TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, March 6, :00 p.m. 2 nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. A G E N D A 1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.1 March 6, 2013 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Transportation Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for March 6, 2013 as circulated. 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES No items presented. 3. DELEGATIONS 3.1 Shauna Sylvester, SFU Centre for Dialogue Carbon Talks Subject: Citizen Engagement on Finding Sustainable Funding for (Public) Transportation 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Ted Droettboom Subject: Bay Area Joint Policy Committee 4.2 TransLink Subject: Regional Transportation Strategy 1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

2 Transportation Regular Agenda March 6, 2013 Agenda Page 2 of 4 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF Transportation Committee Priorities Designated Speaker: Delia Laglaglaron, Deputy CAO General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment That the Transportation Committee endorse the Terms of Reference and proposed Work Plan as set out in the report dated February 21, 2013 titled 2013 Transportation Committee Priorities. 5.2 Proposed Joint Policy Panel Designated Speaker: Delia Laglaglaron, Deputy CAO General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment That the Board direct staff to prepare a framework for the composition of a Joint Policy Panel and an agenda for convening its first meeting to be brought back to the Transportation Committee for endorsement. 5.3 Memorandum of Understanding between Metro Vancouver and TransLink on the Regional Transportation Strategy Designated Speaker: Delia Laglaglaron, Deputy CAO General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment That the Board endorse the proposed Memorandum of Understanding enclosed in the report dated February 9, 2013, titled, Memorandum of Understanding between Metro Vancouver and TransLink on the Regional Transportation Strategy. 5.4 TransLink Draft Supplemental Plan to the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Designated Speaker: Heather McNell, Regional Planning Division Manager That the Board advise the TransLink Board and Mayors Council on Regional Transportation that the Draft Supplemental Plan is acceptable in consideration of the removal of the property tax as a funding source.

3 Transportation Regular Agenda March 6, 2013 Agenda Page 3 of Transportation Committee Meeting Dates Designated Speaker: Paulette Vetleson, Secretary/Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department That the Transportation Committee establish the day, hour and place for its 2013 regular meetings as follows: Day and Hour Wednesday, March 6 Thursday, April 18 Thursday, June 20 Thursday, September 26 Thursday, November 21 1:00 pm 12:30 pm 12:30 pm 12:30 pm 12:30 pm 6. INFORMATION ITEMS Place Meetings will be held in the 2nd floor boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia unless otherwise specified on the Metro Vancouver public notice board, Metro Vancouver website, and the respective agenda. 6.1 Letter: Response to request for meeting between the Minister of Natural Resources and the Transportation Committee TO: Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver FROM: Natural Resources Canada DATED: February 12, Letter: Eligibility of Projects Under the Federal Strategic Priorities Fund TO: Richmond Members of Parliament FROM: City of Richmond DATED: January 31, Letter: Proposed Jet Fuel Delivery Project Environmental Assessment Process Update TO: Greater Vancouver Regional District Board FROM: City of Richmond DATED: October 30, OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.

4 Transportation Regular Agenda March 6, 2013 Agenda Page 4 of 4 8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING That the Transportation Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for March 6, 2013 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (2) (b) as follows: 90 (2) A part of a meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party. 9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION That the Transportation Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of March 6, Membership: Watts, Dianne (C) Surrey Jackson, Lois (VC) Delta Brodie, Malcolm Richmond Clay, Mike Port Moody Corrigan, Derek Burnaby Drew, Ralph Belcarra Fassbender, Peter Langley City Forrest, Mike Port Coquitlam Harris, Maria Electoral Area A Meggs, Geoff Vancouver Mussatto, Darrell North Vancouver City Walton, Richard North Vancouver District Wright, Wayne New Westminster

5 Citizen Engagement on Finding Sustainable Funding for (Public) Transportation March 6 th, 2013 Municipalities and stakeholders in the Metro Vancouver region are looking for innovative ways to finance low carbon transportation modes. Part of the process requires public input to determine how cities of the Lower Mainland will pay for priority transportation programs and projects. While there is political will and public support for developing comprehensive rapid transit infrastructure and opportunities to increase cycling and walking, the financial realities are an obstacle for many municipalities in the Metro Vancouver area. A regional conversation about what funding options are publicly acceptable for public transportation expansion and walking and cycling infrastructure is long overdue. Consulting with citizens will deepen understanding of the key plans, programs and policies while determining which funding mechanisms would be palatable for residents in order to achieve regional goals. A discussion on public transportation intersects with issues of economic growth, sustainability, affordability, land use and housing, as well as health and safety. As such, it is important to ensure the participation of a diverse cross section of the public and collaboration with a variety of thought leaders in relevant fields. Carbon Talks is a collaboration of the SFU Centre for Dialogue, the SFU School for Public Policy, the SFU Beedie School of Business and the SFU School for International Studies. The goal of Carbon Talks is to accelerate the shift to a low carbon economy. With the support of our partners we are initiating a large scale citizen engagement process on finding sustainable funding for transportation in Metro Vancouver. Project Goal The goal of this project is to gauge the public s understanding of and interest in innovative funding options for expanding Metro Vancouver s (public) transportation system within the context of the regional growth strategy. Project Partners For this initiative, Carbon Talks envisions engaging all levels of government and stakeholders who have an economic or environmental stake in the expansion of the Metro Vancouver transportation system. Partners that are already taking part in this process: Greater Vancouver municipalities (City of Vancouver, City of Surrey, District of North Vancouver) Metro Vancouver Get OnBoard BC TransLink Vision Critical BC Real Estate Foundation Simon Fraser University Project Activities Phase 1 Partnership Development, Research and Design (January March 2013) Carbon Talks will consult with a diversity of transportation stakeholders and municipal leaders to identify key resource people and partners, receive input on the design process for each dialogue and secure in kind and cash support. In the research and development, SFU Carbon Talks will consult TRANSPORTATION 1 SFU Centre for Dialogue Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3 Tel: Fax:

6 March 6 th, 2013 partners in refining the scope of the project. For example there is some discussion as to whether we should expand the focus from public transportation to transportation more generally. We will be soliciting the advice of Metro Vancouver s Transportation Committee on this. Working with SFU Media and Public Affairs Department, Carbon Talks will develop a communications and media strategy that will include a plan of how the project intends to engage the public and leaders in the transportation sector. Phase 2 Consultation and Opinion Research I (April September 2013) Through information gathering with a range of key stakeholders and partners, a process design for the consultation phase will be developed. Each dialogue will require careful design to ensure that the objectives of the initiative and expected outcomes are met. In order to design a consultative process that will achieve the practical outcomes required for decision making, meetings with relevant public, private sector and non profit organizations will be part of the research process. In collaboration with Vision Critical, a first phase of opinion research will be carried out through the launch of an online interactive community panel survey (Sparq Public) to canvas public opinion on public transportation funding prior to the community forum. The results of this work will be statistically significant and inform other inputs to the dialogue, including the discussion guide. Phase 3 Citizens Summit (Fall 2013) Through a citizens summit, residents in the Metro Vancouver region will be engaged in providing a vision for regional public transportation plans, and have an opportunity to provide input on which funding options are appropriate and feasible for current priority projects. Phase 4 Opinion Research II (Fall/Winter 2013) A second phase of opinion research will canvas public opinion on those funding options for public transportation identified at the community forum. The results of this work will be statistically significant and inform the dialogue report and recommendations. Phase 5 Advancing the Recommendations and Knowledge Mobilization (Winter/Spring 2014) The results of the citizens summit and community panels will be publicized through leader debriefs and a public affairs strategy. A leaders debrief will involve presentation of the findings to key decision makers as well as a workshop to develop strategy and understand the policy implications of the input from the public. A report on the policy translations will be produced from the workshop detailing key actions that the federal government, province, TransLink and each participating municipality should take to implement the recommendations. A public affairs strategy will be employed to share the policy outcomes through formal and informal government channels and through the media. Phase 6 Follow up and Evaluation (Spring 2014) Evaluation methodology will be developed in the first phase of the initiative. The methodology will determine whether the objectives of the initiative were met and if representative consultation was achieved. The tools to probe the key indicators of success will include survey results from the participants, demographic analysis of the participants, debriefing interviews with key partners, and review of the reach of social media and communications strategies. TRANSPORTATION 2 SFU Centre for Dialogue Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3 Tel: Fax:

7 5.1 To: Transportation Committee From: Delia Laglagaron, Deputy CAO, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Date: February 21, 2013 Subject: 2013 Transportation Committee Priorities Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 RECOMMENDATION That the Transportation Committee endorse the Terms of Reference and proposed Work Plan as set out in the report dated February 21, 2013 titled 2013 Transportation Committee Priorities. PURPOSE To provide the Transportation Committee with its Terms of Reference, key priorities and Work Plan for the year BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Transportation Committee were adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board on November 16, The role of the Transportation Committee is to improve collaboration among the various agencies that are developing plans or making investments in infrastructure that will have regional implications to Metro Vancouver. DISCUSSION The Terms of Reference for the Transportation Committee are included under Attachment 1. Given the role of the Transportation Committee, the priorities for 2013 are: Initiate a forum that facilitates discussion about key transportation and infrastructure issues that will affect the livability, economic prosperity and environmental sustainability of the region Advocate for better integration of land use and transportation planning to achieve the goals in the Regional Growth Strategy and the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan Provide input from a Metro Vancouver perspective on important regional transportation planning and infrastructure projects Produce sound research to inform discussion on funding and governance options related to public transportation Develop an analytical framework for understanding the dynamics of the regional economy including the role of subregional economies and the transportation system for moving people and goods through the region. A proposed 2013 Work Plan has been developed to enable the Transportation Committee to act on its priorities (Attachment 2). Organized by quarters this document will be used as a basis of reporting back to the Committee at each of its regular meetings. It will be updated to reflect TRANSPORTATION 3

8 2013 Transportation Committee Priorities Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Page 2 of 2 progress towards completion of the individual items, to reflect any changes in the schedule, and as needed when the Committee decides to add new items. Key actions for 2013, as well as longer term activities related to the Transportation Committee can be found within the Regional Planning section under goal 5 (Support Sustainable Transportation Choices) of the Board s 2013 Action Plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Committee endorse the Terms of Reference, key priorities and 2013 Work Plan as set out in this report. 2. That the Committee direct staff on changes to the Terms of Reference, key priorities or 2013 Work Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The decision to organize a Transportation Committee was made after the preparation of the 2013 Budget was well underway. Endorsing the proposed 2013 Action Plan could be accomplished with existing staff resources by reorganizing work and adjusting the priorities. Taking a more proactive approach to better integration of land use and transportation planning, a strategic coordination of a forum for discussing regional transportation and infrastructure issues and producing a broad range of analytical papers related to transportation projects, including the integration of land use and transportation planning to meet regional objectives, would require adequate resources. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Transportation Committee is a new Metro Vancouver Committee that will provide advice and recommendations to the Board on various transportation plans and projects affecting the livability, environmental sustainability and economic prosperity of the region. The Terms of Reference were approved by the Board in November 2012 and a proposed Work Plan has been developed that will enable the Committee to perform its role. To ensure the Committee benefits from a proactive approach and a thorough analysis of the implications of the range of land use and transportation plans as well as regional scale infrastructure projects, resources will need to be identified since the work of a new Transportation Committee was not incorporated into the development of the 2013 Metro Vancouver budget. Attachments: 1. Transportation Committee Terms of Reference (Doc # ) 2. Transportation Committee 2013 Work Plan (Doc # ) TRANSPORTATION 4

9 Transportation Committee 5.1 Attachment 1 Terms of Reference The Transportation Committee is a standing committee of the Metro Vancouver Board which provides advice and recommendations to the Board on various transportationrelated plans, policies, and actions affecting the livability, sustainability, and economic prosperity of the region. It is the mandate of the Transportation Committee to facilitate coordination between Metro Vancouver and other agencies and organizations developing plans that will affect regional transportation and responsibilities for major infrastructure decisions in the region. Better alignment of plans related to transportation and related infrastructure decisions is required to ensure the efficient movement of people and goods through and around the region in an economic, social and environmental sustainable manner. It is understood that the transportation network is critically important to the regional economy but that it is a means to an end, and exists to serve broader regional objectives. Some of these objectives can be found in the land use goals set out in the Regional Growth Strategy, the environmental goals set out in the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and other Board objectives (e.g., affordable housing, regional parks, agriculture, and sustainable finance). The Regional Growth Strategy reflects an understanding that regional land use and transportation plans, policies and actions must be carefully coordinated through inclusive and respectful dialogue and planning processes. Similarly, there are linkages to improvement in air quality and reductions to greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption articulated in the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan. Monitoring the implementation of these two plans is the responsibility of the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee and the Environment and Parks Committee, respectively. The role of the Transportation Committee is to provide a forum for promoting improved collaboration among the various agencies that are developing plans or making investments in infrastructure that will affect transportation networks in Metro Vancouver. These agencies include TransLink, Port Metro Vancouver, rail authorities, and the airports. Improved collaboration will include efforts to: Identify better alignment of regional land use, air quality, and greenhouse gas objectives, with The plans and investments in transportation associated with the southern component of the Asia Pacific Gateway Port Metro Vancouver s plans and investments in infrastructure TransLink s longterm and mediumterm strategic transportation plans and investments in infrastructure Other agency plans related to regional transportation including rail and air. Identify better alignment of regional transportation decisions, including funding, with the characteristics, needs, and aspirations of the subregions within Metro Vancouver TRANSPORTATION 5 Nov 2012

10 Engage in evidencebased dialogues with key entities having influence on transportation within the region and through the region (i.e., rail, trucking, airports, Port Metro Vancouver, TransLink, and other levels of government) to exchange information, discuss issues of mutual interest, and identify solutions of mutual benefit (e.g., the need for and location of affordable workforce housing to sustain the regional economy, the importance of the border crossing as a transportation corridor, in particular the trucking industry.) Monitor economic conditions and other developments that affect the region s transportation systems and funding. Review and resolve other significant issues related to regional transportation. In carrying out this role, the Committee may provide advice and direction to staff as to the scope and priority of work to be carried out. However, where such direction represents a significant expenditure of funds, the Committee shall refer the matter to the Board, with appropriate recommendations for decision by the Board. Committee Membership The Chair, ViceChair, and committee members are appointed annually by the Chair of the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors. A Metro Vancouver staff person will be assigned as a committee manager to the Committee. The committee manager will be responsible for coordinating agendas and will be the principal point of contact for committee members. Committee Meetings The Transportation Committee meets monthly, except for August and December, and has special meetings as required. A quorum of 50% plus one of the Committee membership is required to conduct Committee business. Relationships with Other Board Committees Matters involving approval of municipal Regional Context Statements and consideration of amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy are the purview of the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee. Matters involving implementation of the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan and the Regional Parks Plan are the purview of the Environment and Parks Committee. Matters involving implementation of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy and Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation assets are the purview of the Housing Committee TRANSPORTATION 6 Nov 2012

