Appendix A: Transportation Governance What We Heard Report

Transportation Governance What We Heard Report

November 15, 2023

Territorial Acknowledgement

We acknowledge that the Capital Regional District (CRD) conducts its business within the traditional territories of many First Nations.

We recognize the First Nations governments across this region - Lək̓ʷəŋən peoples - Songhees and xʷsepsəm (Esquimalt) Nations in the core area, the W̱SÁNEĆ Nations W̱JOȽEȽP (Tsartlip), BOḰEĆEN (Pauquachin), SȾÁUTW̱ (Tsawout), W̱SIKEM (Tseycum), and MÁLEXEȽ (Malahat), as well as Sc'ianew (Beecher Bay), T’Sou-ke, P'a:chi:da?aht, and Spune'luxutth (Penelakut) Nations, all of whom have a long-standing relationship with the land and waters from time immemorial that continues to this day.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Workbook Engagement Goals............................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Current Transportation Planning.......................................................................................................... 5 1.4 What is Transportation Governance?................................................................................................... 5 2.0 What We Heard ........................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 General Observations........................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Assessing Agreement.......................................................................................................................... 8 3.0 Considering Trade-offs (Question 1) ....................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Response Highlights........................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 Principles for Decision-Making .............................................................................................................. 16 5.0 Understanding Expectations (Question 2)............................................................................................ 17 5.1 Examples of Services for Consideration............................................................................................ 19 6.0 Identifying Opportunities (Questions 3 to 6)........................................................................................ 20 6.1 Concerns about change in regional transportation governance ..................................................... 20 6.2 Benefits that change could bring to local governments................................................................. 22 6.3 Ranking priorities when building out the RMN................................................................................ 23 6.4 Ranking factors for allocating funds for transportation infrastructure ............................................ 24 7.0 Recommendations for Discussion ......................................................................................................... 25 7.1 Areas of Agreement........................................................................................................................... 25 7.2 Guiding Principles............................................................................................................................... 26 7.3 Prioritization ....................................................................................................................................... 26 7.4 Governance Potential......................................................................................................................... 27

Thank you

The Capital Regional District (CRD) would like to thank all local governments, electoral areas, and partner agencies for their participation in the recent transportation governance engagement. Your input has provided valuable insight and will help guide further exploration of transportation governance changes in the region. We would also like to thank staff from all communities for their invaluable support of the engagement in facilitating discussion and providing survey responses in a timely manner.

The CRD would also like to thank the First Nations for their interest in participating in the process and look forward to collaborating further on transportation governance in the region.

1.0 Introduction

The Capital Regional District (CRD) engaged member municipalities, electoral areas and partner agencies over the summer and fall of 2023 to solicit feedback on regional transportation governance. First Nations were invited to participate and can opt into the process as desired.

The purpose of this report is to summarize the responses received from the Transportation Governance Engagement to give a clear snapshot of the current thinking of local governments and electoral areas in the capital region on a range of key topics related to transportation governance. The input received will help scope potential changes in transportation governance to advance our shared transportation goals to reduce carbon pollution, get more people walking, cycling and taking transit, and address traffic congestion.

The CRD recognizes the essential role that transportation plays in our daily lives, impacting everything from quality of life to economic prosperity and environmental sustainability. A change in regional transportation governance represents a significant opportunity to work collectively on shared goals related to sustainable mobility, economic growth and community well-being.

Respondent perspectives, experiences and aspirations are integral to shaping the future of transportation in the region. Inclusive and collaborative decision-making is critical to developing a system that meets the diverse needs of our residents, businesses and visitors.

1.1 Workbook Engagement Goals

Through this workbook engagement, we sought to:

• Identify key trade-offs, challenges and opportunities in regional transportation governance.
• Determine the level of support for change and the need for additional tools and resources to advance regional transportation priorities.
• Strengthen collaboration, communication and partnership between member municipalities, electoral areas, partner agencies and the CRD.
• Understand your thoughts and expectations regarding the potential establishment of a regional transportation authority.

The CRD Board will use questionnaire responses to determine the level of change that can be achieved over the 2023-2026 Board term and, pending support and further engagement opportunities, define regional aspirations over the long-term.

