by the City of Helsinki

Venue: The Kellohalli Restaurant at the Abattoir Welcome words by the Deputy Mayor of Helsinki, Mr. Pekka Sauri Practical conference arrangements by the Director of Economic Development of the City of Helsinki, Ms. Marja-Leena Rinkineva

15.00–15.30 The Concept of the Abattoir & Presentation of the Venue The Abattoir is a creative food hub and a place for small food related busi-nesses to try out concepts that have not existed in Helsinki before. The Kello-halli restaurant is the heart of the Abattoir and combines food and design to make the old industrial area a lively place for urban culture. Presented by Mr. Wilhelm Relander, Project Manager at the City of Helsinki Read more at: http://www.teurastamo.com/en/teurastamo.html

15.30–16.00 Food Hubs (Short description to follow) Presented by Ms. Linda Neunzig, Agriculture Coordinator at Snohomish County Economic Development

16.00–16.30 Helsinki Beyond Dreams & Restaurant Day The presentation will show how new social innovations and grassroot initia-tives can make cities more open, green and inspiring. One of such initiatives is the Restaurant day, a carnival organized first in Helsinki in 2011 and now spread around almost 20 cities worldwide. Come and hear the simple recipe behind its success!


http://www.teurastamo.com/en/teurastamo.html�

Presented by Ms. Hella Hernberg, author of the book ”Helsinki Beyond Dreams” and Ms. Kirsti Tuominen, one of the founders of the Restaurant Day Read more at: http://www.helsinkibeyonddreams.com/ http://www.restaurantday.org/

16.30–17.00 Food in Fukuoka (Short description to follow) Presenter tbc.

17.00–17.15 Snacks from Fukuoka, Japan

17.15–17.45 Program item tbc.

17.45–18.15 Bus transfer to the Cultural Sauna and Hotels

18.15–21.00 Evening at the Kulttuurisauna Venue: the Kulttuurisauna The Kulttuurisauna is a new urban, contemporary Finnish public sauna on the Helsinki waterfront. It is a low-carbon sauna that runs on renewable energy and is eco-efficient. Nene Tsuboi, a Japanese designer and Tuomas Toivo-nen, a Finnish architect are in charge of the designing, constructing, financing and running of Kulttuurisauna. They will combine bath-keeping and design as their future profession. The founders will present the case and host a delightful evening at the Sauna for those up for a nice steam and dip in the cold sea! Light dinner served at the venue. Read more at: http://kulttuurisauna.posterous.com/

20.00 & 21.00

Two alternative bus transfers to the Hotel Klaus K


http://www.helsinkibeyonddreams.com/�

http://www.restaurantday.org/�

http://kulttuurisauna.posterous.com/�

Wednesday 28th November 9.00–9.30 Bus transfer from hotels to Huutokonttori

9.30–9.45 Conference Registration

Venue: Huutokonttori at Jätkäsaari urban development site

9.45–10.00 Jätkäsaari Urban Development Case The modern and environmentally sustainable suburb of Jätkäsaari is currently under construction on a southern peninsula recently vacated by a cargo port. It will feature homes for 16 000 residents and 6 000 jobs. A modern informa-tion center called “Huutokonttori” has been designed by the City of Helsinki to ensure efficient provision of information for residents during the construction works. Presenter tbc. Read more at: http://www.hel2.fi/irbc/huutokonttori.html

10.00–10.30 World Design Capital Helsinki 2012 – Design Embedded in Life Helsinki is the World Design Capital 2012 together with four other cities in the region. The aim is simply to create a better, more functional and comfortable city with the methods of design. During the year Helsinki has received mas-sive international media attention and the official WDC program consists of almost 400 design projects. Presented by Mr. Pekka Timonen, Executive Director of the World Design Capital Helsinki 2012 Read more at: http://wdchelsinki2012.fi/en

10.30–11.00 Case tbc. in early October


11.30–11.45 Official Conference Welcome Presented by the Lord Mayor of Helsinki, Mr. Jussi Pajunen

11.45–12.15 Meet the Designer – Case Helsinki Trams (Transfer from Huutokonttori to the University Library) Trams have a special place in the hearts of Helsinki’s residents since their introduction in year 1900. How is a tram designed? Join a tram ride hosted by the designer of Helsinki’s latest generation of trams. Presented by Mr. Hannu Kähönen, Industrial Designer and the CEO of Crea-design Ltd. Read more at: http://www.creadesign.fi/en/references/product-design.html#160


http://www.hel2.fi/irbc/huutokonttori.html�

http://wdchelsinki2012.fi/en�

http://www.creadesign.fi/en/references/product-design.html#160�

http://www.creadesign.fi/en/references/product-design.html#160�

12.15–13.15 The Future Library – University of Helsinki Library Architecture and

Service Design Finland’s largest university library opened its doors in September and has since been prized for its architecture and functionality. More importantly, the building and its facilities have been designed by a team of service designers together with the users and employees of the library. We will take you on a tour at the library to explain how libraries can face the future at the digital era. Presenter tbc. Read more at: http://www.hel2.fi/irbc/university_library.html