11 Transportation Committee 2013 Work Plan * 5.1 Attachment 2 1st Quarter Endorse Terms of Reference and 2013 Work Plan Approve MOU with TransLink 2nd Quarter Hold initial meeting of the Joint Policy Panel Review TransLink s draft Supplemental Plan Review and provide input into TransLink s Interim Regional Transportation Strategy Define the scope for research that examines the dynamics of the regional economy including subregional characteristics and key drivers 3rd Quarter Develop the land use and transportation vision for the region Review and approve policy white papers on Funding and Governance Models that will support a sustainable transit system in the region Review and provide input into TransLink s Base Plan 4th Quarter Review and provide input into TransLink s Regional Transportation Strategy Review and provide input into Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan and Container Capacity Improvement Program Review and approve policy white papers on integrating land use and transportation planning that will improve the movement of people and goods in and through the region * There are a number of important transportation infrastructure projects where consideration of implications cannot be calendared for the Metro Vancouver Transportation Committee including the Pattullo Bridge Replacement, Roberts Bank Terminal 2, and George Massey Tunnel Replacement. As critical junctures for input and decisionmaking emerge for these, discussion and decisions can be added to the Work Plan TRANSPORTATION 7

12 5.2 To: Transportation Committee From: Delia Laglagaron, Deputy CAO General Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment Date: February 5, 2013 Subject: Proposed Joint Policy Panel Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 RECOMMENDATION That the Board direct staff to prepare a framework for the composition of a Joint Policy Panel and an agenda for convening its first meeting to be brought back to the Transportation Committee for endorsement. PURPOSE To establish the Joint Policy Panel (JPP) for high level discussion of the impact of major infrastructure projects and planning initiatives on the movement of people and goods in and through the region, the region s quality of life and environmental sustainability. BACKGROUND The newly established Transportation Committee includes a mandate to facilitate the integration of regional land use and transportation planning and the collaboration of governments, agencies and other entities involved in making investments in major infrastructure projects. The work of the Committee would benefit from an organized forum that engages key stakeholders in exploring how best to address the challenges, tradeoffs and capture the opportunities in improving the movement of people and goods in and through the region through better integration of land use and transportation planning, innovative policies, and integrated solutions in infrastructure development. The concept of a JPP is informed in part from the mandate and experience of the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) organized in the Bay Area of California to grapple with coordinating regional planning and transportation. Established by the State of California in 2004, the JPC comprises elected officials from four regional agencies with regulatory responsibilities and a nonvoting member from the State. State legislation requires that the JPC review and coordinate the major planning initiatives from the member agencies. These include the regional transportation plan, projection of housing needs, and the air quality plan. While the example of the Bay Area s JPC is instructive, Metro Vancouver will need to develop its own model of facilitating collaboration of planning and infrastructure decisions within the context of its existing jurisdictional authority and economic realities. The JPP would engage more than government agencies it would be a multisectoral forum engaging both private and public sector. The Composition of the Joint Policy Panel TRANSPORTATION 8

13 Proposed Joint Policy Panel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Page 2 of 3 The challenge in forming a multisectoral panel is to ensure that the range of interests is adequately and fairly represented at the table without undermining the functionality and effectiveness of the JPP. The chair of Metro Vancouver s Transportation Committee would chair the JPP. Members of the panel will be identified by a subcommittee of the Transportation Committee. The agenda of the Panel could be informed by the Transportation Committee as well as items raised by members of the Panel. Once constituted the JPP could meet on a biannual basis. Potential topics for the Joint Policy Panel Agenda The Joint Policy Panel should include in its agenda: a) The discussion of the major transportation and other utility infrastructure projects that will affect the region s transportation system, economic activity and land use plans. b) A review of the various land use and transportation plans affecting the region and identify the mechanisms that will better align and integrate these plans with the Regional Growth Strategy and Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan. c) An exploration of how to capture the potential synergies among the utility and transportation infrastructure projects and to ensure the efficient use of infrastructure spending across the region; and d) Facilitate a discussion on how the changing nature of port logistics affects integrated land use and transportation plans as well as private and public investments in infrastructure. ALTERNATIVES 1) That the Board direct staff to prepare a framework for the composition of a Joint Policy Panel and an agenda for convening its first meeting to be brought back to the Transportation Committee for endorsement. 2) That the Board direct staff to organize a single forum involving key stakeholders on the intersection of land use and transportation planning and infrastructure initiatives. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board supports Alternative 1, staff would develop a proposed invitation list for the JPP in consultation with the Transportation Committee Chair. It is anticipated that the JPP will meet twice yearly and will be comprised of approximately 20 representatives from various agencies. Meetings will be held in the Metro Vancouver Boardroom or at a venue from a partner organization. Annual costs are anticipated to be approximately $2, covering catering costs and incidentals and can be accommodated within the annual budget for Board committees. If the Board supports Alternative 2, staff will provide the Committee with the financial implication of such an event. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION A high level of coordination is required to ensure that land use, transportation and utility systems in Metro Vancouver support a high functioning, competitive and sustainable metropolitan region. Currently, there are many one on one discussions among key stakeholders on decisions related to and affecting the regional transportation system but there is not a forum for collectively examining the effects these projects and plans will have on the movement of people and goods, the economy, land base and environmental character of the region. TRANSPORTATION 9

14 Proposed Joint Policy Panel Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Staff recommends Alternative 1: That the Board direct staff to prepare a framework for the composition of a Joint Policy Panel and an agenda for convening its first meeting to be brought back to the Transportation Committee for endorsement. The JPP is based on the Bay Area model, to engage stakeholders in a structured discussion of major infrastructure projects as well as land use and transportation planning initiatives that will affect the Metro Vancouver region. Attachments and References: Bay Area Joint Policy Committee TRANSPORTATION 10

15 5.3 To: Transportation Committee From: Delia Laglagaron, Deputy CAO, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: February 9, 2013 Subject: Memorandum of Understanding between Metro Vancouver and TransLink on the Regional Transportation Strategy Meeting date: March 6, 2013 RECOMMENDATION That the Board endorse the proposed Memorandum of Understanding enclosed in the report dated February 9, 2013, titled, Memorandum of Understanding between Metro Vancouver and TransLink on the Regional Transportation Strategy. PURPOSE This report presents a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Metro Vancouver and TransLink to cooperate in the preparation of the new Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS), including a longterm transportation funding strategy. BACKGROUND At its meeting on October 12, 2012, the Metro Vancouver Board approved a resolution to: Establish a memorandum of understanding for Metro Vancouver to work with TransLink on the following initiatives: I. II. 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; 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; As per the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (SCBCTA) Act, TransLink has begun the process of updating its RTS. The RTS will articulate how TransLink will fulfill its purpose in the SCBCTA Act to move goods and people and to support the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), provincial and regional environmental objectives, and the economic development of the region. TransLink is required to update the RTS every five years. The current strategy, Transport 2040, was adopted in The RTS must be renewed by August 1, TRANSPORTATION 11

16 Memorandum of Understanding between Metro Vancouver and TransLink on the Preparation of the Regional Transportation Strategy, including a LongTerm Transportation Funding Strategy Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Given the municipal interests represented on the Metro Vancouver Board, Metro Vancouver is wellpositioned to support progress towards attaining regional consensus on the RTS and longterm transportation funding. Having both the RGS and RTS be tightly coordinated will help all local government authorities carry on with fulfilling their aspirations for developing complete and prosperous communities. Since November 2012, Metro Vancouver and TransLink staff have worked together to prepare the proposed MOU (see attachment). The expectation is that the MOU will come into effect once both the Metro Vancouver Board and TransLink Board endorse and sign the document. The MOU reflects the direction set out by the Metro Vancouver Board, and respects the legislative authority resting with both agencies. The MOU embodies a significant amount of goodwill, dialogue, and compromise between agency staff. More importantly, the MOU articulates one of the roles of both Metro Vancouver and TransLink to serve local government authorities, residents, and businesses. DISCUSSION Successful implementation of the RGS will require cooperation with and amongst local government authorities, and supportive transportation policies and investments. The adoption of the RGS required consent by all affected local governments. While the RTS does not require the same level of approval, it will likely benefit from having a similar degree of political understanding and acceptance. Given the regional interest of ensuring a tight connection between land use, environmental, and transportation objectives, a different relationship must be forged between Metro Vancouver and TransLink. The MOU is precisely the tool to formalize the relationship. The key elements in the MOU are: 1. Land Use Policy Analysis and Content Development such as: Land Use and Transportation Integration Affordable TransitOriented Communities Goods Movement Implications for Land Use and Transportation Transportation Funding Land Use and Transportation Governance Practices 2. LongTerm Transportation Funding Strategy The proposed MOU contains an expectation that either a longterm transportation funding strategy will be included as part of the RTS, or that one will be undertaken as soon as the RTS is approved. New ideas are being brought forward and embraced for debate by the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation. At the forefront is regional road pricing. Whether bridge tolls, distancebased fees, or vehicle levies, there is an emerging awareness that a regionbased program of road pricing could bring in much needed new revenues to pay for new transportation investments, and offset some of the revenues generated by nontransportation sources, such as the property tax. From the perspective of the RGS, road pricing can potentially have an influential effect on land use decisions. For instance, road pricing, depending on the design, could encourage TRANSPORTATION 12

17 Memorandum of Understanding between Metro Vancouver and TransLink on the Preparation of the Regional Transportation Strategy, including a LongTerm Transportation Funding Strategy Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Page 3 of 4 development and housing locations near transit and existing urban areas consistent with the RGS. Alternatively, road pricing could inadvertently push development further into greenfields and away from the growth areas envisioned in the RGS and local community plans. Given the uncertainty in the scope and magnitude of these impacts, it makes sense for Metro Vancouver to be directly involved in the deliberation of principles and evaluation criteria for longterm transportation funding, and the program design and evaluation of road pricing as one amongst many possible revenue and transportation demand management measures. 3. MediumTerm Transportation Actions The expectation is that Metro Vancouver will be engaged in the preparation of mediumterm (1020 year horizon) transportation actions as part of the RTS. The reasons are clear. There is near universal agreement amongst regional and municipal staff, including TransLink staff, that Transport 2040, while containing inspirational language, lacks the granularity and precision to be useful as a guide by TransLink when preparing mediumterm supplemental plans, or even for municipalities when preparing local area plans. Further, Transport 2040, was prepared nearly three years before the RGS was adopted. Bringing mediumterm and longterm transportation policies and investments into better alignment with the RGS will require careful involvement by Metro Vancouver at the outset of the plan development process and through to endorsement, implementation, and plan performance monitoring. The next step is for the Metro Vancouver Board and TransLink Board to consider the MOU for endorsement. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board endorse the proposed Memorandum of Understanding. 2. That the Transportation Committee take no action, and provide alternative directions to staff in the involvement of TransLink s preparation of the Regional Transportation Strategy and other land use policy analysis. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The involvement by Metro Vancouver staff in the Regional Transportation Strategy was committed to in the 2013 Action Plan. In the nearterm, no new staff positions are anticipated to be necessary to fulfill this assignment in the near term. In the longerterm, additional resources will be required to support the Transportation Committee. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding includes an action for TransLink to costshare a Council of Council meeting with Metro Vancouver as part of the consultation on the Regional Transportation Strategy. Two Council of Councils meetings are scheduled for April 20, 2013 and November 23, Incorporating the Regional Transportation Strategy into the agenda for one or both of the Council of Councils could be financially and logistically efficient. Staff will return to the Board with detail information at a future meeting. TRANSPORTATION 13

18 Memorandum of Understanding between Metro Vancouver and TransLink on the Preparation of the Regional Transportation Strategy, including a LongTerm Transportation Funding Strategy Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Page 4 of 4 SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver and TransLink staff have prepared a Memorandum of Understanding to better integrate land use and transportation planning through the preparation of the Regional Transportation Strategy, including a longterm transportation funding strategy. The next step is for both the Metro Vancouver Board and TransLink Board to consider the MOU for endorsement. Staff recommends approving the MOU as presented. Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (Orbit Doc # ) TRANSPORTATION 14

19 DRAFT Memorandum of Understanding Between Metro Vancouver and TransLink on the Regional Transportation Strategy (February 25, 2013) 1.0 Purpose 5.3 Attachment TransLink is updating the long term strategy for the regional transportation system, referred to as the Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS). The RTS will set out overall vision, goals, and directions for transportation and specific initiatives, actions, policies and principles for transportation supply, demand management, land use and financial sustainability, including system pricing. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an agreement between Metro Vancouver and TransLink to expand on the existing cooperative relationship and to partner on ensuring the integration of land use and transportation planning through the preparation of the RTS. Together, the Regional Growth Strategy and the Regional Transportation Strategy will form the coordinated and integrated set of regional policy documents on land use and transportation. 2.0 Background Pursuant to the Local Government Act, the Greater Vancouver Regional District (Metro Vancouver) is responsible for regional planning and growth management on behalf of 22 municipalities, one treaty First Nation, and one electoral area. Pursuant to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (TransLink) is the regional transportation planning agency responsible for the transportation service area currently comprising the same jurisdictions as Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver and TransLink share a commitment to advancing a prosperous and equitable region, maintaining and enhancing the quality of the natural environment, demonstrating leadership on matters of regional significance, and supporting the aspirations of local government authorities to develop complete and prosperous communities. The means to achieving these commitments include ensuring a compact urban area, focusing growth in strategic locations and connecting them with strategic investments in transportation and utility investments, providing opportunities for everyone to enjoy the benefits of improved access, developing sustainable revenue sources, and making fiscally responsible decisions. The region requires land use and transportation strategies to be coordinated to guide these decisions, so that the region moves towards these goals. Regional consensus on transportation investments, policies, actions, and funding solutions is needed. The RGS was adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board and accepted by TransLink as an affected local government in TRANSPORTATION 15

20 DRAFT Memorandum of Understanding Between Metro Vancouver and TransLink on the Regional Transportation Strategy (February 25, 2013) 3.0 Roles Metro Vancouver will: a) Use the RGS and other established Metro Vancouver Board objectives as the basis for preparing land use analysis and policy elements for the RTS. b) Participate in RTS consultation and engagement processes. c) Give consideration to endorsing the RTS. d) Give consideration to enhance the goals of the RGS and bring it into optimal alignment with the new RTS, upon consultation with partners. TransLink will: a) Be the lead coordinating agency for the RTS preparation process; b) Seek the endorsement of the RTS by the Metro Vancouver Board and will work in good faith to achieve this endorsement, including, but not limited to: Cooperate substantively with Metro Vancouver staff on RGSrelevant components of the RTS; Integrate Metro Vancouver s land use analysis and policy elements into the RTS ; Involve Metro Vancouver in RTS consultation and engagement; Engage with and consult the Metro Vancouver Board and committees in the preparation of the RTS; Metro Vancouver and TransLink will: a) Work together and in good faith to achieve a broad regional consensus on the RTS, including, but not limited to: Engage with and consult the interagency staff committees of Metro Vancouver and TransLink Consult with elected officials at Council of Councils, including sharing costs, and at subregional dialogue sessions. b) Ensure mutual respect for each party s legislative requirements and authority. 2 TRANSPORTATION 16