1.3 Current Transportation Planning

The 2014 CRD Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) sets out a Regional Multi-modal Network (RMN) and a series of transportation objectives to guide implementation. Local governments, BC Transit, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) and the CRD are each responsible for implementing the RTP. Partners use four key actions to support implementation: planning and policy, infrastructure, service delivery and programming, land use and behaviour change. Most local governments are guided by local transportation plans, MOTI developed the South Island Transportation Strategy, and the Victoria Regional Transit Commission is guided by the Victoria Transit Future Plan.

The CRD Board set expectations for transportation improvements in the region by unanimously approving regional transportation priorities in 2021. CRD staff have advised what can be done to achieve these priorities through approved long-range transportation plans, programs of work, the Transportation Working Group and the CRD Transportation Committee. To accelerate implementation of shared priorities, the CRD Board gave direction to investigate and expedite the consideration of governance changes.

1.4 What is Transportation Governance?

Transportation governance is about decision-making. A governance structure sets out how decisions are made, who is involved, who pays and who is accountable for implementation. Current transportation governance is mode-specific and set out in legislation. This means there are multiple decision-makers, which limits integrated multi-modal decision-making and leads to competition for limited funds.

To achieve regional mobility objectives, change is needed to how we make decisions and fund transportation. Working collaboratively, the CRD can create a long-term cohesive approach to transportation governance in our region.

Transportation governance considers three main dimensions:

• Level of multi-modal integration
• Decision-making authority
• Funding

2.0 What We Heard

Local governments, electoral areas and partner agencies received the Transportation Governance Engagement Workbook Package on July 13, 2023. The workbook package is available in Appendix A. Senior CRD staff provided a presentation to nine councils between August and September 2023. Each council was asked to discuss their responses and return a single completed copy to the CRD with a council resolution endorsing the submission.

The goals of the questionnaire were to encourage discussion, receive input and better understand the aspects of governance that local governments are interested in exploring further. The questions were crafted to help identify areas of responsibility that would be best addressed on a regional level, as well as make clear which topics communities would prefer to remain at a local level of decision-making.

This report summarizes what we heard chronologically by question. Question one sought input about the scope of transportation functions to be considered in a new service bylaw (what we are making decisions on), while questions two to six focused on the principles that will guide decision-making. Some respondents provided additional comments and suggestions as part of question seven and that qualitative input has been taken under advisement and will be used to inform concept development and analysis.

Where possible, we have organized topics from most to least agreement so that key takeaways are easier to understand. All responses are available in Appendix B.

Of the 13 municipalities and three electoral areas in the region (Figure 1), we received a 100% response rate, indicating a very high level of regional interest in discussing transportation governance.

Figure 1: Communities by Sub-Region

2.1 General Observations

• Respondents show very high levels of agreement on shared expectations, concerns, benefits and high-level priorities related to the Regional Multi-modal Network. Responses to values-based questions could be used to develop principles to help guide CRD Board decision-making about transportation governance.
• A majority of respondents support taking a regional approach to new mobility services, behaviour change, and transit. A majority of respondents also support taking a local approach to active transportation. Areas of majority agreement should be the focus of governance change this CRD Board term.
• Respondents have mixed levels of support for taking a regional or local approach to the other transportation functions explored in the questionnaire. Connectivity, grants, traffic flow and congestion, funding and transportation planning require additional dialogue to build higher levels of agreement before they can be considered in scope for governance change.
• A funding strategy will be needed to advance governance changes. Grants and funding should be considered as part of developing this funding strategy.
• Responses do not show patterns related to respondent population size or geographic location. Some respondents clearly prefer a local approach, while some others clearly prefer a regional approach. Most respondents have mixed preferences, supporting a regional approach for some functions and a local approach for others.
• Responses will be used to inform transportation governance concept development and analysis. This work is needed to develop the service, governance, operating and funding requirements to advance transportation governance change. Qualitative responses will be used to support this work.

