Transportation Governance Engagement Workbook - Langford

Transportation Governance Engagement Workbook

Considering trade-offs

The purpose of this question is to gather information on which transportation network aspects could benefit from a greater degree of regional decision-making. This information is important as it provides an indication of the types of trade-offs that partners are willing to make. This helps CRD staff scope the scale of governance change being contemplated. The need to explicitly consider trade-offs early in the process is a lesson-learned from previous transportation governance attempts.

1. In each category below, which focus would have the greatest impact on improving mobility for your residents? Please consider the trade-offs and select only one statement from each category using the radio buttons.

A. Funding

• Given a limited pool of funding, prioritize investments in local transportation projects and infrastructure improvements.
• Given a limited pool of funding, prioritize investments in regional transportation projects and infrastructure improvements.

B. Connectivity

• Your residents' ability to travel intra-municipality (within their municipality).
• Your residents' ability to travel intra-regionally (between municipalities).

C. Transit

• Allocate transit resources toward local transit routes in neighbourhoods.
• Allocate transit resources toward frequent regional transit routes connecting high usage areas along transit oriented corridors.

D. Active transportation (includes regional trails)

• Invest in active transportation infrastructure that meets the local needs of your residents (e.g., local sidewalks, cycling lanes and trails).
• Invest in active transportation infrastructure that meets the regional needs of residents (e.g., continuous pedestrian and cycling network, regional trail network expansion, widening and lighting).

E. Traffic flow and congestion

• Invest in local road improvements not on the Regional Multi-modal Network.
• Invest in corridor improvements on the Regional Multi-modal Network (see Figure 1).

F. Transportation planning

• Municipal transportation plans inform the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
• The RTP takes precedence and directs municipal transportation plans.

G. Behaviour change

• Local responsibility for delivering initiatives and programs to influence behaviour change.
• Regional responsibility for delivering initiatives and programs to influence behaviour change.

H. New mobility services (e.g., ride hailing)

• Local responsibility for policy and regulations (i.e., business licensing and curb side regulation).
• Regional responsibility for policy and regulations (i.e., business licensing and curb side regulation).

I. Grants

• Individually pursue grant funding for local transportation projects.
• Collaboratively pursue grant funding for priority projects identified on the Regional Multi-modal Network.

Understanding expectations

Local governments and partner agencies use a number of actions — or levers — to improve mobility for residents. The purpose of this question is to gather 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 CRD staff understand the level of change that is needed.

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.

A. A new governance structure should strike a balance between regional and local priorities.

• Agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Disagree

B. A new governance structure should focus on projects that have the greatest impact on improving regional mobility, even if it means fewer local projects in your jurisdiction.

• Agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Disagree

C. A new governance structure should require decision-makers to consider the regional impacts of local decisions when making policy, funding and service-level decisions.

• Agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Disagree

D. Some transportation services could be more efficiently delivered at a regional level by a new governance structure. If you agree, and have examples, please list up to three services for consideration.

• Agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Disagree

Examples:

1. Additional accessible rapid bus stops and dedicated bus lane in Langford.
2. Expansion/completion of the E&N Rail Trail.
3. A regional light-rail transit system.

Identifying opportunities

Governance changes create new opportunities and challenges. The next series of questions gather information about the benefits and concerns that matter most to municipalities, electoral areas and partner agencies. This helps CRD staff understand areas of agreement and disagreement across the region and provides the information needed to scope governance options.

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

• Loss of local control and decision-making power in balancing the diverse transportation needs of different jurisdictions (i.e., priority areas for new infrastructure would be established by a regional service and improvements would be directed toward the Regional Multi-modal Network or be required to reach a certain standard of design)
• Financial implications and resource allocation among jurisdictions (i.e., resources being invested in jurisdictions other than our own, according to regional priorities)
• Navigating jurisdictional complexities and legal considerations (i.e., amending or updating bylaws, local transportation plans, and dealing with the impacts of transferring authority)
• May result in a lower level of service for our local government (i.e., concern that services may be concentrated in areas with higher population density when analysing trade-offs)

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.

• Improved transportation connectivity within the municipality or electoral area
• Improved transportation connectivity within the region
• Collaborative decision making regarding the implementation of transportation priorities and service delivery
• Unified voice to pursue funding and/or policy changes for the regional multi-modal priorities and work with transportation service providers on service delivery
• Harmonizing design standards and bylaws across the region

5. Please rank which factors should be the highest priority when building out the Regional Multi-modal Network from 1-4, with one being the most important. Enter the ranked number in each text box accordingly. When ranking, consider areas with the highest potential for meeting regional objectives.