21 5.4 To: Transportation Committee From: Heather McNell, Regional Planning Division Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Date: February 28, 2013 Subject: TransLink Draft Supplemental Plan to the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 RECOMMENDATION That the Board advise the TransLink Board and Mayors Council on Regional Transportation that the Draft Supplemental Plan is acceptable in consideration of the removal of the property tax as a funding source. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide comment on TransLink s Supplemental Plan to the 2013 Base Plan (Attachment 1) and identify a process for advancing regional priorities for the successful integration of land use and transportation planning in the region. BACKGROUND The 2013 Base Plan and Outlook were accepted by the Mayors Council in October At the same time, the Mayors Council passed a resolution requesting TransLink to remove the timelimited property tax as a revenue source if no alternative was identified or confirmed by the end of February The Supplemental Plan was produced in response to this request. Removing a revenue source from the Base Plan requires a Draft Supplemental Plan to be approved by the Mayors Council. The Mayors Council must accept the Draft Supplemental Plan prior to May 1, 2013 in order to avoid the property tax being drawn for TransLink s consultation period for the Supplemental Plan extends from March 1 to March 15, DISCUSSION The 2013 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 following three years (in this case ). The Outlook component identifies the transportation services and major capital projects for years 410 ( ). In the 2013 Base Plan, TransLink chose only to forecast expenditures fundable by approved revenue streams in its Outlook. TransLink is required by legislation to consult with Metro Vancouver on its Base Plan and Supplemental Plan, and both set out the relationship between the major actions planned and regional objectives TRANSPORTATION 17

22 TransLink Draft Supplemental Plan to the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Page 2 of 3 The Supplemental Plan As part of the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan adopted by the Mayors Council in October 2011, it was anticipated that the Province and the Mayors Council would agree on a new $30 million per year funding source to facilitate services and projects in the plan. No funding source was identified in 2012 which resulted in the introduction of a timelimited property tax in the amount of $30 million per year for 2013 and The property tax forms part of the revenue assumptions for the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook. The Mayors Council put forward recommendations on both short and long terms financing options, in part to offset the timelimited property tax, to the Province in early February 2013 (Attachment 3). Shortterm recommendations included a minor sales tax of 0.5%, a vehicle registration fee / levy, regional carbon tax revenues and capturing the uplift on land values adjacent to transit. Long term financing solutions presented focused on planning and implementing a road pricing system for the region. With no solution confirmed by the end of February, TransLink has issued the Supplemental Plan to remove the timelimited property tax. TransLink asserts that the timelimited property tax can be removed with no impact on service levels or programs in 2013 and This will be accomplished through projected increases in revenue projections and cost savings due to improved efficiencies. However, there will be a drawdown in TransLink s cumulative funded surplus to the lowest level that its fiscal policy permits. In 2015, the Supplemental Plan indicates there will be an anticipated $13 million shortfall that cannot be accommodated through projected revenues and continued efficiencies. This shortfall is the result of accounting actions required by the policy governing the cumulative funded surplus. The $13 million shortfall represents less than 1% of total revenues and TransLink is committed to reducing it, but acknowledges that: a) if unsuccessful, that there would be reductions in programs and services and/or an increase in transit fares; and b) the shortfall is projected based on current financial plans. Projected costs and revenues are based on assumptions and forecasts, so the actual shortfall could be higher or lower than $13 million depending on actual conditions. Implications Detailed analysis of the 2013 Base Plan was provided in an October 2012 report to the Board and the potential for the elimination of the timelimited property tax was anticipated in that report (Attachment 2). The Base Plan investment package was seen to be a pragmatic shortterm response to the reality of TransLink s financial situation. In a report to the Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee on October 5, 2012 staff provided comments on the major elements of the Base Plan and their alignment with Regional Growth Strategy goals and objectives. As the programs and services contained in the Base Plan should be unaffected by the Supplemental Plan for 2013 and 2014, there is no major change in terms of RGS alignment. Uncertainty about short and long term financing for TransLink continues and this Supplemental Plan does not alleviate the matter. The issues and risks associated with this lack of secure financing have been identified in both the 2013 Base Plan and by Metro Vancouver staff. The 2013 Base Plan excluded 306,000 transit service hours that were committed to in the 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan. This Supplemental Plan only increases the risks and heightens the need and TRANSPORTATION 18

23 TransLink Draft Supplemental Plan to the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Page 3 of 3 urgency to develop alternative financing mechanisms since further cuts to programs and services are a real possibility in 2015 and beyond. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board advise the TransLink Board and Mayors Council on Regional Transportation that the Draft Supplemental Plan is acceptable in consideration of the removal of the property tax as a funding source. 2. That the Board identify additional information or policy directions to be included in the comments provided to TransLink and other parties. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS In its Draft Supplemental Plan TransLink proposes to eliminate the timelimited property tax. This is consistent with the resolution of Mayors Council. Eliminating the property tax as a funding source will result in a loss of revenue of $30 million in 2013 and 2014 but TransLink asserts it will be able to maintain current services and programming in those years through increased revenues and cost savings related to improved efficiencies. Beginning in 2015 a shortfall in funding is anticipated and will result in either service cuts or increased fares if the shortfall is not recouped in some other fashion. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION On March 1, 2013, Metro Vancouver received the Draft 2013 Supplemental Plan from TransLink requesting that the Board provide comments by March 15. Staff have reviewed the plan and found the amendments consistent with the Base Plan and will not affect transit service for the next two years. It is recommended that the Board approve Alternative 1 to support the 2013 Supplemental Plan as submitted. Attachments and References: 1. TransLink Supplemental Plan (Orbit doc ) 2. Board Report titled Comments on TransLink s Draft 2013 Base Plan and Outlook dated October 1, 2012 (Orbit doc ) 3. Mayors Council on Regional Transportation letter to Mary Polak, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure dated January 31, (Orbit doc ) TRANSPORTATION 19

24 2013 Supplemental Plan DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION Transportation & Financial Supplemental Plan for 2013 to 2015 and Outlook for 2016 to 2022 March 1, 2013 TRANSPORTATION 20

25 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation March 1, 2013 DRAFT 2013 SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN CONTENTS Introduction... 2 Updates to the Strategic Plan... 2 Key Assumptions and Risks... 3 Consultation and Approvals... 3 Conclusion... 4 Appendix A: Financial Tables... 5 TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 1

26 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation March 1, 2013 Introduction TransLink s 2013 Supplemental Plan responds to the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation s request that TransLink not implement the timelimited property tax that is currently in TransLink s Strategic Plan1. The timelimited property tax is an increase of $30 million per year from property tax to be collected in 2013 and Removing a revenue source from the Strategic Plan requires a supplemental plan to be approved by the Mayors Council. The Mayors Council must approve this supplemental plan prior to May 1, 2013 to avoid the timelimited property tax from being drawn in TransLink is also required to adopt a bylaw and advise municipalities of the tax to be collected for 2013 by May 1, In 2012, TransLink continued to achieve further cost savings efficiencies, particularly in the operating companies, and better than budget financial performance. As a result, TransLink is able to remove the timelimited property tax and deliver the programs and services in the 2013 Base Plan through 2013 and However, the remaining expansion anticipated under the 2012 Moving Forward Plan continues to be deferred until such time that funding permits. Similar to the current Strategic Plan, this Supplemental Plan relies on drawing down the cumulative funded surplus to the lowest fiscally responsible level. There remains risk on the horizon. TransLink will continue to respond to these risks as best it can. Updates to the Strategic Plan This supplemental plan outlines changes to financial projections relative to the Strategic Plan (also referred to as the 2013 Base Plan). This document discusses only those elements of the 2013 Base Plan that will be modified. TransLink has just completed an assessment of its financial position to the end of 2012 and this has resulted in some updates to key cost and revenue assumptions of the 2013 Base Plan. The changes were both positive and negative, but overall TransLink ended the year in a slightly favourable position. Positive changes to TransLink s 2013 Base Plan financial position: Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC) operating costs: Additional annual savings are expected due to service efficiencies and salary costs as a result of restructuring, as well as reduced administrative and support costs. British Columbia Rapid Transit Company (BCRTC) costs: Adjustments to depreciation estimates due to delayed capital expenditure. Transit Police costs: Additional savings and adjustments to office lease and maintenance costs, as well as lower legal and labour costs. UPass BC program revenue: Forecast revenues have been revised following finalization of the contract with the Province. Debt repayment: Reduced debt repayment estimates due to the deferral of some capital expenditures. 1 TransLink s current Strategic Plan is the 2013 Base Plan (approved in October 2012). If this Supplemental Plan is approved by the Mayors Council, TransLink s Strategic Plan will be the 2013 Base Plan as modified by the 2013 Supplemental Plan. TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 2

27 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation March 1, 2013 Negative changes to TransLink s 2013 Base Plan financial position: Labour costs: Known contract increases are now included for CMBC. Contingency: To provide for unknowns currently developing (e.g. labour). Interest income: Reductions based on the changes above. The overall favourable result means that TransLink can largely deliver the current Strategic Plan after removing the timelimited property tax. The programs and services planned for 2013 and 2014 can still proceed (subject to risk impacts). However, based on the current forecast, there may be a gap of $13 million in 2015 that will need to be addressed. Over the next two years, TransLink will work to close this gap. If TransLink does not close the gap, there will need to be reductions in programs and services and/or an increase in fare revenue. Appendix A contains the updated financial tables, including: the updated Funded Statement of Operations table; the Incremental Statement of Funded Operations table highlighting the changes from the 2013 Base Plan; and the Incremental Transit Operating Expenditures, showing the changes to operational spending for all transit services. Key Assumptions and Risks Financial plans are based on forecasts and assumptions that are subject to change. These changes could either have a positive or negative impact. For example, there is a risk that, when TransLink applies to the Commissioner for the supplementary fare increase assumed in the 2013 Base Plan, the Commissioner will not approve it. There are also key financial assumptions such as fuel tax revenue, fuel expense, interest rates and transit revenue that, if different from forecast, may materially change TransLink s financial position. A ±1% change in fuel volume could result in a ±$10 million change in TransLink financial position over the period. TransLink will continuously monitor these and make adjustments in expenditures or revenues to protect existing service and maintain assets in a state of good repair within forecast revenues, and where resources permit, to invest further. Consultation and Approvals TransLink will conduct public and stakeholder consultation as part of the development of the 2013 Supplemental Plan, following the requirements of Section 15 of the SCBCTA Act and the Consultation Plan approved by the TransLink Board of Directors. (THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED AFTER CONSULTATION. THIS SECTION WILL HIGHLIGHT KEY FINDINGS AND THEMES THAT EMERGED IN CONSULTATION.) TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 3

28 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation March 1, 2013 Conclusion The 2013 Supplemental Plan proposes changes to the 2013 Base Plan approved in October At the request of the Mayors Council, this plan is the mechanism that enables the Mayors Council to remove the timelimited property tax. TransLink will be able to proceed with the existing program and service commitments for 2013 and 2014, including the expansion in the 2013 Base Plan. TransLink is able to do this as a result of better than expected performance in 2012, achieving further and significant operating efficiencies and by drawing down its cumulative funded surplus. Reductions to programs and services, or an increase in transit fare revenue, may be required in This will be determined through future base plans, however at this point further expansion is not possible without additional funding. The financial plan is based on forecasts and assumptions that are subject to change. If TransLink s financial position improves over the next three years, steps will be taken to implement the remaining priorities for expansion that were set out in the Moving Forward Plan adopted in Our region is growing and our transportation system is no longer on a path to grow with it. Throughout 2013, TransLink will be engaging the region in a dialogue about our transportation future in creating a new Regional Transportation Strategy. We will continue to work with the Mayors Council, Metro Vancouver and the Province to find a path forward, and we invite the public and our stakeholders to take part in conversations about the transportation system we want and how to get there. Until new funding is available, TransLink remains committed to managing the transportation system responsibly, delivering more with less. We will maintain our existing programs and services, continue to deliver valuable services to our customers, keep the region s people and goods moving and do so in an efficient and costeffective way. TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 4

29 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation DRAFT March 1, 2013 Appendix A: Financial Tables Table A1: Funded Statement of Operations Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook Transit Revenues $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 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 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Motor Fuel Tax $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Property Tax $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 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 Timelimited Property Tax $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Taxation Revenues $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Real Estate Revenues $ $ $ 13.0 $ $ 45.0 $ $ 30.0 $ 30.0 $ 25.0 $ $ $ 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 $ 2.1 $ 7.3 $ 10.5 $ 13.6 $ 17.3 $ 16.9 $ 14.2 $ 13.2 $ 13.8 $ 14.3 $ 15.5 Gain on Disposal $ $ 55.9 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenues $ 1,186.4 $ 1,279.6 $ 1,302.0 $ 1,338.7 $ 1,414.4 $ 1,515.8 $ 1,471.1 $ 1,502.2 $ 1,532.0 $ 1,543.5 $ 1,577.3 $ 1,611.9 Roads, Bridges and Bicycles $ 48.6 $ 52.3 $ 46.6 $ 49.4 $ 50.6 $ 48.8 $ 49.9 $ 50.6 $ 51.6 $ 52.7 $ 53.7 $ 54.6 Transit Operations $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TranLink Corporate & Police $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Operating Expenditures $ $ 1,031.6 $ 1,065.5 $ 1,061.7 $ 1,098.8 $ 1,115.7 $ 1,117.7 $ 1,133.5 $ 1,146.7 $ 1,163.8 $ 1,180.5 $ 1,196.1 Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Interest Expense $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Repayments $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items $ (34.2) $ (26.6) $ (50.0) $ (32.1) $ (21.7) $ 30.0 $ (21.2) $ (4.0) $ 11.7 $ (2.7) $ 6.1 $ 21.9 Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment $ $ (11.4) $ (9.9) $ (12.0) $ (10.3) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) Net Service Savings Option $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 Funded Surplus/(Deficit) $ (34.2) $ (38.0) $ (59.9) $ (44.1) $ (19.0) $ 33.0 $ (18.2) $ (1.0) $ 14.7 $ 0.3 $ 9.1 $ 24.9 Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Adjustment for 2012 forecast deficit $ 45.3 Cumulative Funded Surplus $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ The Statement of Operations does not include the results of AirCare and Transportation Property and Casualty Company Inc. ("TPCC") The 2012 budgeted cumulative surplus was based on the 2011 year end cumulative surplus forecast in August of 2011 The forecast reflects the current 2012 year end cumulative surplus forecast TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 5