2.2 Assessing Agreement

Given the timeline to complete changes to transportation governance within this CRD Board term, a goal of this engagement is to identify the categories in which there are the highest level of agreement. This will allow the CRD Board and staff to focus on topics for which local governments and electoral areas are supportive of and interested in change. Topics with a lower level of agreement can be addressed in the future through further engagement. More dialogue is needed to better understand the potential scope of change and the perspectives of local governments and electoral areas on these topics.

Given that governance change would require establishing a new CRD transportation service, the threshold of majority agreement has been set at two-thirds majority or 11 or more local governments and electoral areas. Service establishment will require unanimous support, so a threshold of two-thirds is considered strong enough support to focus efforts on further investigating the potential for change.

As agencies are not involved in service establishment decision making, they are not included in the total numbers reflected throughout this report. However, their responses are included in tables for transparency and to fulsomely capture all responses received.

It is also important to highlight the topics with strong agreement for a local focus, as those are categories that respondents would prefer to have remain at a local level of decision-making and resourcing. This gives a clear understanding of the types of tools that should be considered as work progresses.

3.0 Considering Trade-offs (Question 1)

This question gathered information on which transportation network aspects could benefit from a greater degree of regional decision-making. This information is important as it indicates the types of trade-offs that partners are willing to explore. This helps the CRD Board determine the scale of potential change that could be achieved in the 2023-2026 term. CRD staff will use the responses to scope the operational requirements for a new CRD transportation service.

Question 1: Considering Trade-offs In each category below, which focus would have the greatest impact on improving mobility for your residents?

The need to explicitly consider trade-offs early in the process is a lesson learned from previous transportation governance attempts. These trade-off questions are intended to identify topics that local governments want (and do not want) to be included within the scope of consideration as staff work to develop transportation governance concepts. This way, efforts can be focused on areas with the highest level of agreement.

While most respondents selected single answers to each question as requested, there were instances where neither/both were selected despite that not being a selectable option. The inference drawn from this is that some communities felt that the response they wanted to provide was more complex than the simple dichotomy of local or regional allowed for. It may be that they are open to consideration of a regional approach but require more specifics. Or that their community is happy and supportive of existing regional resources and more focus is needed on local challenges at the moment. For the purposes of this report, a non-specific response was presumed as being open to consideration of a regional approach. Given that this introduces a level of complexity, CRD staff interpreted these responses as to not tip the balance to an area receiving majority agreement.

The following pages contain two tables summarizing the responses received for Question 1. Figure 2 displays all responses received, sorted by sub-region, while Figure 3 is sorted by category, from the highest to lowest level of support for a regional focus.

Figure 2: Considering Trade-offs – All Responses

Figure 3: Considering Trade-offs - Responses by Category

3.1 Response Highlights

3.1.1 New Mobility Services

Regional (15) | Local (1)

In question 1H, respondents were asked to consider a trade-off for new mobility services, between whether local or regional responsibility for policy and regulations (i.e., business licensing and curbside regulation) would have the greatest impact on improving mobility for their residents. This trade off received the highest level of support for a regional focus (15), indicating that there is nearly unanimous support for regional responsibility to develop policies and regulations for new mobility services, such as ride hailing apps, car shares, e-scooters, and other new mobility technologies. Having CRD local governments work together to develop a unified approach for implementing these services could speed up the implementation while applying a single set of policies and regulations that would not need to be developed individually by each community.

3.1.2 Behaviour Change

Regional (13) | Local (3)

In question 1G, respondents were asked to consider whether local or regional responsibility for delivering initiatives and programs to influence behaviour change would have the greatest impact on improving mobility for residents. The vast majority (13) selected regional responsibility.

Strong support is seen for regional responsibility to deliver initiatives and programs to influence behaviour change in regard to choices people make about transportation options. These programs could benefit from being offered at a regional level because they will be more efficient in delivering support for communities that may not have the resources to establish their own programs. A regional approach would strengthen the effect of behaviour change messaging by making it consistent across the region and providing message saturation over a longer timeline.

3.1.3 Transit

Regional (11) | Local (5)

In question 1C, respondents were asked to consider whether allocating transit resources toward local transit routes in neighbourhoods or toward frequent regional transit routes connecting high usage areas along transit oriented corridors would have the greatest impact on improving mobility for their residents. Responses indicate a high level of support for a regional focus when allocating transit resources (11).

