Transportation Governance Engagement Workbook - Juan de Fuca

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-municipally (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.

Examples: Ultralight rail transit as proposed by View Royal. Rapid ferry between Royal Bay and Victoria harbour.

---

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.

• 1 Maintenance, improvements and replacement of infrastructure
• 3 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?

Consider the option of having "participating areas" within the electoral areas, such as in the case of the East Sooke Participating Area of the JdF Water Distribution System. Rationale: residents in Port Renfrew tend to travel out of the CRD to access services provided in the Cowichan Valley RD. They are unlikely to benefit from a regional service. The communities of Shirley and Jordan River may also be far enough away from the core to gain any benefit from the service.