30 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation DRAFT March 1, 2013 Table A2: Incremental Funded Statement of Operations Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook Transit Revenues $ $ $ 2.8 $ 5.5 $ 5.1 $ 3.9 $ 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 0.9 $ (0.2) $ (1.5) $ (2.8) Toll Revenues $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ User Fees $ $ $ 2.8 $ 5.5 $ 5.1 $ 3.9 $ 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 0.9 $ (0.2) $ (1.5) $ (2.8) Motor Fuel Tax $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Property Tax $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Parking Rights Tax $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Other Taxes $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Timelimited Property Tax $ $ $ (29.0) $ (29.9) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Taxation Revenues $ $ $ (29.0) $ (29.9) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Real Estate Revenues $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Senior Government Contributions $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Interest Revenue $ $ $ (0.1) $ (1.0) $ (2.0) $ (2.4) $ (2.4) $ (2.4) $ (2.5) $ (2.6) $ (2.7) $ (3.0) Gain on Disposal $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenues $ $ $ (26.3) $ (25.4) $ 3.1 $ 1.5 $ 0.6 $ (0.4) $ (1.6) $ (2.8) $ (4.2) $ (5.8) Roads, Bridges and Bicycles $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Transit Operations $ $ $ (4.3) $ 2.7 $ 4.4 $ 4.7 $ 4.8 $ 4.8 $ 4.9 $ 4.9 $ 4.9 $ 5.0 TranLink Corporate & Police $ $ $ $ (1.6) $ (1.5) $ (1.5) $ (1.5) $ (1.5) $ (1.7) $ (1.7) $ (1.7) $ (1.8) Operating Expenditures $ $ $ (4.3) $ 1.1 $ 2.9 $ 3.2 $ 3.2 $ 3.3 $ 3.1 $ 3.2 $ 3.2 $ 3.2 Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation $ $ $ (22.0) $ (26.5) $ 0.2 $ (1.7) $ (2.6) $ (3.7) $ (4.7) $ (5.9) $ (7.5) $ (9.0) Interest Expense $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Repayments $ $ $ (10.3) $ (10.3) $ (10.3) $ (10.3) $ (10.3) $ (10.3) $ (10.3) $ (10.3) $ (10.3) $ (10.3) Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items $ $ $ (11.7) $ (16.2) $ 10.5 $ 8.6 $ 7.6 $ 6.6 $ 5.6 $ 4.3 $ 2.8 $ 1.3 Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment $ $ $ 5.0 $ (12.0) $ (10.3) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) Net Service Savings Option $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 Funded Surplus/(Deficit) $ $ $ (6.7) $ (28.2) $ 13.2 $ 11.6 $ 10.6 $ 9.6 $ 8.6 $ 7.3 $ 5.8 $ 4.3 Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus $ $ $ 20.0 $ 13.3 $ (14.9) $ (1.7) $ 9.9 $ 20.5 $ 30.1 $ 38.7 $ 46.0 $ 51.8 Adjustment for 2012 forecast deficit $ 20.0 Cumulative Funded Surplus $ $ 20.0 $ 13.3 $ (14.9) $ (1.7) $ 9.9 $ 20.5 $ 30.1 $ 38.7 $ 46.0 $ 51.8 $ 56.1 The Statement of Operations does not include the results of AirCare and Transportation Property and Casualty Company Inc. ("TPCC") The 2012 budgeted cumulative surplus was based on the 2011 year end cumulative surplus forecast in August of 2011 The forecast reflects the current 2012 year end cumulative surplus forecast TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 6

31 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation DRAFT March 1, 2013 Table A3: Incremental Transit Operating Expenditures Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook Bus $ $ $ (3.0) $ 4.0 $ 5.7 $ 6.0 SkyTrain Expo/Millennium Lines & West Coast Express $ $ $ (1.3) $ (1.3) $ (1.3) $ (1.0) SkyTrain Canada Line $ $ $ $ $ $ SkyTrain Evergreen Line $ $ $ $ $ $ Capital Infrastructure Contributions $ $ $ $ $ $ Property Taxes, Rentals, Fare Media $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Operations $ $ $ (4.3) $ 2.7 $ 4.4 $ 5.0 TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 7

32 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation DRAFT March 1, 2013 Table A4: Statement of Operations Actual Budget Forecasts Outlook Transit Revenues $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 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 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Motor Fuel Tax $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Property Tax $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 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 Timelimited Property Tax $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Taxation Revenues $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Real Estate Revenues $ $ $ 13.0 $ $ 45.0 $ $ 30.0 $ 30.0 $ 25.0 $ $ $ Senior Government Contributions $ 82.3 $ 82.4 $ 85.7 $ 94.5 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 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 $ 27.5 $ 36.7 $ 43.8 $ 49.5 $ 58.6 $ 60.7 $ 58.9 $ 57.2 $ 61.6 $ 64.9 $ 69.6 Gain on Disposal $ $ 55.9 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenues $ 1,292.5 $ 1,391.3 $ 1,420.8 $ 1,470.2 $ 1,560.8 $ 1,679.3 $ 1,648.8 $ 1,691.8 $ 1,717.9 $ 1,726.3 $ 1,760.5 $ 1,795.6 Roads, Bridges and Bicycles $ 97.4 $ $ $ 85.4 $ 75.1 $ 69.2 $ 70.3 $ 71.0 $ 72.0 $ 73.1 $ 74.1 $ 75.1 Transit Operations $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ TransLink Corporate & Police $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Operating Expenditures $ 1,013.7 $ 1,097.8 $ 1,138.3 $ 1,109.3 $ 1,127.2 $ 1,137.6 $ 1,139.5 $ 1,153.9 $ 1,167.1 $ 1,184.2 $ 1,200.9 $ 1,216.5 Surplus Before Interest and Depreciation $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Interest Expense $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Depreciation Expense $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Surplus/(Deficit) before Other Items $ (52.2) $ (42.6) $ (74.4) $ (22.9) $ 14.3 $ 82.4 $ 35.7 $ 55.5 $ 64.5 $ 45.5 $ 52.0 $ 70.3 Provision for Contingency Fund Adjustment $ $ (11.4) $ (9.9) $ (12.0) $ (10.3) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) $ (10.0) Net Service Savings Option $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 $ 13.0 Surplus/(Deficit) before Funding Adjustments $ (52.2) $ (54.0) $ (84.3) $ (34.9) $ 17.0 $ 85.4 $ 38.7 $ 58.5 $ 67.5 $ 48.5 $ 55.0 $ 73.3 Funding Adjustments $ 18.0 $ 16.0 $ 24.4 $ (9.2) $ (36.0) $ (52.4) $ (56.9) $ (59.6) $ (52.9) $ (48.2) $ (45.9) $ (48.4) Funded Surplus/(Deficit) $ (34.2) $ (38.0) $ (59.9) $ (44.1) $ (19.0) $ 33.0 $ (18.2) $ (1.0) $ 14.7 $ 0.3 $ 9.1 $ 24.9 Opening Cumulative Funded Surplus $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Adjustment for 2012 forecast deficit $ 45.3 Cumulative Funded Surplus $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ The Statement of Operations does not include the results of AirCare and Transportation Property and Casualty Company Inc. ("TPCC") The 2012 budgeted cumulative surplus was based on the 2011 year end cumulative surplus forecast in August of 2011 The forecast reflects the current 2012 year end cumulative surplus forecast TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 8

33 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation DRAFT March 1, 2013 Table A5: Assets and Liabilities for the years ending 31 Dec ,841 81,431 40,617 7, , ,251 83,874 41,836 7, , ,634 86,390 43,091 8, , ,753 88,982 44,383 8, , ,561 91,651 45,715 8, , ,473 94,401 47,086 8, , ,315 97,233 48,499 9, , , ,150 49,954 9, , , ,154 51,452 9, , , ,249 52,996 10, , , ,436 54,586 10, , ,838 45, ,855 4,601,578 5,930, ,141 45, ,899 4,778,077 6,159, ,682 44, ,536 4,922,472 6,385, ,473 44, ,370 4,988,237 6,577, ,524 43,298 1,004,945 5,017,043 6,710, ,848 41,549 1,031,082 5,037,496 6,720, ,456 38,162 1,032,480 4,953,437 6,577, ,362 37,100 1,132,380 4,821,862 6,584, ,578 36,612 1,205,901 4,684,378 6,531, ,119 34,859 1,303,509 4,524,796 6,504, ,999 31,168 1,321,120 4,365,887 6,402, , , ,644 89, , ,827 90, , ,793 90, , ,727 90, , ,839 90, , ,134 90, , ,618 90, , ,297 90, , ,176 90, , ,261 90, , , ,858 1,247, ,474 1,032,200 2,616,132 81,244 1,304, ,396 1,044,515 2,871,686 89,369 1,353, ,318 1,050,832 3,033,393 98,306 1,378, ,240 1,050,370 3,210, ,136 1,302, ,162 1,048,478 3,250, ,950 1,207, ,084 1,045,014 3,271, ,845 1,100, ,006 1,039,834 3,203, , , ,928 1,032,805 3,242, , , ,850 1,023,759 3,249, , , ,772 1,012,534 3,277, , , , ,969 3,208,557 5,887,544 6,202,770 6,410,727 6,604,388 6,559,968 6,475,384 6,291,248 6,217,757 6,116,385 6,034,383 5,859, , , , , , , ,297 6,710,376 6,720,833 6,577,747 6,584,296 6,531,414 6,504,387 6,402,323 thousands Assets Current assets Cash & Short Term investments Accounts receivable Supplies inventory Prepaid expenses Longterm investments Debt reserve Fund Debt sinking fund Capital assets Total Assets Liabilities and Fund Balances Current liabilities Other Short term borrowing Accounts payable and accrued liabilities Total Current Liabilities Employee future benefits Deferred government transfer SkyTrain Canada Line Deferred concessionaire credits Golden Ears Bridge Contractor liability Longterm debt Total Liabilities Fund balances Total Liabilities and Fund Balances 21 42,537 5,930,081 (43,404) 6,159,367 (25,588) 6,385,138 (27,012) 6,577,376 TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 9

34 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation DRAFT March 1, 2013 Table A6: Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows Budget for the years ending 31 Dec. thousands 2012 FORECASTS OUTLOOK Cash provided by (used for): Operations: Excess of revenue over expenses Items not involving cash: Amortization of capital assets Net change in contractor liability Add back implied interest charge on Real Estate purchases (float) Amortization of deferred government transfers Amortization of bond issue costs Amortization of debt issue costs Amortization of Deferred Concessionaire credits Employee future benefit expense Gain on disposal of Real Estate Items not involving cash Changes in noncash working capital: (Increase)/decrease in accounts receivable (Increase)/decrease in supplies inventory (Increase)/decrease in prepaid expenses Increase/(decrease) in accounts payable and accrued liabilities Employee future benefit contributions Changes in noncash working capital (56,492) (85,940) 17, ,421 95,040 41,050 80,040 48,490 54,975 73, ,911 66, ,771 67, ,727 68, ,098 68,353 (1,424) 223,624 68, ,710 68, ,077 67, ,780 67, ,384 66, ,625 66, ,458 65,428 (60,855) 1, (23,078) 0 (46,535) 103,075 (66,246) 1, (23,078) 0 (8,270) 148,542 (75,208) 1, (23,078) 0 (48,500) 116,551 (87,411) 1,003 0 (23,078) 0 (25,000) 143,965 (99,085) (23,078) 0 (199,100) (28,566) (110,857) (23,078) 0 (77,850) 90,747 (121,865) (23,078) 0 (1,000) 162,629 (118,762) (23,078) 0 (1,000) 166,851 (111,928) (23,078) ,682 (109,503) (23,078) ,496 (106,511) (23,078) ,522 (2,372) (1,183) (224) 5,430 6,714 8,366 (2,443) (1,219) (230) 5,593 7,386 9,087 (2,516) (1,255) (237) 5,761 8,124 9,877 (2,592) (1,293) (244) 5,934 8,937 10,742 (2,669) (1,331) (252) 6,112 9,831 11,690 (2,750) (1,371) (259) 6,295 10,814 12,729 (2,832) (1,413) (267) 6,484 11,895 13,867 (2,917) (1,455) (275) 6,679 13,084 15,116 (3,004) (1,499) (283) 6,879 14,393 16,486 (3,095) (1,544) (292) 7,085 15,832 17,988 (3,187) (1,590) (300) 7,298 17,415 19,635 54,949 71, , , , , , , , , ,450 (5,074) (2,995) 55,140 (348,693) (5,303) (138) 7,370 (352,370) (5,541) 1,193 45,300 (334,922) (5,791) (601) 12,250 (263,112) (6,051) 1, ,900 (225,230) (6,324) 1,749 80,000 (256,313) (6,608) 3,387 1,000 (156,018) (6,906) 1,062 1,000 (110,206) (7,216) (110,900) (7,541) 1,753 0 (93,042) (7,880) 3,692 0 (94,549) (301,622) (350,441) (293,970) (257,254) (57,888) (180,888) (158,240) (115,049) (117,628) (98,831) (98,738) 128,740 (54,706) 277,152 (33,467) 30,053 (25,656) (93,363) 228,752 (6,236) 123,112 (55,251) 298,520 (37,939) 35,957 (29,392) (100,609) 228,161 (8,683) 124,128 (61,942) 241,474 (72,230) 71,249 (33,258) (109,629) 151,109 (10,255) 112,676 (68,815) 209,805 (23,487) 21,208 (35,852) (112,189) 93,091 (13,254) 23,705 (70,168) 146,108 (93,665) 92,586 (41,313) (115,849) (71,849) (12,820) 15,144 (71,565) 164,603 (131,940) 131,193 (43,760) (113,570) (62,715) (10,092) 15,424 (72,998) 97,864 (156,266) 153,679 (44,695) (110,382) (127,466) (9,064) 16,115 (74,450) 100,603 (52,529) 51,938 (44,065) (107,773) (119,224) (8,652) 15,002 (75,942) 102,244 (87,593) 86,520 (47,816) (112,226) (128,463) (6,691) 10,431 (77,461) 103,789 (68,859) 66,224 (50,638) (113,194) (136,400) (6,251) 12,082 (78,993) 93,728 (156,697) 154,261 (54,108) (117,764) (153,743) Investing: Decrease/(increase) in longterm investments Decrease/(increase) in debt reserve fund deposits Net Proceed/(Purchase) for Real Estate Transactions Purchase of capital assets (excluding MRN) Financing: Shortterm debt repayments Government transfers received for capital additions Golden Ears Bridge contractor liability payment Bonds issued Bonds matured Sinking Funds Maturities Sinking Fund interest Sinking Fund payments Increase/(decrease) in cash (17,922) (50,591) (10,880) 30,807 (45,087) (68,159) 27,734 24,228 29,969 Cash, beginning of period 405, , , , , , , , , , ,843 Cash, end of period 387, , , , , , , , , , ,812 TRANSPORTATION 30 1,383 (434) 2013 SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 10