3.1.4 Connectivity

Regional (10) | 1 | Local (5)

In question 1B, respondents were asked to consider whether a focus on their residents' ability to travel intra-municipally (within their municipality) or intra-regionally (between municipalities) would have the greatest impact on improving mobility. Though responses leaned regional overall (ten), there was not a strong level of agreement between local governments and electoral areas in the region. This suggests that additional dialogue is needed to build higher levels of agreement. As such, tools in this category should not be considered as part of further concept and analysis work to be undertaken in the 2023-2026 Board term.

3.1.5 Grants

Regional (10) | 1 | Local (5)

In question 1I, respondents were asked to consider whether individually pursuing grant funding for local transportation projects or collaboratively pursuing grant funding for priority projects identified on the Regional Multi-modal Network would have the greatest impact on improving mobility for residents. Some local governments expressed a desire to collaboratively pursue grant funding for priority projects on the Regional Multi-modal Network (ten), while others prefer to pursue grants individually for local transportation projects (five). One local government expressed a preference for both. This suggests that additional dialogue is needed to build higher levels of agreement. As such, tools in this category should be considered in the context of preparing a funding strategy for a new transportation service, rather than as a function of the service itself.

3.1.6 Traffic Flow and Congestion

Regional (8) | 2 | Local (6)

In question 1E, respondents were asked to consider whether investing in local road improvements not on the Regional Multi-modal Network or investing in corridor improvements on the Regional Multi-modal Network would have the greatest impact on improving residents’ mobility. Responses were fairly evenly split on where investments in road infrastructure should be focused to bring the most benefit to residents, with eight responding that investements should be made on designated corridors, six responding that investments should be made on local roads and two responding that both are important. Based on additional qualitative feedback, several local governments identified concern that prioritizing regional corridors may negatively impact their ability to advance transportation objectives on local roads. Some respondents also indicated that the Regional Multi-modal Network requires updating. The results suggest that additional dialogue is needed to build higher levels of agreement on this matter. As such, tools in this category should not be considered as part of further concept and analysis work to be undertaken in the 2023-2026 Board term. Updating the Regional Multi-modal Network is a multi-year project that is not linked to the scope of governance change. Any updates would be addressed as a separate project.

3.1.7 Funding

Regional (8) | 1 | Local (7)

In question 1A, respondents were asked to consider whether prioritizing investments in local or regional transportation projects and infrastructure improvements would have the greatest impact on their residents’ mobility, given a limited pool of funding. Responses indicated that local governments are not in agreement about whether investments should be prioritized in local (seven) or regional (eight) transportation projects and infrastructure improvements to best improve mobility for their residents. One local government identifited that both were important priorities. These results suggest that additional dialogue is needed to build higher levels of agreement. As such, tools in this category should only be considered in the context of preparing a funding strategy for a new transportation service, rather than as a function of the service itself.

3.1.8 Transportation Planning

Regional (5) | 1 | Local (10)

In question 1F, respondents were asked to consider whether municipal transportation plans should inform the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or the RTP should take precedence and direct municipal transportation plans. Responses indicated that local governments would prefer to continue to have municipal transportation plans inform the RTP (ten). In other words, local governments and electoral areas are not supportive of a hierarchy of plans. The CRD currently has a transportation planning function. This function will be considered in the concept development and analysis work to be undertaken in the 2023-2026 CRD Board term.

3.1.9 Active Transportation

Regional (4) | 1 | Local (11)

In question 1D, respondents were asked to contemplate whether investing in active transportation infrastructure that meets the local or regional needs of residents would have the greatest impact on improving their mobility. Responses from a majority of local governments (11) indicate a desire to prioritize active transportation infrastructure investments that meet the local needs of residents (e.g., local sidewalks, cycling lands and trails) over their regional needs (e.g., continuous pedestrian and cycling network, regional trail network expansion, widening and lighting). One way of interpreting these responses is that local governments feel their residents are satisfied with existing regional active transportation infrastructure (regional trails) and would benefit most from an increased focus on local improvements. Another is that the majority of local governments feel that taking a local approach to active transportation is more impactful. Concept development and analysis should consider tools that will enable local governments to achieve local active transportation needs.