13.15–14.15 Lunch Hosted by the City of Vantaa Venue: Minerva House, University of Helsinki City Centre Campus

14.15–14.30 Introduction to Future Learning Environments Venue: Minerva House, University of Helsinki City Centre Campus Professor Kirsti Lonka and her team have built a new classroom environment where learning is based on offering students opportunities to create know-ledge and solutions together, much in the same manner as in the workplace, be it through social media, videoconferencing or traditional roundtable dis-cussions. We will spend the afternoon using these smart methods in our con-ference. Presented by Ms. Kirsti Lonka, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences and Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Hel-sinki Read more at: http://www.hel2.fi/irbc/university_learning.html

14.15–14.45 Design Exchange Program by Sitra The Finnish Innovation Fund (Sitra) has together with two ministries and two cities hired four strategic designers to work within the partnering public sector organizations. The designers will work full-time and in-house for one year. The City of Lahti has engaged the designer in a project where a trackside area is planned together with local residents. Presented by Mr. Santtu von Bruun, Head of Strategy at the City of Lahti and Ms. Sara Ikävalko, Industrial Designer working at the Design Exchange Pro-gram Read more at: http://insidejob.fi/author/sara/ http://wdchelsinki2012.fi/en/program/2012-06-06/design-exchange-0

14.45–15.15 Hakata Train Station Development Project (Fukuoka) (Short description to follow) Presenter tbc.


http://www.hel2.fi/irbc/university_library.html�

http://www.hel2.fi/irbc/university_learning.html�

http://insidejob.fi/author/sara/�

http://wdchelsinki2012.fi/en/program/2012-06-06/design-exchange-0�

15.15–15.45 Barcelona Politics & Management Deal (Barcelona) (Short description to follow) Presenter tbc.

15.45–16.00 Coffee Break


16.30–17.30 Wrap-Up and Panel Discussion The entire day is wrapped up by a panel discussion featuring case presenters and keynote listeners from IRBC regions. Moderated by Mr. Marco Steinberg, Director of Strategic Design at the Fin-nish Innovation Fund Sitra.

17.30–18.00 Bus transfer to the hotel

18.00–19.00 IRBC Secretariat Meeting

19.00–20.00 Free time

20.00–20.30 Transfer to the Dinner Venue

20.30–23.30 Romantic City goes Ice-Breaking – IRBC Dinner Hosted by the City of Helsinki Venue: Ice-breaking ship Urho We will end the night at a dinner in a very romantic and exotic venue: on-board the ice-breaking ship Urho. One of the design principles guiding Urho's construction besides ice-breaking was its planned role as a PR ship for the highest government executives. To this end, the vessel has two saunas, a swimming pool, a gym and a library. Foreign heads of state as well as high-level delegations have been enter-tained in Urho's lounge. The interior of the ship is decorated with paintings by renowned Finnish artists. Read more at: http://www.arctia.fi/en_urho

22.30 & 23.30

Two alternative bus transfers to the Hotel Klaus K


http://www.arctia.fi/en_urho�

Thursday 29th November 8.00–8.30 Transport from hotel Klaus K to the Exhibition Centre WeeGee in Espoo

8.30–8.45 Mayor’s Welcome

Presented by Mr. Jukka Mäkelä, Mayor of the City of Espoo

8.45–9.15 Designing an Ecosystem for Start-ups at the Aalto University (Short description to follow) Presented by Mr. Will Cardwell, Head of Aalto Center for Entrepreneurship, Aalto University. More information at: http://www.finnwill.fi/index/1

9.15–9.45 Case Boeing Dreamliner (Seattle) (Short description to follow) Presenter tbc.

9.45–10.15 Case Giraff Technologies Ltd. (Stockholm) Giraff brings people like you together in the care of those living at home. Gi-raff allows you to virtually enter a home from your computer via the Internet and conduct a natural, secure visit just as if you were physically there.The company works with care organizations and research groups all over Europe. Presented by Mr. Stephen von Rump, CEO of Giraff Technologies Ltd More information at: http://www.giraff.org/?lang=en


10.45–11.30 Wrap-up and Panel Discussion The day is wrapped up by a panel discussion featuring case presenters and keynote listeners from IRBC regions. Moderator tbc.