35 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation DRAFT March 1, 2013 Table A7: Borrowing Limits $ Millions 2012 Opening Gross Direct Borrowing FORECASTS OUTLOOK Closing Net Direct Borrowing 2,371 (32) ,705 (648) (45) 2,012 2,705 (43) ,961 (742) (45) 2,174 2,961 (80) ,123 (814) (44) 2,266 3,123 (33) 210 3,300 (940) (45) 2,315 3,300 (106) 146 3,340 (1,005) (43) 2,292 3,340 (144) 165 3,361 (1,031) (42) 2,288 3,361 (166) 98 3,293 (1,032) (38) 2,223 3,293 (61) 101 3,333 (1,132) (37) 2,163 3,333 (96) 102 3,339 (1,206) (37) 2,097 3,339 (75) 104 3,368 (1,304) (35) 2,029 3,368 (163) 94 3,299 (1,321) (31) 1,946 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 Retirements/Other Short term borrowings Borrowing in Yr Capital Closing Gross Direct Borrowing Less: Sinking funds Less: Debt Reserve Funds Reconciliation of Borrowing During Year to Annual Capital Expenditures: Captial Expenditures (including MRN) Less: Sr Gov't Contributions Less: Other Contributions Net Expenditures Add: Grossup for Debt Reserve Fund Net Borrowing amount for capital 438 (163) (0) (150) (0) (173) (0) (104) (104) (115) (79) (30) (29) (10) (21) TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 11

36 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation DRAFT March 1, 2013 Table A8: Capital Cash Flows Projects Approved and Proposed FORECASTS $ Thousands 2012 Projects Approved or Underway OUTLOOK TOTAL 438, , , , ,179, ,010 46,000 10,741 14,293 1,456 69,617 6,204 2,925 1,322 72,579 6,711 12,501 2,056 99,963 14,300 10,303 3,097 65,620 13,460 8,202 2,026 18,929 14,407 1,260 15,564 16,720 1,475 8,202 2,524 2,196 9,990 13,671 1, , ,000 27,755 7, , ,000 17,744 5, ,000 18,505 1,296 1,106 11,000 20,176 4,378 1,000 4,000 51, , , , , , ,142 95,577 17,526 28,431 84, ,925 2,686 2,059 3,020 3,000 10, , , , , ,955 92,659 96,927 80,879 84,676 1,017, Rapid Transit Other 16,976 7, ,158 9, ,667 29,664 7, ,500 10,269 7,994 8, ,606 5,597 4, , ,563 1,311 8, , , , ,389 76, ,960 15,000 Subtotal Rapid Transit 24,620 65,835 44,612 27,375 14,600 6,676 12,874 9,208 7,501 7, ,557 Commuter Rail ,820 24,230 Bike Program ,353 12,503 14,198 16,014 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19, ,365 Subtotal Roads 12,503 14,198 16,014 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19,950 19, ,365 Bridges 75,000 75, ,000 Marine 2,000 1,000 1,000 3,575 2,500 10,075 Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Conventional Replace Custom Replace Community Shuttle Replace Non Revenue Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Exchanges Depots Infrast Facilities Equipment IT / ITS Other Subtotal Transit Rapid Transit Rapid Transit Vehicles Non Revenue Rapid Transit Wayside Power Propulsion Rapid Transit Station & Station area Upgrades & Programs Rapid Transit Infrast Rapid Transit Facilities Rapid Transit Equipment Rapid Transit Evergreen Line Roads Roads Roads MRN and Bike Capital Rehabilitation Program Other IT Total Gross Cost 9,685 5,643 6,548 3,029 4,045 4,386 4,673 4,765 4,662 2,616 50, , , , , , , , , , , ,023 2,837,993 (115,530) (47,549) (117) (119,313) (30,229) (162) (144,027) (29,157) (1) (86,363) (17,209) (100,892) (2,744) (113,014) (1,810) (78,554) (30,002) (29,056) (163,196) (149,704) (173,184) (103,572) (103,637) (114,823) (78,554) 275, , , , , ,939 97,864 Contribution Fed Prov Other Total Contribution Total Net Cost TRANSPORTATION 32 (30,002) 100,603 (29,056) 102,244 (9,653) (21,295) (9,653) (21,295) 103,789 93,728 (847,698) (128,698) (280) (976,677) 1,861, SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 12

37 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation DRAFT March 1, 2013 Table A9: Service Hours FORECASTS Thousands of Hours Conventional Bus B OUTLOOK ,431 4,387 4,376 4,335 4,334 4,333 4,330 4,319 4,320 4,313 4, Total Bus 4,996 4,955 4,970 4,988 4,987 4,986 4,983 4,973 4,973 4,966 4,961 SkyTrain E&M 1,171 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1,126 1, Community Shuttle SkyTrain Canada Line SkyTrain Evergreen Line Total Rapid Transit SeaBus West Coast Express Custom Total Service Hours ,367 1,322 1,322 1,322 1,391 1,460 1,460 1,460 1,460 1,460 1, ,013 6,927 6,942 6,961 7,029 7,096 7,093 7,083 7,083 7,076 7,071 TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 13

38 2013 Transportation and Financial Supplemental Plan Draft for Consultation DRAFT March 1, 2013 Table A10: Key Performance Indicators Key Performance Metric* Actual results Budget Forecasts Avg Annual Growth Conventional System Boarding per Service Hour Annual change Operating Cost per Revenue Passenger $4.03 Annual change Operating Cost per Revenue Passenger (without energy) 4.4% 1 3.2% $3.77 Annual change Average Fare per Revenue Passenger 3.4% $1.89 Annual change Cost Recovery (all Transit Revenue) 1 Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km All 1 Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km All (without energy) 1 Annual change $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 3.9% 11.2% 6.0% 1.2% 52.6% 49.3% 52.7% 55.7% 56.5% 2.0% 1.8% 2.3% 0.2% $ % 6.3% $ % $ % 4.5% $ % $ % 6.8% $ % $ % 5.8% $ % $ % 0.2% $ % $ % $ % 6.4% 2.5% $ % $5.14 Annual change 3.3% 48.3% $5.50 Annual change % 2.8% 2.6% $ % 2.8% $ % 2.5% Access Transit Boarding per Service Hour 2.61 Annual change Operating Cost per Revenue Passenger 5.4% $33.17 Annual change Operating Cost per Total Vehicle Km 2.6% $4.66 Annual change Operating Cost per Service Hour 1.3% $78.38 Annual change 2.5% % $ % $ % $ % % $ % $ % $ % % $ % $ % $ % % $ % $ % $ % $ % 0.4% $ % 1.5% $ % 1.0% 2.1% $82.32 $83.12 $ % 1.0% 2.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1 Operating cost exclude one time cost of $16M for Compass card and $4M for relocation in 2013 and $11M for Evergreen Line in 2015 TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN page 14

39 Section E 3.1 Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Date: October 11, 2012 To: From: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Finance Committee 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 twoyear timelimited 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; 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. TRANSPORTATION 35

40 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 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 Source: TransLink TRANSPORTATION 36

41 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 UPass and expansion of the Frequent Transit Network (Millennium Line, Canada Line, bus service expansion) successfully attracted previously cardependent 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 cardependent 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 longterm 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 ( ). The outlook component identifies the transportation services and major capital projects for years 4 to 10 ( ). 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 TRANSPORTATION 37

42 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 timelimited 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 timelimited 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 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 costsaving efficiencies and $51 million in revenueincreasing 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 10year 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. TRANSPORTATION 38

43 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 5 of 12 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 UPass 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 backup plan in case the alternative permanent funding source could not be found and enacted by 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 timelimited 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 shortterm 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 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 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: TRANSPORTATION 39

44 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 Key Funding Assumptions Evergreen Line Bus and SeaBus Service Hour Increases Rapid Transit Station Upgrades, Pedestrian, cycling facilities in station areas Major Road Network and Bike upgrade programs Total 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan Motor fuel tax increase Timelimited property tax increase in 2013, 2014 only New supplemental fare increase in Base Plan and Outlook Motor fuel tax increase Timelimited property tax increase in 2013 and 2014 only New supplemental fare increase in 2014 Shortfall from 2012 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan N/A 1 Additional Funding Required in N/A Funded Funded N/A N/A +415,000 service hours: White Rock to Langley local bus Highway 1 rapid bus King George Boulevard BLine SeaBus upgrade to Frequent Transit Network status Other routes Main Street CommercialBroadway Metrotown New Westminster Surrey Central Lonsdale Quay Ped/cycle integration in Evergreen Line station areas +$10 million for the MRN upgrade program ($20 million) +$3 million for the Bike upgrade program ($6 million) +109,000 service hours, inclusive of: White Rock to Langley local bus (implemented April 2012) Partial Highway 1 rapid bus (scaled back service in offpeak) Partial King George Boulevard BLine (terminates in Newton) Other routes, such as increase in early evening SeaBus service Main Street CommercialBroadway Metrotown New Westminster Scott Road Surrey Central JoyceCollingwood Existing upgrade program funding folded into MRN Operations, Maintenance, Rehabilitation program (municipalities can apply to divert OMR funds to upgrades) Shortfall of 306,000 service hours including: No full Highway 1 rapid bus No full King George Boulevard BLine to South Surrey/White Rock Postponed SeaBus upgrade to Frequent Transit Network level Other routes No upgrades to Lonsdale Quay Reduced provision of pedestrian and cycling facilities integration in Evergreen Line station areas No restoration of Major Road Network and Bike upgrade programs to pre2010 levels $72.8 million (operating) + $4.9 million (capital) $0.7 million $2.2 million $5.9 million $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 TRANSPORTATION 40

45 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 7 of 12 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 BLine and Highway 1 Rapid Bus The King George Boulevard BLine 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 offpeak service will be 30minute headways. This will be a significant disincentive for drivers to switch over to transit when commuting at irregular hours and for nonwork 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 wellmaintained 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 TRANSPORTATION 41

46 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 8 of 12 to be built, or existing ones rightsized, 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 userbased 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 decisionmakers 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 BLine 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 offpeak 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 transitoriented 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 transitoriented 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 finetuning 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 transitoriented. Students, carless commuters and seniors (the fastest growing demographic group) living in transitpoor 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. TRANSPORTATION 42

47 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 9 of 12 This report does not speculate whether a future supplemental plan would be prepared having the singular purpose to remove the timelimited 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 longlist of feasible revenue sources. These discussions ended abruptly in early 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 nearterm 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 nearterm 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 revenueneutral 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). TRANSPORTATION 43

48 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 10 of 12 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 timelimited property tax increase in 2013 and 2014 (cumulative $60 million). Such a shift from the timelimited 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 $380 million $390 million $30/tonne in 2013 and 2014 Estimated Revenues $410 million $460 million $35/tonne in 2013 $40/tonne in 2014 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 tripartite 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 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 nontransportation) 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 highlevel 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 44

49 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 11 of 12 Transportation Strategy to become a joint project of the two regional agencies to ensure real integration of land use and transportation planning and investment decisionmaking. 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 mediumterm and longterm solution for funding the regional transportation system is one where transportation userbased 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 roaduser fees (e.g. tolls or distancebased 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 shortterm 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 transitoriented 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. TRANSPORTATION 45

50 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 Base Plan and Outlook prepared by TransLink, September 16, 2012 (Doc. # ) Base Plan and Outlook Milestones and Decision Points (Doc. # ). 3. Evaluation of Major Investment Element relative to the Regional Growth Strategy (Doc. # ). 4. Recent Metro Vancouver Board Resolutions related to Property Tax Increases for Transportation (Doc. # ) TRANSPORTATION 46

51 Tel Canada TRANSPORTATION 47 being of the region, positively impacting the affordability of families. The Mayors Council A regional transportation system, including transit should contribute to the economic well that emerged. approach to sustainable funding for TransUnk. A vision for transportation In Metro Vancouver staff in your Ministry. The workshop was productive and this letter summarizes the consensus technical analysis of possible revenue sources undertaken by Translink staff with support from and possibilities for nearand longterm funding solutions were discussed, working from the On January 18, 2013 a dedicated workshop of the Mayors Council was held to develop an Vision and new funding sources. 2. Review of previous funding options and any other potential and preferred funding 5. The establishment of a clear schedule and milestones to guide Implementation of the mechanisms 4. A formal request from the Mayors Council to the Province concerning specific funding funding sources 3. The Mayors Council and Transunk s engaging the public on the Vision and potential ability for Transtink to share In the local benefit arising from transit investment avoiding potential negative effects on the provincial economy affordability for families having regional sourcing sources based on their 1. Development of a succinct vision for public transportation in Metro Vancouver Council concerning the following Issues: Your January 8, 2013 letter to the Mayor? Council requests agreement from the Mayors RE: Maven Council Comments for Policy Dear Minister Polak: Victoria, BC V8W 9E2 P0 Box 9055 Stn Prov Govt Honourable Mary P01* MLA Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Via I January 31, Fax Regional Transportation Mayors Council on

52 ette to Minister PoOL January Page 2 of 9 believes these revenue sources should be regionally based and along with the Provincial government will certainly take responsibility for approving revenue sources and communicating them to the public. 1. ment of a succinct vision or pubijc trans ortatlon in Metro Va ncouver A broadly supported and shared vision for public transportation in Metro Vancouver already exists. It is embodied in both the Provincial Transit Plan and in TransLink s current longterm strategy, Transport It is further emphasized in the September 2010 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Sustainable Cities signed between the Province of British Columbia and the Mayors Council. Furthermore the Mayors Council s May 2011 Statement of Principles for Long Term Funding received unanimous endorsement from the Mayors Council and is completely consistent with the other two documents. The shared vision is for managed urban growth, supported by a transportation system with a greater emphasis on walking, cycling and public transit. TransLink s strategy is being refreshed as Transport 2045, to be submitted to the Mayors Council by August 1, We fully expect that this update, when finalized, will show that the common vision endures. Typically, vision statements do not pinpoint funding sources that will pay for the infrastructure and services. They generally assume that these will be affordable and that they will, in due course, attract funding. TransLink and the Mayors Council have on a number of occasions sought to implement these broadlysupported visions, but have consistently come up against the same barriers: lack of legislated funding tools; or the inability to implement curreritlylegislated sources, such as the vehicle registration fee. Both the 2009 On Track Supplemental Plan, and the 2011 Moving Forward Supplemental Plan, were based on the regional visions, consulted on extensively and broadly supported, but were challenged by the same funding constraints we experience today. For the past four years our priorities for this region have remained the same construction of the Evergreen Line, upgrading of the bus and rail transit system, expansion of the frequent transit network. strategic road investment to support the economy, and cycling investment and construction of rapid transit (particularly in Surrey and the Broadway Corridor). In 2011, the Mayors Council approved the Moving Forward Supplemental Plan to build on the investment in transportation, including expansion in transit, which occurred in Metro Vancouver between 2005 and This investment was to support livable communities and make sure that in the near term the region would be able to move towards the Transport 2040 Vision. Today the realities for TransLink are that: (a) the existing level of transit service is fully funded from established sources, including a recently lowered expectation for motor fuel tax, but (2) it is pro inn e trerneo df cr It o fund tb e pa ison of tranet nf 1trJftr re and 5cr ces D eeo TRANSPORTATION 48