4.0 Principles for Decision-Making

Questions two to six asked values-based questions to explore decision-making preferences, benefits and concerns. There was a high level of agreement on certain expectations, concerns, benefits and priorities. These areas of consensus help shape the principles that will guide CRD Board decision-making on transportation governance. See sections five and six for full responses and section seven for principles.

Expectations (Q2)

• Strike a balance between regional and local priorities. (15/16)
• Some transportation services could be more efficiently delivered at a regional level. (13/16)
• Require decision-makers to consider the regional impacts of local decisions. (12/16)

Concerns (Q3)

• Loss of local control and decision-making power in balancing the diverse transportation needs of different jurisdictions. (15/16)
• Financial implications and resource allocation among jurisdictions. (14/16)
• May result in a lower level of service for our local government. (14/16)
• Navigating jurisdictional complexities and legal considerations. (13/16)

Benefits (Q4)

• Improved transportation connectivity within the region. (16/16)
• Collaborative decision making on priorities and service delivery. (14/16)
• Unified voice to pursue funding and/or policy changes. (12/16)
• Harmonizing design standards and bylaws across the region. (11/16)

RMN Priorities (Q5)

1. Connecting residential areas and employment centres.
2. Improving access to essential amenities (i.e., schools, healthcare facilities, shopping, recreational facilities and parks).

Primary considerations for allocating funds (Q6)

1. Maintenance, improvements, and replacement of infrastructure.
2. Supporting anticipated future population growth.
3. Balancing investments between different modes of transportation based on regionally established targets and priorities.

5.0 Understanding Expectations (Question 2)

Local governments and partner agencies use a number of actions – or levers – to improve mobility for residents. This question gathered information on the types of actions a regional decision-making body could take.

This information is important as it provides direction about the type of service authorities a regional body would need to deliver on expectations. This helps the CRD Board and staff understand the level of change that is needed.

Question 2: With a change in transportation governance, it is important to acknowledge that some regional transportation projects may not have a direct local impact/benefit but will significantly improve regional mobility for residents. Please select whether you agree, neither agree nor disagree, or disagree with each statement using the radio buttons.

Figure 4: Understanding Expectations Summary

* Strike a balance between regional and local priorities: 15 Agree, 1 Neither agree nor disagree. * Some transportation services could be more efficiently delivered at a regional level by a new governance structure: 13 Agree, 2 Neither agree nor disagree. * Require decision-makers to consider the regional impacts of local decisions when making policy, funding and service level decisions: 13 Agree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree. * Focus on improving regional mobility, even if it means fewer local projects in your jurisdiction: 8 Agree, 3 Neither agree nor disagree, 4 Disagree.

Note: There are not 16 responses for each part. In one case, more than one option was selected and in another, the question was not answered.

Responses, presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5, show that there is a very high level of agreement between local governments and electoral areas in the region on the need for a new governance structure to strike a balance between regional and local priorities and require decision makers to consider the regional impacts of local decisions when making policy, funding, and service level decisions. There is also a very high level of agreement that some transportation services could be more efficiently delivered at a regional level. There was less agreement with the concept that a regional transportation governance structure should focus on projects that have the greatest impact on improving regional mobility, even if it means fewer local projects.

Figure 5: Understanding Expectations – All Responses

5.1 Examples of Services for Consideration

The majority of respondents felt that some transportation services could be more efficiently delivered at a regional level by a new governance structure. In order to garner more insight, an open-ended space was available for respondents to list up to three examples of services to be considered for inclusion in an expanded transportation governance framework. These examples are summarized below and will be considered more closely through detailed concept development and analysis. Additional engagement with partners is needed to fully understand the scope of the examples and identify operating requirements.

It is important to note that some of the examples provided would require governance change. They are currently not within the CRD’s mandate and may require both legislative change and significant additional resources to be addressed at a regional level.