• 1 - Connecting residential areas and employment centers
• 2 - Improving access to essential amenities (i.e., schools, healthcare facilities, shopping, recreational facilities and parks)
• 3 - Enhancing connectivity between neighboring municipalities
• 4 - Connecting to BC Ferries and Victoria International Airport (YYJ)

6. Please rank which factors should be given primary consideration when allocating funds for transportation infrastructure from 1-3, with one being the most important. Enter the ranked number in each text box accordingly.

• 3 - Maintenance, improvements and replacement of infrastructure
• 1 - Supporting anticipated future population growth
• 2 - Balancing investments between different modes of transportation based on regionally established targets and priorities (i.e., active transportation, transit and general purpose travel lanes)

7. Are there any additional comments or suggestions you would like to provide regarding the understanding of and support for a change in transportation governance in our region?

The City of Langford is committed to collaborating, advocating, and partnering with the Province, the CRD, member municipalities, electoral areas, First Nations, and partner agencies to improve regional transportation, expand transit services, reduce congestion and collision potential and achieve GHG reduction and mode shift targets. Prior to the City of Langford formally endorsing the CRD's efforts (as highlighted in the questionnaire and supporting documents), the City of Langford formally requests, in writing where applicable:

1. A Forum of Councils when Bylaw options are presented.
2. Confirmation and details of a meaningful and iterative engagement process with member municipalities.
3. The CRD's plans for public and developer engagement and incorporating their expectations.
4. The CRD's plans for engagement with the partner agencies, such as the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and BC Transit, and ultimately confirmation from partner agencies regarding if they are in favour of the CRD's proposed approach and timelines as there are many ongoing provincial and Crown Corporation strategies and initiatives occurring within these agencies that need to be taken into consideration.
5. Further explanation of the different funding models available and the potential loss of direct gas tax funding to member municipalities.
6. A timeline for updating the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), in accordance with Langford's upcoming planning initiatives (when available), including but not limited to, a professional Transportation Master Plan and Active Transportation Plan, to ensure the RTP's relevance for Langford.
7. That in addition to frequent regional transit routes connecting high usage areas along transit-oriented corridors, that local bus connections/branches to neighbourhood hubs also be made a priority.
8. The CRD's plans for integrated land-use and transportation planning, with consideration for all municipal and provincial plans, for cohesive efficient transit-oriented development.
9. Related to #8, how the CRD will or will not incorporate the municipal professional planning and engineering work that's been done to date and in the future.
10. How the CRD intends to prioritize regional infrastructure initiatives and improvements under a new service or authority, and whether only new regional services and new funding sources were being sought.
11. That the CRD addresses the following gaps in information and/or concerns about:
    • The solutions proposed and assumptions made by the CRD in the Workbook;
    • The accelerated timelines of not only this engagement but the three levels as proposed;
    • The leading questions and more favourable adjectives used in the regionally worded responses in the questionnaire; and
    • How the results of the questionnaire will be interpreted by the CRD.
12. With respect to a new regional transportation authority, that the CRD addressed the following:
    • Who would retain ownership of transportation infrastructure and maintain assets, under a new governance model;
    • Who will be accountable for decisions made by the proposed CRD Regional Transportation Authority and the potential appeal process;
    • What authority, if any, would local governments retain over their multi-modal network, if a new transportation authority was created;
    • How would a new authority affect Langford's local plans, bylaws, processes, approvals, housing initiatives, capital projects, and additional costs to residents, businesses, and developers; and
    • Respectfully, the CRD's capacity and capability to become a Regional Transportation Authority and how well Langford would be represented by that authority.
13. If CRD can confirm that any changes would maintain existing services levels within member municipalities and, if placing an additional burden on the taxpayer, what that cost would be (ideally, the CRD could present a formal value proposition against a baseline evaluation, for confirmation by each municipality).

The City of Langford wishes to reiterate that is supportive, in principle, of regional efforts to improve transportation and will continue to be at the table as these discussions progress. For further context to the above feedback, please refer to Langford Staff Report to Committee of the Whole dated September 26th, 2023: https://pub-langford.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=7447