53 TRANSPORTATION 49 following brief comments on the future of each: and Initiating legislation, and require more time. There are seven significant sources of revenue currently available for TransLink and we offer the could be in place in less than two years; longterm being those that require broad public debate your request that we differentiate between near and longterm: nearterm being those that The Mayors Council Is advancing discussion on five preferred funding sources, and acknowledge 2. Review of arevious nearterm fundkw ootlons Council. forward for good faith negotiations between the parties. A May 2011 Statement of Principles for Long Term FundIng, consistent with the MOU, was unanimously endorsed by the Mayors captured the shared vision for Metro Vancouver s transportation system. It also laid out a path In summary, the September 2010 MOU between the Province and the Mayors Council not only to the public. Furthermore, the Mayors Council embraces the abovementioned four considerations listed in your letter. In particular, we concur that new funding sources should be regionally based, and along with the Province we will take responsibility for approving them and communicating them reached on the rates of existing taxes and fares, so little or no more funding can be squeezed sources is essential for TransLlnk not only to realize Its part of the longterm vision, but even to keep up with urban growth In the near and mediumterm. There is a consensus on the Mayors Council that economic and political limits have been from established sources The Mayors Council has concluded that access to new funding RapId Bus project; extending the IcIng George Boulevard BLine to White Roclq and restoring Plan remains unfunded. These unfunded initiatives Include: Increasing bus service to reduce notably the Evergreen Une, HIghway 1 Rapid Bus service, and station upgrades, much of the toward the longterm vision. While some of the Moving Forward Plan has advanced, most priorities laid out most recently in the Moving Forward Plan that would move the region overcrowding, accommodate population growth and meet demand from the UPass BC Program; extending Sea Bus service on Sundays and holidays; fully Implementing the Highway 1 funding for cydlng and Major Road Network needs. Due to funding challenges, Transtink has only been able to advance a portion of the nearterm Capital, are below levels considered desirable. Also, TransUnk s capital contributions to municipalities on the Major Road Network, and Bike the levels of service envisioned for a more transitoriented region. up with urban growth, and (3) it is proving impossible to fund expansion of the system to reach Letter to Minister Polak January 31, 2013 Page 3 of 9

54 L.etter to Minister Poia.k January 31, ) Fares There is an a.ffdrdability ceiling on transit fares before they become prohibitive and decrease ridership; we are likely very close to that limit. 2) Property Tax The Mayors Council has accepted property tax as a cormfunding source. providing it is capped at current levels (including the legislated annual inflation increment). 3) Parking Tax Already at maximum and should be capped to inflationary increase only 4) Hydra Tax * Supported as legacy funding source. 5) Advertising Supported as legacy funding source. 6) Provincial Fuel Tax Not sustainable long term; gross revenue has possibly already peaked; possibly turn down or phase Out as future revenue sources come on line. 7) Federal Fuel Tax The federal gas tax within the Metro Vancouver region goes directly toward transit and we support that continuance. nal Vehicle Re istration Fee In 1999, the TransLink and Metro Vancouver Board approved the establishment of a vehicle registration fee. It was authorized under the then governing SCBCTA Act but has never been implemented, as it requires provincial legislation for a collection mechanism. The Mayors Council has agreed that a regional vehicle registration fee linked to the type of vehicle is the preferred funding source in the near4erm. An annual fee applied to all motor vehicles based on vehicle emissions or engine size recognizes that all vehicles impose a cost on the transportation system and the environment. It also recognizes that motor vehicle users benefit greatly from broadbased transportation improvements. A variable rate structure encourages the purchase of lowpoliuting, efficient vehicles, which is consistent with provincial and regional air quality objectives (average of $38/year would yield $50 million annual revenue). TransLink has undertaken public consultation and market research on a regional vehicle registration fee a number of times over the last four years. We believe there is sufficient public support for this revenue measure and are prepared, as the Mayors Council, to advance it to the public for consideration and approval. The steps to be taken to implement would be: Articulate and communicate clear objectives of the fee (application of funds and rationale) Design the vehicle registration fee specifics to meet the objectives Reach agreement on how the fee will be collected in coordination with ICBC (MV Act amendment) Supplement with further public consultation. TRANSPORTATION 50

55 residents and nonresidents (commuters and visitors) for services currently consumed but for governments will be facina. Ihe provincial government in British Columbia should give Metro fairer distribution of taxation revenues, and to help fund revenue shortfalls that municipal recommended a general sales tax to expand the range of local taxes and enable taxation of both residents and nonresidents. The technical analysis has demonstrated that even a modest State or provincial consumer sales tax dedicated toward puhlic transit is a very common funding transit removes ow occupancy vehicles from roads and increases capacity for goods movement. does not support the Vehicle Registration Fee, this funding source should be removed by funding source until a longer.term source can supplant it, We are requesting that the Province Recommendation One: consultation and the Mayors Council confirming its support for the measure. commit to support the full enabling of the Vehicle Registration Fee, subject to further Letter to Minister Polak January The Mayors Council supports the introduction of the Vehicle Registration Fee as a nearterm Legislative amendments are required to ensure enforcement and cost effective collection ci the fee: there is not a need to set up a separate collection process or infrastructure, If the Province legislation and other funding sources should be focused on. source throu hoot the world. Most of the goods and services delivered within the region are logistics dependent on efficient movement of both goods and people. Investment in public Metro Vancouver s nonuse of consumer sales tax for transit funding places us in the minority in this respect. An ndependent report commissioned by Metro Vancouver in 2010, entitled Prncipies and Best Practices Funding, for Fincincina, and Cost Sharing Metro Vancouver s Municipal Services increase of 0.5%, collected within Metro Vancouver, could yield on the order of $250 million annually. Professor Kitchen (the coauthor) stated in the report: Municipal governments across Canada are facing significant infrastructure fundinu challenges, and revision to the tax distribution system should be contemplated to achieve a Vancouver permission to introduce a local personal income tax and/or a local general sales tax with the tax rate set locally and the tax aiggybacked onto the provincial personal income tax and/or the harmonized sales tax. (Page 7,1 Giving Metro Vancouver direct access to the provincial general soles tax with tax rates set locally and pgqybucked onto the provincial tax base has a number of advantages under the benefits based cirinciples of municipal government finance. Metro s access to additional taxes con be justified on the grounds that Metro Vancouver should be able to tax hotti which the latter does not currently pay. Second, these taxes would expand the range of local taxes, thus providing Metro with a more elastic revenue base and increased flexibility and TRANSPORTATION 51

56 lettr to Minister Polak January 31, more autonomy in decision making. Third, given that no single tax can be entirelyfair and distortion free, the opportunity for Metro to impose more than one tax on its permanent residents may prove to be beneficial, especially since no single tax is able to achieve all important social and economic policy objectives a range of taxes has greater potentialfor doing this. (Page 27,1 More recently, Professor Kitchen has recommended a regional sales tax as an appropriate revenue source in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area to expand and improve regional transportation. The Mayors Council realizes that provincial sales tax funds a significant part of the provincial government revenue stream and acknowledges any concern at compromising this tax room. However, with the recent reduction of the sales tax and the return to the PST, there is an opportunity to permanently fund both BC Transit (rest of province> and TransLink <Metro Vancouver> from even a modest PST allocation. There is no suggestion that areas outside of Metro Vancouver contribute to TransLink. Recommendation Two: The Mayors Council supports a OS% regional sales tax toward public transit within the region A regional carbon tax could be implemented in the near term and would be straightforward to administer. It is also fairly reliable given its broad base and will encourage people to drive less and use fuelefficient vehicles. The transportation system is critical to supporting the provision of goods and services in this region these sectors benefit from transportation and impose costs on the system. The current BC Carbon tax was set in July 2008 at $10/tonne for carbon dioxide equivalent emissions and reached $30/tonne in The tax in its current form is revenue neutral and is returned in the form of reductions in taxes and tax credits, In 2012/2013 the Province anticipates collecting and redistributing $117 billion through the BC Carbon tax program. As an example of the regional potential, each $5 per tonne is estimated to generate approximately $90 million/year within Metro Vancouver. Consistent with the Vision already agreed to by the Province, the Mayors Council and TransLink, is the funding of transportation that leads to reductions in GHG. No future increases in the carbon tax have been identified beyond the last increase on July 31, Financing Roads and Public Transit in the Greater Thronto and Hamilton Area, an independent study comru oned hi Pes dental and C l Construct,cn A i3nc of Ontjr,o (Jsnur 2013 TRANSPORTATION 52

57 TRANSPORTATION 53 rails throughout the reg:on. There is only so much caoacitv: to move oods and poonle and we necessary to place a fairshared value on the movement of goods and people on roads and The Mayors Council strongly emphasizes that a comprehensive shift in policy within the region requirements to support implementation by for the long term, and to work jointly with the Mayors Council to determine technical The Mayors Council is seeking agree m cot in princi!e from the Province to consider road oricing ricin be achieved. malor infrastructure improvements and will enter into active discussions as to how this might in public transportation as a funding source far Transt ink to help offset some of the casts of The Mayors Council supports the consideration of land value capture arising from investment Recommendation Four: to station or terminus locations, it applies mainly to light rail/skytrain projects, which limit that to determine what approach would he most suited to Metro Vancouver. transit is part of those new services, so there needs to be a negotiated sharing. Since this relates amenity contributions (paid for by the developer) to provide the services for the new residents potential amount it will generate. While a potentially important addition, the technical analysis different ways that land value capture can be implemented and further investigation is required suggests that annual revenue potential is under $30 million per year. There are a number of When new development comes to an area, local governments frequently negotiate community adjacent transit. and there have been many successes with capturing a portion of the uplift value flowing from land value capture. Land values benefit significantly from public investment in transportation Another potential revenue source the Mayors Council is putting forward for consideration is increases; and a broad range of options generally described as road pricing. to advance discussion on only two additional sources: mechanisms to capture land value you asked the Mayors Council to comment on longterm options for funding transit. We d ike 3. Review of La rig &m Fund ipgqpions The Mayors Council supports either the future reallocation of new incremental carbon tax Recommendation Three: tax with the revenue allocated to TransLink. revenues generated within Metro Vancouver, or the implementation of a new regional carbon Letter to Minvte Polak January 31,

58 Letter to Minister Polak January 31,2013 Page 8 of 9 cannot build our way out of congestion. Transit riders on average pay only a fraction of the cost of the trip. Their trips are subsidized through property taxes paid by many people who do not take transit, and fuel taxes paid primarily by car drivers who may also not take transit. Drivers who do not take transit benefit from transit because there are fewer cars on the road. Drivers of all vehicles travel on roads paid for and maintained by local property taxes (municipal) and resource royalties, income and sales taxes (provincial). There are only vague policy connections between what people drive, how far and when they go and what the cost is. In the long term, regional road pricing has the greatest potential to achieve our shared vision for the region. Road pricing involves any form of direct paybyuse charging for roads, similar to what already happens on the transit system. Road pricing can be levied in a number of different ways to meet agreed upon objectives, including but not limited to: reducing congestion; facilitating efficient goods movement and supporting the Regional Growth Strategy. Depending on the objectives and the design, road pricing can reduce existing taxes while also raising revenues for substantial transportation investments that deliver more value to users. A movement toward road pricing would provide pricing signals to link human choice and behaviour to transportation choices. People would be incentivized to take transit if it exists, travel off peak hours when they can, and carpool. Road pricing options are driven by each city s unique geographic and economic profiles. As such, there Is no template for Metro Vancouver. We are unique but not alone In that many cities throughout the world share our profile. There Is no short path toward a successful road pricing system. The planning necessary to Implement a road pricing model within Metro Vancouver would take three years and would require the Province to be at the table. The first steps would be to establish clear objectives, undertake technical and field research, and engage in extensive public and stakeholder discussions to gain agreement on the form of road pricing that makes sense for Metro Vancouver. To effectively undertake a project of this complexity, International experts at the Transport Futures Governance Summit (Toronto, November2012) put forward conditions necessary to develop a successful longterm transportation funding strategy Including the following: Planning and commitment between all levels of government and Industry Solution adopted has to be sensitive to local conditions Sound governance representing all Interests and being accountable to the public Coordinated planning between goods movement and transit Clear integrated vision statement and principles for movement of goods and people Revenue sources dearly defined and predictable avoid grants as they doud accountability Governance structure needs the strategic capacity, accountability and decision making ability to get the job done TRANSPORTATION 54

59 e Consideration for other funding sources will be given, including future allocations of I I TRANSPORTATION 55 Chair, Mayors Council on Regional Transportation Mayor Richard Walton FCA 7,,. f, Yours very truly, and TransLink on advancing the other sources described in this letter, request that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure partner with the Mayors Council successfully implement a regional vehicle registration fee at the earliest possible date. We also We respectfully request that the Government of British Columbia enable the Mayors Council to the near term and road pricing in the long term comprehensive transportation demand management principles Any longterm funding process will be based on regional fairness and Understanding Appropriate funding sources for TransLink will include the vehicle registration fee in carbon tax, land value capture and sales tax revenue transportation are clearly set out in the September 2010 Memorandum of The Vision, Goals and Principles relating to the planning and funding of public motion confirming its view that: Furthermore, at the conclusion of its January 18, 2013 workshop, the Mayors Council passed a Mipi The Mayors Council requests the support and involvement of TransLInk, the Provincial Recommendation Five: region consistent with our common Vision and principles. The development and engagement process would consider best practices from around the world and involve all stakeholders in Government and Metro Vancouver in planning and introducing a road pricing system in the the region in a transparent planning exercise aimed cit implementation in ro address the growing gridlock around metropohtan Toronto. Furthermore, Ontario. Premier Wynne has ai.ready raised the issue of road pricing as a strategy iaruar Page 9 of 9 Letter to Minister Polak