Examples provided that are within the current mandate:

• Regional trail widening
• Regional trail network upgrades
• Active transportation design
• Consistent communications
• Expansion / completion of the E&N Rail Trail
• Develop a Vision Zero action plan

Examples provided that would require new direction and/or legislative change:

• Active transportation corridors connecting municipalities
• Transit (increasing access, frequency, and comfort of public transit)
• Transit connection to BC ferries, airport, Royal Roads University, UVic, and hospitals
• Mobility hub development
• A regional light-rail transit system
• Rail service along the E&N corridor
• Ferry service between Westshore and Esquimalt
• Transportation Demand Management (to do more than active school travel planning)
• Policy and regulation for bikesharing, carsharing, ridesharing, micromobility
• Goods movement strategy including urban freight
• Hwy 1, Hwy 14, Hwy 17 interchange
• Prioritizing regional intersections for inter-municipal funding/planning
• Adding accessible rapid bus stops and dedicated bus lanes
• Actions to achieve Clean BC Vehicle Kilometres Travelled targets

6.0 Identifying Opportunities (Questions 3 to 6)

Questions three to six in the Engagement Workbook focused on identifying opportunities. These questions gathered information about the concerns and benefits that matter most to municipalities, electoral areas, and partner agencies to help CRD staff understand areas of agreement and disagreement across the region to begin to scope potential changes. At-a-glance results are presented in Figure 6 and detailed results by respondents are presented in Figure 7.

6.1 Concerns about change in regional transportation governance

Question 3: Using a local government lens, please identify your concerns about a change in regional transportation governance by selecting all that apply using checkboxes.

Figure 6: Concerns about Change in Regional Transportation Governance

* Control & Decision: 15 * Financial: 14 * Jurisdictional: 13 * Level of service: 14

The vast majority of local governments expressed concerns about change in regional governance in regard to the statements identified in this question. There was near unanimous concern about a loss of local control and decision-making power in balancing the diverse transportation needs of different jurisdictions. This indicates that there is a desire to dig deeper into the issues and to identify ways to address these concerns as the transportation governance concepts are further developed.

Through additional comments, there was also a concern expressed by some communities about core-centric decision-making in a new regional governance structure. Transportation governance change will need to address the balance of decision-making and resource allocation between the Core and West Shore and Saanich Peninsula areas.

Figure 7: Concerns about Change in Regional Transportation Governance – All Responses

6.2 Benefits that change could bring to local governments

There was unanimous agreement that a change in transportation governance could bring improved transportation connectivity within the region. Respondents generally agreed that a change in transportation governance would have positive benefits in having a unified voice, collaborative decision-making, and harmonizing design standards and bylaws across the region. There was less agreement that transportation governance change would improve transportation connectivity within the municipality or electoral area. Results are shown in Figure 8.

Question 4: Please identify the following benefits that a change in transportation governance could bring to your local government by selecting all that apply using the checkboxes.

Figure 8: Benefits of Change in Regional Transportation Governance – All Responses

6.3 Ranking priorities when building out the RMN

Responses indicate that the highest priority when building out the Regional Multi-modal Network should be in connecting residential areas and employment centres as well as improving access to essential amenities (i.e. schools, healthcare facilities, shopping, recreational facilities and parks). Enhancing connectivity between neighbouring municipalities ranked third most important, followed by connecting to BC Ferries and Victoria International Airport. Results are shown in Figure 9.

Question 5: Please rank which factors should be the highest priority when building out the Regional Multi-modal Network.

Figure 9: Ranking Priorities for the Regional Multi-Modal Network – All Responses

6.4 Ranking factors for allocating funds for transportation infrastructure

Responses indicate that maintenance, improvements and replacement of infrastructure should be given primary consideration when allocating funds for transportation infrastructure. Balancing investments between different modes of transportation based on regionally established targets and supporting anticipated future population growth were considered important as well. Supporting anticipated population growth was ranked most important by the faster growing communities. Responses are shown in Figure 10. These results provide additional insight as to why the trade-off questions related to grants and funding only received moderate levels of agreement. This insight will be considered should a funding strategy be needed for a new transportation service.

Question 6: Please rank which factors should be given primary consideration when allocating funds for transportation infrastructure.