11.30–12.00 Bus transfer from Espoo to the Finlandia Hall

12.00–13.00 Helsinki World Design Capital 2012 Closing Summit Lunch & Get-together Venue: Finlandia Hall

13.00 Helsinki World Design Capital 2012 Closing Summit: Story of Success and a Few Lessons Learned Venue: Finlandia Hall


http://www.finnwill.fi/index/1�

http://www.giraff.org/?lang=en�

The WDC Closing Summit provides a global platform for the high-level ex-change of ideas, insights and best practices from different countries, regions and cities developing, launching and maintaining effective design policy. The conference is an official WDC Helsinki 2012 signature event. Conference program will include high-level speakers and will be published shortly. More information at: http://www.worlddesigncapital.com/what-is-the-wdc/wdc-signature-events/design-conference/

13.00–13.10 Welcome Presented by Mr. Marco Steinberg, Director of Strategic Design at the Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra.

13.10–13.15 International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID)’s Greeting (tbc)

13.15–13.30 World Design Capital Helsinki 2012 - Story of Success and a Few Les-sons Learned. Presented by Mr. Jussi Pajunen, Lord Mayor of the City of Helsinki

13.30–14.00 Session one: Global Responsibility – Designing the Future Keynotes by: Mr. Ravi Naidoo, Design Inbada, Cape Town, South Africa Ms. Kigge Hvid, CEO Index:, Copenhagen, Denmark Reflections by: Ms. Anna Valtonen, Rector, Umeå Institute of Design, Umeå University, Swe-den Mr. Ilkka Suppanen, Designer, Studio Suppanen, Helsinki, Finland

14.00–14.30 Session two: Open Helsinki, Creating Cultural Change Keynote by: Mr. Tommi Laitio, Director of Youth Services, City of Helsinki Reflections by: Mr. Tuomas Toivonen, Architect, Now Office, Helsinki Mr. Saku Tuominen, Creative Director, Idealist Group, Helsinki

14.30–15.00 Coffee and Refreshments

15.00–15.30 Session three: Roots for New Growth – Demand for Design Keynote by: Mr. Michael Thomson, Director and Founder, Design Connect, London


http://www.worlddesigncapital.com/what-is-the-wdc/wdc-signature-events/design-conference/�

http://www.worlddesigncapital.com/what-is-the-wdc/wdc-signature-events/design-conference/�

Reflections: Mr. Mika Ihamuotila, CEO, Marimekko Ltd. Mr. Pekka Mattila, Group Managing Director & Associate Dean, Aalto Univer-

sity Executive Education Mr. Mirkku Kullberg. Managing Director, Artek Ltd. Ms. Riikka Heikinheimo, Executive Director at Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation

15.30–16.00 Design Destination – Transforming the City in the Eyes of the World Keynote by: Ms. Judy Dobias, Managing Director, Camron Pr, London Reflections by: Mr. André Noël Chaker, Author, The Finnish Miracle Mr. Jeroen Beekmans and Mr. Joop de Boer, Founders, The Pop-Up City

16.00–16.45 Mayors in Conversation Chaired by Mr. Pekka Timonen, Executive Director of the World Design Capi-tal Helsinki 2012

16.45–17.00 Conclusions Presented by Mr. Marco Steinberg, Director of Strategic Design at the Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra.

17.00–17.30 Coctails

17.30–18.00 Bus transfer from Finlandia Hall to the hotel Klaus K

18.00–19.00 Free time

19.00–19.30 Bus transfer from the hotel Klaus K to the Helsinki City Hall

19.30–23.00 Gala Dinner and World Design Capital Convocation Ceremony for Cape Town WDC 2014 Venue: Helsinki City Hall The WDC Convocation Ceremony is a symbolic event highlighting the official hand-over of the WDC title from one city to the next. It marks the end of the year’s events. The ceremony is an official WDC Helsinki 2012 signature event. Please note: formal dressing required

23.00–23.30 Bus transfer to the hotel Klaus K


Friday 30th November 9.00–10.00 Bus or train transfer to the Sibelius Hall in Lahti

10.00–10.15 Mayor’s Welcome

Presented by Mr. Jyrki Myllyvirta, Mayor of the City of Lahti Venue: Sibelius Hall in Lahti

10.15–12.00 Designing the City’s Strategy – How Has Lahti Used Design as a Stra-tegic Asset in the City Development The City of Lahti’s Design Strategy is focusing on using design as a tool for user-driven innovation to improve competitiveness of local businesses and public services. Lahti is a 'green clean' design city where citizens have an active open source role via “Lahen D”, a user-centered design platform. The metabrief for the city of Lahti is I.C.E.: Ideas from people, Crossfunctional Co-design for solutions in an Environmentally conscious way. Presented by Ms. Riikka Salokannel, Design Development Director, Lahti Business and Science Park Ltd.

12.00–13.00 IRBC Farewell Lunch Venue: Sibelius Hall in Lahti

13.00–14.30 Bus transfer to Helsinki via the Airport

14.30 End of 2012 IRBC Helsinki Conference


gvrd board meeting agenda package - october 12, 2012 - revised · resume the process of evaluating...

Documents