60 5.5 To: Transportation Committee From: Paulette Vetleson, Secretary/Manager, Board Secretariat and Corporate Information Department Date: January 17, 2013 Subject: 2013 Transportation Committee Meeting Dates Meeting date: March 6, 2013 RECOMMENDATION That the Transportation Committee establish the day, hour and place for its 2013 regular meetings as follows: Day and Hour Wednesday, March 6 Thursday, April 18 Thursday, June 20 Thursday, September 26 Thursday, November 21 1:00 pm 12:30 pm 12:30 pm 12:30 pm 12:30 pm Place Meetings will be held in the 2nd floor boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia unless otherwise specified on the Metro Vancouver public notice board, Metro Vancouver website, and the respective agenda. PURPOSE To establish the day, hour and place of committee meetings. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Procedure Bylaw requires the board and committees to decide from time to time by resolution the day, hour and place its regular meetings will be held. The schedule of board and committee meetings is planned to reduce conflicts with other meetings and events. On a monthly basis it provides for 2 board, 11 standing committee, 2 subcommittee, and 4 advisory committee meetings, as well as statutory holidays, conferences for elected officials, and spring break. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the committee meeting dates be approved as presented. 2. That the committee meeting dates be approved as amended by the committee. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A OTHER IMPLICATIONS N/A TRANSPORTATION 56

61 2013 Transportation Committee Meeting Dates Transportation Committee Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Page 2 of 2 SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The Committee will have met the requirements of the board Procedure Bylaw by establishing the day, hour and place of its regular meetings. The information will be published on the Metro Vancouver website. As such the public will be aware of the regular meetings and can plan to attend such meetings. Staff recommends Alternative 1. Attachments and References: N/A TRANSPORTATION 57

62 Canadlr Chair FEB /14/1315:39 FAX_ ADMO ENERGY SECTOR 002 TRANSPORTATION 58 for a priority destination designation. has provided the NEB with a letter of comment in support of Chevron s request I mderstund that, although Metro Vancouver Is not a party to the proceeding, it (unlike a major facilities application, which does require Cabinet approval fouowitig an NEB hearing and recommendation). on this tollftatiffmatter is not subject to approval by the Government of Canada Chevron Canada s application to the National Energy Board (NEB) for priority before the NEB. The NEB is an independent regulatoiy tribunal, and its decision destination status for its Buniaby, British Columbia (BC), refinery is cwrently make a presentation on Canadian energy production, transportation, exports and market diversity. andcan respond to your Committee s questions. and could arrange to meet with your Committee at that time. Mr. Labont would I am pleased to advise that Mr. Jeff Labonté, Director General of our Petroleum Resources Branch, Energy Sector, will be in Vancouver February 25 or 26,2013, energy production, distribution and security as related to the Chevron priority destination designation issue. I would like to respond on the Minister s behall Metro Vancouver s Transportation Committee and Minister Oliver, to discuss Joe Oliver, Minister ofnatural Resources, requesting a meeting bctween Thank you for your letter ofdecember 14, 2012, addressed to the }Ionourable Dear Mr. Moore: Metro Vancouver Board GAO Trer No 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, British Columbia VSH 408 Mr Greg Moore f0c c n K1A / Energy Sector Sectex do I énergio Fejstwt Deputy Mrr 8ousmWstra a4oint Canada Cara La..R Natural Resources sowoes naturelies

63 proceeding a number in support of Chevron s application. In addition to Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Cmada, This matter will When the NEWs hearings begin in late Mareb, there will be 19 parties to the Chevron, parties will include the governments of BC and Alberta, the City of Burnaby, the Canadian Association ofpetroleum Producers, and the While Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) can discuss the darnics of Canad&s receive a thorough regulatory review, with all points ofview canvasseti for greater pipeline capacity to the west coast to access United States and Asian oil market and the push by Canadian crude oil producers and pipeline companies markets, NRCan would not be able to discuss the specifics ofthe priority destination case that is before the NEB. Should a meeting with Mr. Laborite in February be couvenient, please contact him direcily at Alternatively, we can arrange a meeting at a fature date Again, thank you for writing, when NRCan officials are in Vancouver. Yours sincerely, 2 02/14/13 15:39 FAX ADMO ENERGY SECTOR 003 TRANSPORTATION 59

64 J metrovancouver 4330 K ngvay r3t rnaby BC Canada V5H 468, v V V metrg ancou r org Office of the Chair Tel Fax File: CR0704NRC DEC 1 4 Ref: RQ4349 The Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister Natural Resources Canada Minister s Office 580 Booth Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E4 Dear Minister Oliver: Re: National Energy Strategies At its November 16, 2012 meeting, the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors supported a motion to invite you to meet with its Transportation Committee to discuss the federal government s strategies for energy production and distribution as well as the national objectives for energy security. Our interest in meeting with you on this topic was in large part initiated by the application for Priority Destination status made by Chevron Canada to the National Energy Board for its refinery in Burnaby, British Columbia. The need to file this application raised concerns about the issue of local energy security as well as the sustainability implications of shipping unprocessed oil to countries where the environmental regulations are lower than in Canada. Given the role of the energy sector in the local and national economy, we feel a meeting to learn about and discuss national energy objectives is warranted. My assistant, Donna Davis, will contact your office to make arrangements for when you could meet with the Metro Vancouver Transportation Committee. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request. Yours truly, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board GM/CM/ar TRANSPORTATION 60

65 City of Richmond FEB 221 q( j13 fl Malcolm D. Brodie Mayor 6911 No.3 Road, Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1 Telephone: Fax No: January 31, 2013 inkcow Fe Dec.No S COTtNot.. KerryLynne Findlay, MP Ste 202, 505 Bridge Street Delta, BC V4K 2K4 Honourable Alice Wong, MP Ste. 360, 5951 No.3 Road Richmond, BC V6X 2E3 Dear Richmond Members of Parliament: Re: Eligibility of Projects under the Federal Strategic Priorities Fund As you may be aware, the federal Gas Tax Fund provides predictable longterm funding via the transfer of federal gas tax revenues for Canadian municipalities to support new and revitalized public infrastructure that contributes to cleaner air and water, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Per the transfer agreement between the federal and provincial governments and the Union of BC Municipalities, 100 per cent of Metro Vancouver s allocation is directed to the Strategic Priorities Fund for transportation investments, which is made available to TransLink and limited primarily to the development or improvement of public transit. Currently, the construction of cycling facilities independent of the public transit system is not an eligible project. However, increased levels of cycling will contribute to cleaner air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thus as requested by the Metro Vancouver Board to all member municipalities, Council resolved at its January 28, 2013 meeting to write to you to seek the inclusion of cycling infrastructure as an eligible project under the federal Strategic Priorities Fund. The addition of cycling infrastructure as an eligible project could enable TransLink to increase funding levels for its Bicycle Infrastructure Capital CostShare Program, which provides up to 5050 costshare funding with local municipalities towards cycling facilities. In turn, increased opportunities for external costshare grants would enable the City to make greater progress towards achieving the mode split and greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of our recently adopted Official Community Plan update TRANSPORTATION 61 fchmond

66 pe: Greg Moore revenues that specifies the eligible projects to include cycling infrastructure. Malcolm Brodie You s truly, We therefore urge you to revise the terms of the agreement on the transfer of federal gas tax Metro Vancouver Board Chair, 7 TRANSPORTATION 62

67 Cty t % Ricm nd October 30, 2012 Greater Vancouver Regional District Board (GVRD) Greg Moore, Chair 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, B.C. V511 4G8 IntoCopy.. File No.: LzJ!L_.. Doc.No. I CÁOTNo.: Dear Mayor Moore: Re: Proposed Jet Fuel Delivery Project Environmental Assessment Process Update I am writing this letter on behalf of Richmond City Council to reiterate the strong objections that the City has to the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) proposal. The system consists of a marine terminal on the south arm of the Fraser, a fuel receiving and storage facility on Port Metro Vancouver land near the marine terminal and a new jet fuel delivery pipeline across the city to the Vancouver International Airport (YVR). Foi.our information, please note that Richmond City Council at its Regular Council meeting held on Monday, October 2? considered the above matter and adopted the loliowing resolution: i l) That having reviewed the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery (V4FD,) proposed Highway 99 pipeline route option, the ( liv reiterate its position by stating that city council continues to he opposed to the transportation of jet fuel on any arm of the Fraser River, and reconjirms the ( ouncil positions set out in the staff report dated October , from the Interim Director, S u.stainahiit and District Energy; (2) That the ( liv continue to participate in the Environmental Assessment Office ( EA 0) and Oil and Gas Commission ( OGC) processes; 3 1h:i letters be sent to the local.iips, MLAs, the Federal and Provincial Ministers of the Environment, the Prime Minister, the Premier, the Provincial and Federal Opposition Leaders, the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (144 FF(. Delta C ouncii, Metro Vixncouver, ihe Fir,i ations, and the V4FFC consortiuni tinder tile 4fat or S signature reiterating Richmood ( irk Council s opposition to the proposal general!!, and in oppo aion to the transporwrwn ofjet,fuel on any arm qf the Fraser River; and (4) That the Cdv seek a meeting with Hon. Terry Lake, Minister of Environment to reiterate Richnio,ul s opposition to the proposal and the tralzsportation 0! telfne! on the Fraser River and seek an ailernatmve,olution such a the cnntinued use ojti e.visring let fuel line. TRANSPORTATION 63

68 All. Background /1 Issue Commission (OGC) to advance the proposed fuel delivery system to YVR. A copy of the related staff report of October 16, 2012, is attached for your information. Mayor / Malcolm D. Irodie Yours truly. addressed. I will be pleased discuss this matter further with you. If you require further technical information, please contact Cecilia Achiam, Interim Director, Sustainability and District Energy at I hope that the City of Richmond can count on you to help ensure that our citizens concerns are fully government and agencies. To date, the VAFFC submission has not satisfactorily addressed the City s clearlystated concerns noted above. The City of Richmond has clearly and consistently communicated its significant concerns regarding safety and environmental protection impacts from the proposal to VAFFC and senior levels of b) does not include an offloading facility on the south arm of the Fraser River nor any d) continues the use of the existing Kinder Morgan Pipeline route, with upgrading if necessary. a) results in no net gain ofjet fuel line length on Lulu Island; c) avoids farmland and urban areas of Richmond; and transportation ofjet fuel on any arm of the River; government, Richmond s preference would be an option that: The proposed jet ftiel delivery system has been reviewed by Council on numerous occasions since June, Council has maintained its strong opposition to the proposed project. Council have stated for the record that. should a new jet fuel supply system to YVR be deemed necessary by senior levels of operations, the concerns from Richmond residents for safety and environmental impacts on any proposed regulatory authorities. The proposed project introduces economic, social, and environmental risks to the City of Richmond as well as surrounding areas. While a safe and reliable supply system for jet fuel may be integral to the ongoing prosperity of YVR new pipeline system in addition to the existing aging system must also be addressed by the proponent and provincial jurisdiction, the City has limited influence on the provincial approval process As both the environmental assessment application and pipeline permit application reviews are under Shortl\ after on February 7, 2011 VAFFC submitted a Pipeline Permit application to the BC Oil & Gas (EA) application to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) on January 5, The Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) submitted an Environmental Assessment TRANSPORTATION 64

69 City of Richmond Report to Committee To: General Purposes Committee Date: October 16, 2012 From: Cecilia Achiam, MCIP, BCSLA File: Interim Director, Sustainability and District Energy Re: Staff Recommendation Proposed Jet Fuel Delivery Project Environmental Assessment Process Update 1. That having reviewed the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery (VAFD) proposed Highway 99 pipeline route option, the City reiterate its position by stating that City Council continues to be opposed to the transportation ofjet fuel on any arm of the Fraser River; 2. That the City continue to participate in the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) and Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) processes; 3. That letters be sent to the local MPs, MLAs, the Federal and Provincial Ministers of the Environment, the Prime Minister, the Premier, the Provincial and Federal Opposition Leaders, the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC), Delta Council, Metro Vancouver and the VAFFC consortium under the Mayor s signature reiterating Richmond City Council s opposition to the proposal generally, and in opposition to the transportation ofjet fuel on any arm of the Fraser River; and 4. That the City seek a meeting with Hon. Terry Lake, Minister of Environment to reiterate Richmond s opposition to the proposal and the transportation of jet fuel on the Fraser River and seek analteniative solution such as the continued use of the existing jet fuel line, Cecilia Achiam, Interim Director, Sustainability anddistrict Energy ( ) Att.2 GP3 (Special) TRANSPORTATION 65

70 Fire Rescue ti Engineehg ROUTED To: CONCURRENCE CoNc ENCEOF GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CONCURRENCE TRANSPORTATION 66 (Special) GP4 SUBCOMMrrrEE () REvIEwED BY SMT INmALS REVIEWED BY CAO Nt ALS:. Transportation Policy Planning 121 October 16,

71 October 16, Origin Staff Report Since the last update to Council, the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC) has received conditional preliminary approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to consider the use of Highway 99 for its proposed pipeline route (Attachment!). In addition, the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) has provided an updated schedule for the Environmental Assessment (EA) process for the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project (VAFD) (Attachment 2). The EAO is holding an advisory technical Working Group (Working Group) meeting on October 22 and 23 to discuss the draft Assessment Report from the EAO, which staff will attend. Under the harmonized provincial/federal environmental assessment review process as defined by the BC EnvironmentalAssessinentAc!, this EA review and comment period represents the final opportunity for comments by the Working Group. The stakeholders are given until November 9, 2012 to provide comments back to the EAO prior to their preparation of the Final Assessment Report, Consultation Report and Referral Package to inform the provincial ministers making the decision on the jet fuel delivery system proposal. Based on this time line, the Regular Council Meeting on October 22, 2012 represents the only formal opportunity for Richmond residents to address Council on this proposal. As per Council direction, City Staff are continuing to provide technical input to the EAO, through the Working Group to assert the City s strong opposition to the project as proposed. Staff will be participating in a twoday Working Group meeting on October22 23, 2012 to provide comments directly to the VAFFC, and clarify issues of potential concern. Staff will then submit final written comments to the EAO prior to the November deadline based on Council s direction from the October 22 Council meeting and technical discussions in the Working Group meeting. 9th Analysis This report reconfirms Council s opposition and the ongoing concerns of staff regarding the proposed jet fuel delivery system project and provides high level summary of the Richmond staff technical comments that will be used to guide staff participation in the upcoming technical Working Group meeting on the EAO Assessment Report GP5 (Special) TRANSPORTATION 67