Figure 10: Ranking Factors for Allocating Funds for Transportation Infrastructure – All Responses

7.0 Recommendations for Discussion

The responses received in question one address the scope of transportation functions to be considered in a potential new CRD transportation service (i.e., what we are making decisions on) during this CRD Board term. Questions two to six pertain to the principles that could guide decision-making (i.e., the types of tools that we would consider). There is a willingness to discuss transportation governance change in the region, though it is more difficult to agree on the specifics to be scoped into the work.

Through the Transportation Governance Engagement Workbook, CRD staff understand there to be support at the local government level for taking steps toward transportation governance change in the region in areas where there is majority agreement. The CRD Board needs this input to confirm what can reasonably be achieved this term and deliver on partner needs.

7.1 Areas of Agreement

From the responses received in question one, there are four topics with a higher level of agreement for either a regional or local focus. To keep to the desired timelines for the project, it is recommended that these topics become the focus of the work in this CRD Board term and will be examined more closely through detailed concept development, analysis, engagement, and discussion. Concept development is the next step toward establishing a new CRD transportation service.

Areas of Majority Agreement Regional approaches were supported for new mobility services, behaviour change, and transit and a local approach was preferred for active transportation. These categories warrant further consideration and will be subject to concept development and analysis.

The concept development and analysis work will determine service levels that meet partner expectations and identify the cost, delivery, and decision-making impacts. The outcome of this work would form the basis of a new transportation service and an accompanying service plan that sets out the work needed to deliver the service. This focuses effort on governance changes that can be delivered this CRD Board term as steps achievable in Levels one and two (Figure 11).

Areas With Moderate Agreement Five of the categories did not have majority support for either a regional or local focus. Advancing any of these categories would require additional engagement to define potential changes more clearly and to better understand the thinking of local governments and electoral areas regarding these topics.

The categories without majority agreement are connectivity, grants, traffic flow and congestion, funding, and transportation planning.

It is important to note that these topics are not completely out of consideration. The CRD Board may opt to include them in the scope of work, but it is recommended that they be considered at a future date once initial changes prove it is feasible to deliver a regional transportation service.

While there was not agreement on grants and funding, a funding strategy will be needed to deliver new levels of service. Grants and funding will be considered as part of a broad funding strategy.

7.2 Guiding Principles

Principles can help guide the CRD Board in decision-making on transportation governance. CRD staff propose three guiding principles, based on engagement results.

Principle 1 – Regional Equity: When we make decisions about services, funding, and priorities, balance the diverse transportation needs of local governments and electoral areas around the region. We consider the need to maintain existing infrastructure and support anticipated population growth. We recognize that some services are best delivered at a regional level, while others are best delivered locally.

Principle 2 – Connectivity: We recognize that transportation decisions made by one jurisdiction impacts others and affects the way people move around the region. Our transportation system makes it is easy and convenient for residents to access their places of employment and essential amenities. Residents and visitors do not need a car to move around the region.

Principle 3 – Reduce Complexity: Governance changes should make it easier, not harder, to improve how people move around the region. We avoid duplicating effort to make the most of staff and financial resources.

7.3 Prioritization

The engagement results suggest there is not enough agreement on how to prioritize projects and investments in a manner that respects regional equity. Without agreement on prioritization, it is difficult to evaluate mobility improvements from a regional transportation network perspective. Prioritization should be further explored through concept development.

7.4 Governance Potential

In 2014, the CRD commissioned a Transportation Service Feasibility Study which recommended transitioning to a multi-modal governance framework in a stepwise fashion, with each step proving its feasibility before moving to the next. Informed by the feasibility study, the CRD is exploring three potential levels of change in governance, each offering unique opportunities and considerations. These steps aim to ensure that the Regional Multi-modal Network seamlessly integrates major roads, trails and connections with local and provincial networks and centers.

The three governance levels in Figure 11 (below) must be developed collaboratively. Based on the results of this engagement, the CRD Board could advance changes in level one and level two this term through the establishment of a new CRD transportation service. The governance levels are being refined through engagement and may evolve through the process as local governments, electoral areas, partner agencies and First Nations provide additional input.

Figure 11: Potential Levels of Governance