72 The proposed jet fuel delivery system has been reviewed by Council on numerous occasions Council s Position on the Proposed Project September 12,2011; and January 23, including Jun 8, 2009; January 25, 2010; April 26, 2010; March 28, 2011; April 4, 2011; TRANSPORTATION 68 (Special) 362D GP6 specific impacts on City s utility corridors, road infrastructure, tree inventory, parks and trails, dike infrastructure, Riparian Ivianagement Areas and the current OCP Environmentally Sensitive As the final proposed routing of the pipeline was not received by the City until very recently, Access Agreement. This raises several concerns, including the commitment of the VAFFC to carry out construction and operation in a mariner consistent with community standards as outlined in the Traffic Control and Regulation Bylaw, Noise Regulation Bylaw, Pollution Prevention and Cleanup Bylaw, Tree Protection Bylaw, and other Community Bylaws which buffer around the pipeline route required by the Act is not yet defined. The scale and type of buffer may put an onerous burden on the City s utility and road maintenance activities, and create an unreasonable indemnity situation for the City. The VAFFC has not yet committed to any content or timeline for completion of a Municipal may not apply to a project administered by the Oil and Gus Activities Act. Further, the safety assumptions built into the Risk Assessment for such spills, and the effectiveness of the proposed There remain concerns regarding the potential impacts of spills on the Fraser River, and the mitigation measures, Staff will have an opportunity to review and to provide advisory comments deadline for comment. on the Bioflim Impact study requested by Environment Canada prior to the November 9th, 2012 of the project as proposed. continue to communicate their concerns to the EAO and the VAFFC team over technical aspects After extensive review of the available documents and discussions with stakeholders, staff Staff have also been working within other members of the Working Group, including Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and other regulatory agencies. process, Staff have been monitoring the VAFFC submission to ensure that proper EA processes Following Council direction to continue to participate in the Working Group as part of the BA have been followed and to keep Council informed ofthe process. Overview of Technical Staff Comments necessary. d) continues the use of the existing Kinder Morgan Pipeline route, with upgrading if c) avoids farmland and urban areas of Richmond; and b) does not include an offloading facility on the south arm of the Fraser River; a) results in no net gain ofjet fuel line length on Lulu Island; Council has maintained its strong opposition to the proposed project. Council have stated for the government, Richmond s preference would be an option that: record that, should a new jet fuel supply system to YVR be deemed necessary by senior levels of October 16,

73 Areas (ESAs) remain uncertain. Staff will provide the VAFFC a comprehensive outline of the those standards. This list will include the proposed OCP Ecological Network updated ESA standards expected for construction projects in the City, and will expect the VAFFC to cornmit to Overview of Richmond Fire Rescue Comrrients requirements and information in the draft 2012 ESA Management Strategy. TRANSPORTATION 69 (Special) GP7 The process defined by the BC Environmental Assessment Act sets specific timelines for consultation and decision phases. With the current Working Group consultation, the proposed, comments, the EAO,. working with Port Metro Vancouver (as the Federal agency overseeing the project is in the final consultation phase. Following the November 9, 2012 deadline for Future Processes resources available within the City. However, with the addition of an off loading facility, tank address the new and significant risk. requires all of the above mentioned conditions be met for the City of Richmond to adequately It is RFR s position that the current infrastructure and development within the area proposed by the VAFFC for the fuel facility is a low fire risk area which can be currently serviced by the farm, large ships, volatile fuel and pipeline the fire risk in this area significantly increases and 2, The installation of a fully equipped and staffed fire hall; 4. A fully automated fire detection and suppression systems at the tank farm; and 5. All of the above items to be provided and maintained at the VAFFC s cost. 3. A fire boat; Authority Having Jurisdiction; I. The need for a comprehensive Fire Safety Plan including recognition of RFR being the Tn conclusion, RF R has submitted several conditions into the Environmental Assessment panel including: rio marine based fire fighting capability. has become increasingly necessary with the Metro Vancouver Fire Boat Consortium advising fire hail in close proximity to the proposed tank farm. In earlier reports to Council. RPR has provide funding equivalent to that which would allow RFR to build, staff, equip and maintain a asserted a need for marine based firefighting capability in the form of a fire boat. The fire boat that fire boat service will only be provided to the Vancouver Inner Harbour leaving the City with R.FR continues to assert that if the project is to proceed there would be a need for the VAFFC to City. and inspected and maintained to the same legislative standard as all other structures within the RFR asserts that for all fire related purposes, RFR be recognized as the Authority having Jurisdiction which would allow the City of Richmond to have the. fuel facility engineered, built risks and mitigation strategies. (VAYFC) proposal remains unchanged from earlier reports to council. The ongoing Richmond Fire Rescue s (RFR) response to the Vancouver Airport Fuel Facility Corporation Environmental Assessment proposal to date has not included an indepth study of the fire related October 16,2012 5

74 October 16, harmonized process) will prepare an Assessment Report, Draft Certificate and Table of Conditions to accompany the referral to the Ministers, due in the week of November19, The EAO makes the final decision on what items are included in the referral documents. The Ministers will then have 45 days to review the referral documents, prior to making a decision. The Ministers may grant approval or deny the E.A Certificate, and have the legislative power to make changes to the Certificate and Table of Conditions referred by the FAQ, although this provision is rarely used, As noted in previous report to Council, titled Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project (VAFD) Environmental Assessment Update dated January 5, 2012, a separate Municipal Access Agreement (MAA) will be required for the pipeline crossing within municipally owned road right of ways, An MAA, which is to be negotiated, is a tool to describe how the operations and maintenance implication ofajet fuel pipeline in a municipal roadway will be addressed. The MAA cannot preclude the installation of thejet fuel pipehne should the proposed projeôt be approved by senior governments The VAFD project is also subject to the Oil and Gas Activilies Ac! which is an independent process with specifc technical reqmrements relating to pipeline design and construction. The VAFFC submitted a preliminary Pipeline Permit Application to the BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) on Feb 10, At any time, the VAFFC may submit a full application for a Pipeline Permit from the OGC. The OGC application review process includes some stakeholder consultation; however the jurisdiction of the OGC review is strictly Legislative assuring the pipeline is installed to the standards defined by Federal and Provincial law. It is unclear when that the VAFFC will be submitting a full application to the OGC. The OGC does not review the environmental, social, or economic implications of the pipeline installation or the project as a whole. The OGC process is openended, as there is no fixed deadline for plan review and approval. City participation in the pipeline design phase of the process is recommended to anticipate and prevent engineering conflicts in the event the propose project is approved. Recommendation 1 the VAFFC has been following the processes of the EA and Pipeline By all indication applications carefully to date. If an EA Certificate and a Pipeline Permit are issued, options to address the City s concerns and objections may be limited and potentially costly. As such, staff recommend that: 1. the City continue to reiterate its Council s strong opposition to the transportation ofjet fuel on any arm of the Fraser River having reviewed the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery (VAFD) proposed Highway 99 pipeline route option; 2. the City continue to participate in the EAO and OGC processes; 3. letters be sent, once again, to the local MPs, MLAs, the Federal and Provincial Ministers of the Environment., the Prime Minister, the Premier, the Provincial and Federal 36S2I3 GP8 (Special) TRANSPORTATION 70

75 October 16, Opposition Leaders, the VAFFC, Delta Council, Metro Vancouver and the VAFFC consortium under the Mayor s signature reiterating Richmond City Council s opposition to the proposal generally, and in opposition to the transportation ofjet fuel on any arm of the Fraser River; and 4. the City seek a follow up meeting with Hon. Terry Lake, Minister of Environment to reiterate Richmond s opposition to the proposal and the transportation ofjet fuel on the Fraser River and seek an alternative solution such as the continued use of the existing jet fuel line. Financial Impact At this point, there is little cost to the City, other than staff time for technical review as part of the technical Working Group, if Council wishes to simply continue the City s participation in the EA process. Conclusion Upon receiving specific direction from Council, staff will continue to take all possible actions to support Council s position on the jet fuel delivery systems project and ensure that the City does not forego viable solutions that may result in receiving positive benefits to the community. Cecilia Achiam Interim Director, Sustainability and District Energy ( ) Attachment! Letter from VAFFC dated October 9, 2012 titled Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project Update REDMS# ] Pipeline Route Selection Attachment 2 EAO Revised Project Schedule updated September REDMS# , l 3 GP9 (Special) TRANSPORTATION 71

76 Fax: (604) Phone: (604) Suite Horseshoe Way Richmond, B.C., Canada V7A 421 c/n FSM Management Group Inc. Vancouver Atrpo Fuel Faciliues Corporation Robert Gonzales Mayka Kennedy Oil City TRANSPORTATION 72 (Special) GP1O 1 of Richmond and Gas Commission CC: Carrie Brown Port Metro Vancouver Pr Ct Director Adri Pollard, PEng. Vancouver irport Fuel Facilities Corporation Sincerely, requirements for the Assessment Report and Certified Project Description, Please contact me if you have any questions or clarifications regarding the route selection, public feedback or other information regarding the pipeline route. I trust this confirmation meets your advise you of these activities once they are confirmed. the Oil & Gas Commission any additional consultation that they may require for that process. We will We will be commencing our application to the OIl & Gas Commission shortly, and will determine with Street and the No 3. Road right of way within the City of Richmond. Remaining sections of the pipeline February 17, 2012, which included Francis Road, Highway 99, Bridgeport Trail, Van Home Way, Charles the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project, This confirms the route as identified in our earlier letter of Transportation and Infrastructure to consider the use of Highway 99 in its proposed pipeline route for remain on federal land administered by Port Metro Vancouver and the Vancouver Airport Authority. On September 18, 2012, VAFFC received conditional preliminary appi ovai from the Ministry of Dear Rachel: Pipeline Route Selectian Re: Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project Update Victoria BC V8W 9V3. PD Box 9426 Stn Prov Govt 1st Floor 836 Yates St BC Environmental Assessment Office Project Assessment Director Rachel Shaw October 9, 2012 ATPACWvIENT I

77 be subject to change. Please note that these are anticipated dates for work planning and scheduling; these dotes may Projected Schedule of Major Steps for Application Review Stage Proposed Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICE. 24, Evaluated and EAO decision rendered on Feb 4, 2011 EAO Application April 26, 2011 Proponent Full working group meeting to initiate review of March 2, 2011 First Nations, Public Open House (Richmond) and March 7, 2011 EAO, OGC, PMV Full/partial /technical working group meeting (s) March 10 to May First Nations, 2011 Federal, Provincial,. Localovernments Nations, Federal government, provincial First Nations, (1 month after start of review) Local governments by EAO WG for review Working Group comments due on Issues August 19, 2011 First Nations, Tracking Table Federal, Provincial, Local governments Submission of additional EA information on f Nov 2 9, 2011 Proponent Highway 99 route alternative and EAO review (1 VAFD Draft EA Schedule Updated TRANSPORTATION 73 (Special) SeEPnbel 48, 2012 local governments the Application Federal, Provincial, report to EAO ocuments posted on EAO website acceptinpj,ation façertificae_ Application Submitted for EAO evaluation Jan 5, 2011 Proponent AIR, against Includes Public Consultation Plan. Comments from WG Screening Group Due Jan 21, 2011 WG Screening Group Produced and distributed copies of the Feb 18, 2011 Proponent 60day public review and comment period Feb 25 to EPO (tentative: telecom Jan 25 9am to 11am) Commencement of 180 day review period Feb 18, 2011 EAO Comments due on the Application from First March 18, 2011 Public Project EA (180 day clock) Suspended for 120 ApriL 28, 2011 EAO or until days addenda are provided and reviewed Responses from the Proponent to First Nations, July 13, 2011 Proponent! EAO Responses from the Proponent to public Oct26, 2011 Proponent week) Presentations Proponent government and local government Federal, Provincial, and agency comments (Issues Tracking Table) to Proponent submits First Nations Consultation Oct 28, 2011 Proponent Ativfty Target Date Responsibility ATTACHMENT 2

78 VI) V ENVIRONMENTAl ASSESSMENT OFFICE Act1vity TargetDe Reponsibillty Working Group review of Hwy 99 information (2 Nov 14 to 25, 2011 WG weeks) with teleconference on Nov 18, 2011; comment back to EAQ by Nov 23 Proponent revisions to issues tracking table, to Week of Nov 14 EAG and agencies in preparation for WG Proponent meeting WG meeting to discuss outstanding issues Nov 30, 2011 First Nations, including Spill Response Plans and Proponent Federal, Provincial, response to issues tracking (Vancouver) Local governments Suspension lifted by LAO Day 70 of 180 day ian 4, 2012 EAO review Public Comment Period on Hwy 99 Addendum Jan 11 to Feb 1, Proponent, EAO (Open House ian 28) 2012 Working Group meeting to discuss potential Jan First Nations, commitments regarding draft Spill Response Federal, Provincial Plan and local governments, LAO, Proponent First Nations Working Group meeting to discuss Jan 24, 2012 First Nations, LAO, potentialcommitments regarding First Nations Proponent Fisheries (and possibly other topics) Proponent to provide responses to public Feb 14, 2012 Proponent comments Project EA (180 day clock) Suspended until March 7, 2012 LAO additional spill consequence information is provided and reviewed by EAOfPMV (day 133 of 180day EAO draft First Nations Consultation Report June 21, 2012 and First Nations, EAO circulated to First Nations for Review for four July 5, 2012 (fitg week review Comments due July 19, 2012 and V only) y2012 Comments due from First Nations on LAO s draft July 19, 2012 and First Nations First Nations Consultation Report Proponent t&confirm route alignment September 19, Proponent 2012 LAO draft Assessment Report & draft Table of October 12, 2012 First Nations, Conditions Circulated to Working Group Federal, Provincial (without First Nations section) for fourweek and local review (comments duenovember ). governments, LAO, Y1V V V Working Group meeting to discuss the draft Week of October First Nations, Assessment Report and Table of Conditions 22, 2012 Federal, Provincial and local governments, EAO VAFD Draft EA Schedule Updated Senb4Z8, 2012 (Special) TRANSPORTATION 74

79 governments, Comments du from the Woding Group on first November 9, 2012 First Nations., Conwnitments nd lca1 At1vity { draft of Assessment Report &Table of federal Provincial Target Date Responsibility TRANSPORTATION 75 (Special) VAFD Draft EA Schedule Updated SeGRrb1r8, 2012 submissions that they would included in the Ministers Decision on whether to grant an EA likely within 45 Ministers First Nations provide to EAO with any separate November 16, 2012 First Nations, EAO Consultation Report and Referral Package.fo? J4oveinber 2012 Ministers for internal review Certificate days of EAO s 1, 2012 Referral Week of November EAO referral package for Ministers referral EAO)PMV Prepares Final Assessment Report, Earlymid EAO, PMV and local Federal, Provincial LA suspension lifted (day 133 of 180day review) Pending First Nations, LAO, Proponent governments, EAO, Proponent ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICE