Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Integrated transportation planning in Greater Vancouver: a policy framework Marlor, David John 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0164.pdf [ 1.38MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087353.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087353-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087353-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087353-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087353-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087353-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087353-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087353-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087353.ris

Full Text

INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TN GREATERVANCOUVER: A POLICY FRAMEWORKbyDAVID JOHN MARLORB.A., The University of Alberta, 1992A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(School of Community and Regional Planning)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMarch 1994We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standard© David John Manor, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of “PLANMlNThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate IY1CIYk gDE-6 (2188)11ABSTRACTGreater Vancouver is a cooperative federalism in which planning relies onconsensus and cooperation between municipalities, provincial ministries andCrown corporations. A result of this approach is a system in which eachorganisation and municipality is responsible for making decisions and funding theissues within its jurisdiction. Often this results in inefficient decisions being made;decisions, that otherwise would have considered regional issues, tend to consideronly local concerns.Experience suggests that regional governments are generally distrusted by thegeneral public and may pose a threat to the urban power base of the provincialgovernment. Instead, a conjoint approach - which uses the existing agencies and isactivated at key points in the process - offers the optimum configuration. In GreaterVancouver, a commission made up of nine directly elected, nine municipallyappointed, and nine provincially appointed councillors will provide a well balancedorganisation which is responsible to the province, municipalities, and the public.The new commission will be responsible for creating regional goals and ensuringconformity of the municipalities, ministries and Crown corporations to those goals.Adjustments in the provincial legislations will be required to transfer control andfunding functions to the new commission, and to pave the way for a trulyintegrated transportation planning process for Greater Vancouver.IIITABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT.iiTABLE OF CONTENTS iiiLIST OF FIGURES VABBREVIATIONS viACKNOWLEDGEMENT viiI: INTRODUCTION 1A. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 3B. SIGNIFICANCE 4C. SCOPE AN]) LIMITATIONS 4D. METHODOLOGY AND ORGANISATION 5U. EXISTiNG FRAMEWORK iN GREATER VANCOUVER 7A. INTRODUCTION 7B. BACKGROUND 81. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 82. CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECTS ON METROPOLITAN FORM 93. BRIEF HISTORY OF REGIONAL PLANNING IN GREATERVANCOUVER 104. REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TODAY 11C. MODAL INTEREST POLICIES 121. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 122. HIGHWAYS AND ROADS 153. CONCLUDING COMMENTS 17D. OTHER INTEREST POLICIES 191.LANDUSE 192. PRIVATE INTERESTS 213. CONCLUDING COMMENTS 22E. CONCLUSION 22ifi. POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES 27A. INTRODUCTION 27B. THEORETICAL LITERATURE REVIEW 281. POLICYMAKING 302. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 313. POLICY CONTROL 324. FUNDING 335. POLITICAL CONTEXT 346. LESSONS FOR GREATER VANCOUVER 37ivC. PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE TN OTHER CITIES .391. POLICYMAKING 392. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 413. POLICY CONTROL 414. FUNDING 425. POLITICAL CONTEXT 446. LESSONS FOR GREATER VANCOUVER 45D. CONCLUSION 47IV: A POLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER 51A. INTRODUCTION 51B. THE NEW FRAMEWORK 511. THE VANCOUVER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSION 532. GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT 583. POLICYMAKING 584. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 605. POLICY CONTROL 616. FUNDING 637. POLITICAL CONTEXT 658. PRIVATE INTERESTS 669. POLICY IMPLICATIONS 6610. CONCLUDING COMMENTS 68C. CASE STUDY: ADOPTING AN OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN 691. POLICYMAKING 712. POLICY CONTROL 723. FUNDING 724. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 725. CONCLUDING COMMENTS 73D. CONCLUSION 73V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 74A. SUIVIIVIARY 74B. CONCLUSIONS 75REFERENCE LIST 76VLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: Existing Framework in Greater Vancouver 26Figure 2: Emerging Transportation Planning Framework. 50Figure 3: Organisation of the New Commission 54Figure 4: Policy Making in Greater Vancouver 59Figure 5: Policy Control in Greater Vancouver 62Figure 6: Policy Funding in Greater Vancouver 64Figure 7: Integrated Transportation Planning Framework for GreaterVancouver 70viABBREVIATIONSBNA British North AmericaDCC Development Cost ChargeGVRD Greater Vancouver Regional DistrictLCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission (Oregon)LMRPB Lower Mainland Regional Planning BoardMOTH Ministry of Transportation and HighwaysMTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco)TDM Transportation Demand ManagementVRTC Vancouver Regional Transit CommissionVRTS Vancouver Regional Transit SystemVIIACKNOWLEDGEMENTA special thanks to Marion who encouraged and supported methroughout my university career.Without her support, this thesis would not have been possible.1I: INTRODUCTIONCities, the engines that drive the economy, are the products of human interaction. The firstcommercial cities appeared as a direct result of humans needing to exchange merchandise andideas. As the complexity of human interaction increased, so too did the complexity and size ofcities. In each stage of development, the size of cities was controlled to some extent by thetransportation technology available; first, walking, then streetcars, and finally the automobilehave all had profound impacts on the form and size of the cities (Hodge 1989). As congestionbecame a problem, due to a greater increase in demand than supply, the simple solution was tobuild more capacity.Today the automobile is the dominant form of transportation in most of the industrialised world’scities. Increased capacity as a solution to urban problems is fast being seen as a hinderance, nota solution (Transportation Association of Canada 1993, p. 1). Increased capacity results in whatAnthony Downs terms “Triple Convergence”; the new road (most new capacity in thetransportation infrastructure is usually for the benefit of the automobile) will attract people fromother modes, who used to travel at different times, and who used to travel by a different route(Downs 1992).Conventional transportation analysis often disregards the potent effects of urbandesign changes on transportation demand and the impact of transportationinvestments and policy on land use patterns.... Estimates of trip generation,distribution, and choice are often based on look-up engineering formulas thathave been determined from the existing automobile-dependant environment(Replodge 1991, p. 85).The solution, according to Downs and others, is to control the demand for transportation insteadof increasing the supply or capacity. Termed Transportation Demand Management (TDM),these methods are designed to make better use of existing infrastructure by forcing orINTRODUCTION /2encouraging people to travel at different times, by a different route, by a different mode, or notto have to travel at all. The success of this approach requires cooperation among the modalauthorities (for example transit and highways), and non-modal authorities (for example, land usejurisdictions and provincial legislators).Efficient transportation and accessibility are necessary to the orderly day-to-day operation of anycommunity. Throughout North America, and most of the industrialised world, congestioncaused by mass reliance on the private automobile is threatening the future of cities(Transportation Association of Canada 1993, p. 1). Vancouver is no exception; in Desolation toHope, Seelig and Artibise point out that a central authority must control the future growth of theregion. The authority’s mandate must include:• a clear commitment to public transit in all forms- buses, rapid transit, fastferries, etc.;• the power to override neighbourhood or municipal objections to regionaltransportation plans, whether they be new bus routes or rapid transit lanes;• the power to tax automobile use, with the funds collected being allocated topublic transit and other alternatives to the automobile;• the power to coordinate with airport and port authorities, as well as the majortrucking firms, the movement of goods and people within the region;• the ability to create and enforce, on a regional basis, traffic reduction by-lawswhich force employers to achieve a reduction in the number of employeesusing cars;• a commitment to utilizing roads and transit to plan land-use, rather thanreacting to it. (Seelig and Artibise 1991, p. 66)The current institutional arrangements in Greater Vancouver make the above task animpossibility. Therefore, the problem is how does the region move towards a system which willfacilitate the above recommendations?Today, in Greater Vancouver, control and implementation of various segments of thetransportation system are conducted in isolation or with only token regard to each other. ToINTRODUCTION /3solve the problem, this thesis will consider three important aspects of metropolitantransportation: the road network, public transportation, and land use.The road network in Greater Vancouver comes under the control of either the Ministry ofTransportation and Highways or the municipality. The transit system is controlled by theprovincial government through its Crown Corporation, BC Transit. Land use is usuallycontrolled by the municipality. Other private interests must also be considered in a policyframework for integrated transportation in Vancouver. These include taxis and the private buscompanies providing service to the airport and other points.In general, this thesis will explore the above issues in the context of Greater Vancouver. Policymaking, policy implementation, policy control, funding, and the political context will beconsidered. An integrated approach will be developed using a combination of practicalexperience in other centres and theoretical guidelines laid out in the literature.A. PURPOSE AND OBJECTWESTransportation congestion, reliance on the private automobile, and urban sprawl are all issues ofcontemporary North American cities. The purpose of this study is twofold. First, on a practicallevel, it is designed to provide a working framework for improving the urban transportationsystem within the Greater Vancouver region. Second, on a theoretical level, it is designed tooffer insight into transportation policy planning techniques which are applicable in other urbancentres.INTRODUCTION /4B. SIGNIFICANCEThe population of the Greater Vancouver ‘Pacific Fraser Region’ is estimated to grow byapproximately one million people over the next twenty years (Transport 2021 1993, p. 1). It isimportant that the movement of these new migrants, as well as the established population, beprovided for without further disintegration of the ecosystem, economy, and the standard ofliving of the inhabitants. In a pluralistic society interventions in the lives of citizens by theprovincial and federal governments are not generally welcome. Such attitudes result in localbased planning which inherently places community interests ahead of the more pressing regionalconcerns; however, some intervention is required in order to assure the future orderly growthand development of the region. With sixteen municipalities, the Greater Vancouver Regionrequires a region-wide authority which is able to address the interests of the region as a whole. IfGreater Vancouver is to adequatly accommodate three million people by 2021, it is necessarythat existing and new infrastructure be managed as efficiently as possible. Regionaltransportation planning will provide for increased efficiency by reducing unnecessary waste andduplication, as well as increasing the awareness of regional issues.C. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONSThis thesis will be concerned primarily with transportation integration in Greater Vancouver.Relationships between two modal categories (roads and transit) and the one non-modal category(land use) are examined due to the pervasive nature of these factors in the everyday lives ofmetropolitan residents. As will be argued in the thesis, these three factors have a powerfulinfluence over the development of a region, and they must be considered in regard to each otherin an integrated fashion.While this thesis acknowledges that there are other important modes (such as the privaterailways, BC Ferries, Port Authority, Airport Authority among others), they do not influenceINTRODUCTION /5metropolitan growth to the same degree as the other three listed above. Therefore, in order tosimplify the model and to reduce unnecessary duplication, these less significant modes areomitted from the study.D. METHODOLOGY AND ORGANISATIONThe success of a new integrated framework for transportation planning in Greater Vancouverrelies on a good understanding of the current situation in Greater Vancouver and a goodunderstanding of integrated planning attempts elsewhere. Therefore, this thesis consists oflibrary research and interviews on the existing structure, and library research on theoretical andempirical examples of integration in other centres.Chapter II provides background to the current situation in Greater Vancouver outlining thecurrent transportation planning framework. This provides a platform on which to build a newframework for integrated transportation planning.Chapter III is divided into two sections. The first section involves an extensive literature reviewon integration in transportation modes and land use planning. The second section examinesvarious practical examples of integrated transportation and land use planning. While none ofthese may be considered the ultimate in integration, they do provide insight and lessons for asimilar approach in Greater Vancouver. Lessons learned from both the theoretical and practicalsections are extracted and will provide the basis for a new integrated framework for GreaterVancouver.Chapter IV is divided into two sections. The first section builds on lessons learned in Chapter IIIon the ideological and political existing framework in Greater Vancouver which is outlined inChapter II. A new framework for integrated transportation planning in Greater Vancouver isINTRODUCTION /6developed. The policy implications for existing government agencies and municipalities areoutlined. The second section takes a rezoning case study through the steps of the newframework. It is intended that the new framework represents, not the ultimate universal ideal,but a realistic workable model that is well suited to Greater Vancouver.7II. EXISTING FRAMEWORK iN GREATER VANCOUVERA. INTRODUCTIONTransportation planning in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) is fragmentedbetween the municipal and provincial governments, government agencies such as BC Transit,and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Transportation and land use go hand in hand;planning for one cannot continue without consideration for the other.[T]ransport analysis not only has to change its theoretical and methodologicalorientation, but also its scope, by extending its domain beyond transport itself intothose subsystems of the social system that directly or indirectly interact withtransport. Those subsystems include, in the first place, the population andhousehold subsystem which - through its demographic and household formationprocesses, but also through changing lifestyles, work, consumption and leisurepatterns - largely determine the demand for passenger transport. (Nijkamp andReichman 1987, p. 4).Nijkamp and Reichman suggest that transportation cannot be planned in isolation of otherimportant social issues. Yet, over the past several decades, that is precisely what has happened.Municipalities have forged ahead with land development schemes, which largely shape the socialform of the city, without much regard to their impacts on the transportation system.The purpose of this chapter is to establish the existing policy framework within the GreaterVancouver Regional District with regards to transportation planning. The focus will be on theresponsibility of the various levels of government in planning and maintaining transportationsystems in Greater Vancouver.The existing framework for transportation planning in Greater Vancouver may be divided intotwo sections. The first section is what Pikarsky and Christensen term “Modal Interests.” In theirdiscussion on national comprehensive policies, they include rail, shipping, airlines, highwaysEXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /8and public transport within this category (1976, p. 88). As indicated in Chapter I, thisdiscussion, which is confined to the Greater Vancouver region, will focus on two of these modes- public transportation and highways. The second section, closely tied to transportation issuesbut often neglected in transportation planning, is land use.A background review will establish the constitutional environment within which transportationplanning is performed in British Columbia. Existing policy directions in public transport,highways and road, and land use will then be examined. Finally, conclusions regarding currentpractices will be made based on the review.B. BACKGROUNDIn the GVRD, various aspects of transportation and land use planning fall under the jurisdictionof one of three levels of government; federal, provincial and local. The GVRD, while it has noofficial jurisdictional powers with regards to transportation or land use, does provide criticalservices and is thus included in this chapter.Efficient transportation is a vital part of Greater Vancouver’s economic and socialwell-being. Transportation planning in the region is affected by three factors:1. Within the region, a daily-use system moves people and goods by carand transit;2. The region is the Pacific gateway for Canada’s exports and imports byland, sea, and air;3. The region is a key link in the provincial highway system connectingthe interior with Vancouver Island.To enhance the region’s livability and encourage development into the 21stCentury, Greater Vancouver urgently needs a co-ordinated plan to move peopleand goods throughout the region in a smooth, efficient way (GVRD 1989, p. 1).1. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.To understand the division of powers in the Canadian planning system, it is necessary to reviewthe two acts which are largely responsible.EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /9The division of powers in Canada, originally outlined in the British North America (BNA) Actof 1867, are set out in the Constitution Act, 1982:The Constitution Act. 1982 is the name given to the group of acts that make upthe Canadian constitution. This includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,as well as the British North America Act, 1867 [BNA Actj.... The BNA Actdivides legislative powers in Canada between the federal Parliament and theprovincial legislatures. Under the BNA Act. 1867, the legislatures were givenalmost complete control of land use within the province (Ince 1984, p. 7).Control for such things as land use became the responsibility of the provinces. The BNA Actdid not establish any rights for local governments. Section 92 of the BNA Act specified that“the responsibility for establishing municipal institutions lay with the provincial governments”(Hodge 1989, p. 116).The Baldwin Act of 1849 in Ontario provided a model for other provinces to follow inestablishing local governments. As a result, local governments in Canada are creatures of theprovince (Hodge, 1989, p. 116-119). At the turn of the century, “local governments wereconceived in the need to provide to residences and places of business such services as roads,water, and fire protection” (Hodge 1989, P. 116).2. CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECTS ON METROPOLITAN FORM.As the cities and municipalities of Canada grow, so too do the urban and inter-urban problems.Many services provided to the residences and businesses became inter-urban problems. Asresidences spread out into the unincorporated and new incorporated suburbs, issues intransportation, water supply and protective services arose. This, combined with a dramaticupturn in development and a belief in the superiority of land ownership and land owners, led tothe need for some form of planning (Hodge 1989, 116-117).EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /10Across Canada and the United States, as cities and municipalities grew, the need to extend andrationalise the services provided also grew. Many cities, such as Edmonton and Calgary,annexed the surrounding communities into their jurisdictions. In Ontario, Toronto and itssurrounding municipalities were combined into a mandatory federation. The local governmentsretained jurisdiction over some of the services, while other more regional services were takenover by the metropolitan government (McCarthy 1986, p. 334). In British Columbia, theprovince ‘instituted a province-wide system of regional districts designed to provide hospitalsand other area-wide services to both municipalities and unincorporated areas. This includes theGreater Vancouver Regional District, which rapidly developed into a regional multi-purposegovernment” (Wichern 1986, p. 301-302).3. BRIEF HISTORY OF REGIONAL PLANNING IN GREATER VANCOUVERThe formal beginning of the Greater Vancouver Regional District occurred over 70 years agoarising from the need to provide water and sewerage services to the municipalities. In 1914 theGreater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District was established. This was followed in 1926 bythe Greater Vancouver Water District (Forum for Planning Action 1991 p.3). Provinciallegislation established the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board (LMRPB) in the mid1940s. In 1966 the Official Regional Plan was adopted, giving statutory planning powers to theL1VIRPB over the individual municipalities (Forum for Planning Action 1991, 3). In the late1 960s the LMRPB was split into four Regional Districts. Each district provided the services thatthe municipalities chose to give up. Planning, however, was obligatory in all regions (Forum forPlanning Action 1991, p. 3).The Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board was dissolved into regional districts in the late1 960s, one of which was the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Greater VancouverRegional District was “established by provincial legislation as a higher order confederalEXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /11government to deal with issues of planning, development and service delivery which transcendedmunicipal boundariest’(Artibise et al. 1990:5-6).The GVRD had administrative powers in some areas, such as water supply andsewage. In the early 1980s, it was responsible for regional transit revenuecollection and service recommendations to provincial agencies responsible for theplanning and operation of transit services. It lost this role in 1983, when theprovince set up a regional transit commission composed of elected local officials,selected by the province. (Heaver and Henriksson, p. 4).After the election of a new government in 1975, the regulatory planning powers of the GVRDwere removed and planning jurisdiction returned to the municipalities (Forum for PlanningAction 1991, p. 4).4. REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TODAY.The Greater Vancouver Regional District has no jurisdictional powers with regards totransportation at present (Forum for Planning Action); however, it does provide importantservices to the region. In 1976, while the GVRD still had regional planning power, it developeda strategic plan, The Livable Region, for the entire Greater Vancouver area. Today’s version ofthis plan, entitled Livable Region Strategy: Proposals, is a guiding document to the future formof the region. However, it now relies heavily on the cooperation of the member municipalitiesfor its success.Transport 2021 is a partnership between the Province and the GVRD. It is a long range planningprocess designed to solve the current and future transportation issues in the region throughintegrated planning. “For the first time in the region’s history, land use and transportationplanning are being combined” (GVRD 1992, p. 2).EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /12C. MODAL INTEREST POLICIES.1. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.Public transportation services began in the Lower Mainland in 1897, when R.M. Home-Payne ofthe British Empire Trust Company of London acquired the British Columbia Electric Railwayfranchise. Right from the start, public transportation service was regional in nature. “At first thecompany operated under separate agreements for each street in Vancouver, but in 1901 thecompany and the city successfully renegotiated a comprehensive franchise and revenue-sharingagreement similar to, but less onerous than, those prevailing in Toronto and Montreal”(Armstrong and Nelles 1986, p. 191-192). With services being provided to Vancouver and NewWestminster, the British Columbia Electric Railway franchise provided an integrated publictransportation system which the individual cities could not or would not do. In 1961 the powercompany, which also had responsibility for transit, was nationalised and became the BC Hydroand Power Authority (Heaver and Henriksson p. 4). In 1976, the province created the UrbanTransit Authority (GVRD 1991, p. 6). Thus, public transportation became a responsibility of theprovincial government.Public transportation throughout British Columbia is operated by BC Transit. Today the GreaterVancouver transit system is “a partnership between BC Transit, a provincial crown corporation,and the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission [VRTC], the local body representing the 15municipalities, three electoral areas and three villages comprising the VRTS [VancouverRegional Transit System]” (Leicester 1991, 1). Transit services are provided from Lions Bay inthe North to the U.S border in the south, and from Tsawwassen in the west to Aldergrove in theeast. In 1990, 650 diesel buses, 244 electric buses, 114 Skytrain cars, and 2 catamaran passengerferries provided service to over 123 million revenue passengers (BC Transit 1991, p. 39-40).EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /13a. Policy MakingThe Vancouver Regional Transit Commission:consists of locally elected representatives of the 18 municipalities and threeelectoral areas within the Vancouver Regional Transit System. The mayor ofVancouver is a member in accordance with the BC Transit Act. All othermembers are chosen, based on geographic areas, by the minister responsible fortransit, then appointed through an order of the lieutenant-governor in council.In consultation with municipalities and the public, the Commission preparesplans, sets fares, and determines service and performance standards for the lowermainland. The Commission also makes recommendations to the [BC Transit]authority, respecting the annual operating and capital budgets for the VancouverRegional Transit System. (BC Transit 1991, p. 8).b. Policy ImplementationPolicy implementation is the direct responsibility of the BC Transit authority. It receivesrecommendations from the VRTC regarding service levels, performance, and budgets. Inaccordance with the BC Transit Act, the authority also produces an annual service plan whichoutlines the policy directions of the VRTS for the following year. In addition, public meetingsare held on an annual basis and consultations with individual municipalities are ongoingregarding service improvements and changes (Heaver and Henriksson, p. 7).c. Policy ControlEven though the municipalities - through the VRTC - have a voice on the issues confrontingtransit in the Lower Mainland, the sole control over transit operation throughout the Province ofBritish Columbia lies with the Provincial Government (Heaver and Henriksson, p. 7).Interestingly enough, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which is in the best position toprovide regional services to member municipalities, has no say in the operation and control ofthe transit system.EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /14d. FundingDirectly related to policy control is the issue of funding. The majority of the funding for theVRTS comes from Victoria. ‘The funding formula introduced with the regulations of 1978 wasbased on sharing an annual operating deficit between the province and the region, where thecosts included lease fees as a percentage of book value (Heaver and Henriksson, p. 9). Fundingis divided into two sections; 1) Operating costs and non-Skytrain capital cost; and 2) Skytraincapital costs.Operating costs are covered 68.8 percent by the VRTC, and 31.2 percent by the provincialgovernment. Of the 68.8 percent VRTC share, 55 per cent is recovered through fare boxrevenues, and the remainder through fuel tax, hydro levy, and non-residential property taxes.Skytrain capital cost are covered 100 percent by the provincial government.e. Political ContextA major concern with any public service is the political aspect. This arises from the relationshipbetween policy control and funding. In the Greater Vancouver region, the fragmentation of themunicipalities and the fact that much of the funding comes directly from the provincialgovernment is one reason that the control of the transit system remains a provincialresponsibility. The fact that the VRTC has the authority and/or ability to raise only some of therevenues only complicates the policy control matter. Who really is in control of the transitsystem? The municipalities have quite a lot of say on transit matters through the VRTC.Indeed, BC Transit requires the municipalities agreement to operate its vehicles along residentialroads. However, the ultimate decision on transit issues, especially with regards to capitalexpenses, lies solely with the provincial government.EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /152. HIGHWAYS AND ROADS.The use of highways and roads have long been perceived as an undeniable right. Manycommunities and businesses see the operation and maintenance of a good road system asnecessary to the economic growth of the economy. This mentality is further encouraged by thepresent trend of funding maintenance and expansion of the road system out of governmentgeneral revenue. Therefore, any attempts to recover the real cost of road maintenance andoperation from the user is usually met with resistance.a. Road ClassificationsVancouver, through its charter, has been granted complete autonomy over the operation andmaintenance of its road system. Therefore, the provincial government has no control orjurisdiction over any road in Vancouver with the exception of provincially owned bridges(Szalay-Swan).Today, road operation and maintenance is a complex mix of municipal and provincialauthorities. The provincial government maintains jurisdictional and financial control over allaspects of operation and policy decisions on the routes classified as primary arterial outside ofVancouver. These are routes which primarily carry inter-municipal and inter-regional traffic. InGreater Vancouver these routes include the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 99, Canada Way,and Kingsway among others. (Szalay-Swan: Ministry of Transportation and Highways 1987,sec. 6.02)Secondary Arterials, such as the Dewdney Trunk Road in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, areshared responsibilities between the province and the municipalities. In general, responsibility issplit 50 percent province and 50 percent municipality (Szalay-Swan). The actual responsibilitydepends on individual agreements between the municipalities and the province.EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /16b. Policy MakingThe ultimate control over policy making lies with the provincial government (the VancouverCharter and the Municipal Act are provincial laws). The Ministry of Transportation andHighways sets the policy guidelines which municipalities must meet in order to receive funding.For example, a municipality must conform to the Ministry’s Major Road Network Plan in orderto receive funding for the project. The Ministry, however, has no authority to prevent theproject going ahead if the municipality wishes to fund the entire project (Szalay-Swan).c. Policy ImplementationImplementation of the policies in highways and roads is conducted by either the municipality orthe provincial government on behalf of the municipality. Decisions regarding primary arterialroutes are made 100 percent by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Decisionsregarding secondary arterial routes are made jointly by the municipality and the Ministry. Allother roads are the sole decision of the municipality (Szalay-Swan).d. Policy ControlPolicy control of the road system in this region is extremely complex. The Ministry ofTransportation and Highways has full jurisdictional control over all primary arterial routesoutside the City of Vancouver. The Ministry shares control over the secondary arterials with themunicipality. For the most part, each municipality has jurisdictional authority over all the roadswithin its boundaries with the exception of Primary and Secondary arterial roads (Szalay-Swan:Ministry of Transportation and Highways 1987, sec. 6.02).Through the use of the Major Road Network Plan the Ministry of Transportation and Highwaysis able to exercise some control over the development of primary municipal roads. The Ministryrecommends the eligibility of funding for road projects based on the Major Road Network Plan,and therefore exercises defacto policy control (Szalay-Swan).EXISTI1’G FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /17e. FundingRoad funding is dependant on the classification of the roadway as defined by the Ministry ofTransportation and Highways.In British Columbia under the Highways Act, the province pays all capital andmaintenance costs for primary arterial roads, shares capital costs for secondaryroads 50-50 and maintenance costs for these roads 40 percent provincial, 60percent municipal. The charter of the city of Vancouver, however, is unique inthe province as the city is responsible for the planning, funding and operation ofall roads. (Heaver and Henriksson, p. 3).The municipality may apply for funding from Municipal Affairs for certain roads under theMajor Road Network Plan. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways determines whether aroad project is conforming to the Major Road Network Plan and recommends eligibility forfunding to Municipal Affairs (Szalay-Swan).f. Political ContextThe Province recognises a need to retain jurisdiction over all roads which are necessary to inter-municipal traffic. This prevents a municipality blocking a road development because it is not inthe best interest of the community, when it is in the best interest of the region. An often citedexample is the Cassier Connector in Vancouver. As the city of Vancouver has full jurisdictionover this vital link, the province was powerless to improve the intersection for the benefit of theregion until the City of Vancouver decided it was time to act.3. CONCLUDING COMMENTSSam Brand, manager of the Public Policy Branch, Ministry of Transportation and Highwayssuggests that the Ministry has no set policy direction with regards to road building andmaintenance. This is a conscious political decision based on the logic that the direction willchange every four years with the newly elected governing body (Sam Brand 1993). The policymost resembling an actual policy direction is the 1988 report Freedom to Move.EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /18In 1988, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways published Freedom to Move, a documentdesigned to guide the province through the next several years of growth:Every region starts with a current assessment of their area: a transportationoverview study already prepared by the Ministry. This overview identifiespressure points and predominant issues for each region to consider. Objectivecriteria for action are provided, along with a recommended process fordeveloping both short term and long term plans.Once regional transportation plans are developed, the Minister of Transportationand Highways will review the plans with the Ministers of State and a StrategicPlanning Committee.Ultimately, the Ministry will reconcile the eight regional plans and priorities withthe plans, priorities and funding realities of the Province as a whole. The resultwill be an integrated Provincial Transportation Plan. (Ministry of Transportationand Highways 1988, p. 7)Funding for each project would be provided through the budgets of each department. Therefore,from an integrated planning perspective, the plan falls short of being successful.Existing integration between public transportation, highways and roads also falls short. Thegeographic and political fragmented nature of the Greater Vancouver region requires that thetransit system be operated by a body other than the local municipalities. Many commuting tripsin the region are made beyond municipal boundaries. Today, in the GVRD, all aspects of policymaking, implementation, control and funding are made by BC Transit with representative inputfrom member municipalities. BC Transit is an independent Crown agency with its sole mandateto provide efficient public transportation to the residents of the region; however, it must providethis service while minimizing its deficit. BC Transit runs the buses, local councils operate localroads, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways operate and maintain primary highways.Each department has operating agreements with each other, but there is no overall integratedprocess for each to follow.EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /19D. OTHER INTEREST POLICiES.1. LAND USE.The provincial government is the principal authority controlling land use in theprovince. Under the Canadian Constitution the Legislature has almost unlimitedpowers to regulate the use of land in British Columbia. Through legislation, theLegislature has delegated these powers to various bodies, such as the provincialCabinet (referred to in legal terminology as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council),Ministers of the Crown, municipalities and regional districts and administrativetribunals such as the Agricultural Land Commission. (Ince 1984, p. 23).In British Columbia, land use responsibility has been delegated to the local governments with theexception of regional issues such as the Agricultural Land Reserve and Crown lands (Ince 1984).The enabling legislation governing land use planning is the Municipal Act (except Vancouverwhich is enabled by the Vancouver Charter). These “planning Acts, as noted, not only specifywho may plan but also prescribe how they may plan” (Hodge 1989, p. 262). The Municipal Actand the Vancouver Charter lay out the responsibilities and procedures which the municipalitiesmust follow (Province of British Columbia 1962, p. 3237-3244).The single most powerful tool that the municipalities have at their disposal is the control of landuse (Nowlan 1978, p. 76). All municipalities have responsibility and authority to control landuses within their boundaries.a. Policy Making.Land use policy making is the responsibility of the local governments; however, there are someexceptions. Local governments have no control over higher levels of government or theiragencies. Thus, land owned by either the federal or provincial governments or their agencies areexempt from local planning by-laws (Ince 1984). As a result, land use policy making onprovincially or federally owned lands is the jurisdiction of the respective governments,EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /20regardless of local policy. In the Greater Vancouver area, this includes, but is not limited to, theUniversity of British Columbia, Port Lands, Railway Land, Airport land, and any other land thatthe province, the federal government or any of their agencies have purchased or own (Provinceof British Columbia 1962).b. Policy Implementation.Implementation of land use policies is closely mated with that of policy making. As eachmunicipality has control over land uses, they are able to make land use decisions without regardto other municipalities.Implementation of the policy is at the discretion of the local municipality. In general, a planwhich best meets the needs of the municipality is designed and implemented. The concerns ofthe citizens are heard during the planning process; this involves either interactive planningsessions with the community or public meetings to inform the public and request feedback(Province of British Columbia 1962).c. Policy Control.The ultimate control over land use in the Province of British Columbia is the responsibility ofthe provincial government. “The BNA Act. 1867 gives the provincial legislatures the power toregulate ‘property and civil rights in the province’ (s. 92 (13)) and ‘generally all matters of amerely local or private nature in the province” (Ince 1984, p. 7-8).Therefore, according to the Canadian Constitution. 1982 the provincial government has controlover almost all lands within the province (Ince 1984, p. 7). “The provincial legislature hasdelegated to local governments much of its authority to control land use” (Ince 1984, p. 8). Thecontrol of land use on a day to day basis is the responsibility of the local governments by virtueof the provincial governments.EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /21d. Funding.Unlike the public facilities such as transit and highways, the financial benefits of land use zoningare usually gained by private individuals or corporations. Therefore, the actual cost ofimplementing land use control is generally the responsibility of the private developer. Themunicipalities may require the developer to cover all costs associated with re-zoning or landdevelopment.e. Political Context.Politically, land use control has always been seen as a local concern. One of the only substantialsources of revenue which cities can raise is through property taxes, unlike the federal andprovincial governments who may also raise taxes on any item or service that they please. As aresult, it appears to be logical that municipalities should have control over the form of their onlytax revenue.2. PRWATE INTERESTS.This thesis focuses on the roles of the various levels of government in transportation planning inGreater Vancouver; therefore private interests will only be mentioned in passing. There aremany private operations that operate within the above framework. Each of these must deal withthe respective government or agency to obtain permission for operation. Private operations withregards to transportation issues fall mainly within the land use category (parking is an example).However, there are also private bus, taxi and other companies which provide valuable services tothe general public. These services are usually licensed to operate by either the municipal orprovincial governments. An integrated transportation framework will have to take their role intransportation into consideration only so far as to their control and regulation by the variouslevels of government.EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /223. CONCLUDING COMMENTS.Land use planning and the interest of private operators are two important non-modal (roads andtransit) influences on the urban form. Private interests are generally controlled by governmentregulations or licences. In this respect integration may be achieved through changes togovernment regulations. Land use is one of the least integrated aspects of public policy inGreater Vancouver. Public transportation, and roads and highways are for the most part underthe control of the provincial government, either directly, as in the case of primary highways, orindirectly as in the case of the Maj or Roads Network Plan. Land use is different. It is under thecontrol of the many municipalities, provincial Crown agencies, tribunals and other authoritieswhich make up the Greater Vancouver region. Each municipality has its own way of dealingwith issues. It is true that Creating Our Future and the subsequent Livable Region Strategy:Proposals provide a direction for the municipalities to follow, and that the GVRD provides animportant service in this regard; however, the entire process relies heavily on consensusplanning.E. CONCLUSION.Transportation planning in the Lower Mainland today can be best described as cooperative.There is no guiding agency or enforceable plan with which member municipalities, Crowncorporations, private individuals, and other agencies can follow. “For this reason, thedevelopment of a transportation plan for Greater Vancouver must rely on an open, consultativeprocess which allows for input from all interested parties” (GVRD 1989, p. 5). It is theargument of this thesis that this is not enough. Consensus planning results in the lowestdenominator, the level at which a majority of the members and interest groups agree. It meansthat only those projects which are politically favourable (vote winners) are implemented.Examples of projects such as these are the Cassier Connector in East Vancouver, the Alex FraserBridge connecting Richmond with Delta, the new super ferry operating between TsawwassenEXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /23and Swartz Bay, and the extension of Skytrain from Scott Road to Surrey Centre. Each of theseprojects have two things in common; they are highly visible and thus politically acceptable, andthey can be undertaken with no co-ordination or integration with other organisations or agencies.Each of these projects are important links in the Greater Vancouver regional transportationnetwork. However, each one may have repercussions on other modes of transportation and landuses:The relationship between land use and transportation planning go well beyond thesimple fact that transportation facilities use land. Transportation impactsdevelopment on surrounding lands while actual land uses often dictate thelocation and modal choice for transportation facilities. As Owolabi (1986) states,land use depends on the character of the transportation network which in turndepends on the land use pattern. (Faubert 1990, p. 7).Each mode of transportation - as well as land use - are mutually connected. A change in onewill effect the others. For example, the opening of the Alex Fraser Bridge encouraged people todrive, thus removing them from the transit system. ‘The better roads you have, the more trafficyou have.., if you build bigger, you create traffic, you don’t reduce traffic” (Alan Artibise, quotedin Globe and Mail). Therefore the operating costs of transit increase, single occupant vehicletraffic increases, pollution increases, and congestion increases.Computer simulations of the trend over the next 30 years point to a further 80%growth of peak period travel (by all modes), with the number of car trips growingby a projected 86%. Public transit will continue to lose ground. If congestion is tobe held at bay, large scale road construction will be necessary. (Transport 20211993a, p. ii).Transport 2021 goes on to say that a do nothing strategy will lead to a sprawling low densityurban area which relies heavily on the private automobile (1993 a, p. 7). Therefore the travelpatterns of the region’s inhabitants become less focused, further exacerbating the viability of thetransit system while encouraging the use of the automobile.EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /24The trends are already established and have considerable momentum.... Changingdirection will require significant changes in real estate development andinvestment patterns, in the behaviour of people and households, and in thepriorities for public infrastructure. (Transport 20211 993 a, p. 11).Integrated transportation planning in the Lower Mainland requires that each of the above majorissues be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. Within public transportation, planning isintegrated. Each mode, Skytrain, Seabus, or bus are considered with regards to each other.Within each municipality land use is controlled, for the most part, by one department or agency.Private operators are bound by the rules and regulations of the regulating body. Highways androads are a little more fragmented. Some highways and bridges are owned and operated by theprovincial government. Other roads and bridges are operated and owned by the localmunicipality, while some are federally owned.Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the current framework in the GVRD. Notice that eachmode has a distinct channel or path with little or no interaction with the other modes. Moreimportant is the funding situation illustrated by the bank notes. Each mode is fundedindependently of the other modes.In the longer term, a comprehensive transportation plan must [emphasis added]consider alternative scenarios and strategies for regional growth. It should reviewthe movement of both people and goods, both automobile and public transitmodes. It should be formulated in co-operation and consultation with allinterested groups and organizations, and should ultimately identify a solutioncombining the most effective and practical transportation choices. (GVRD 1989,p.3)Furthermore, Pikarsky and Christensen suggest that transportation planning should considermore than just the modal interests, and that funding for all modes should be integrated. Insteadof each corporation having its own budget, there should be one source of revenue from which allmodes and other interests are funded (1976). For this approach to be effective the short termprojects must not proceed without some form of integration with other modes and land useEXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /25plans. To do so would only undermine the goals and objectives of reaching a long termtransportation planning framework.What does this mean for integrated transportation planning? For integrated transportationplanning to work, one authority must control key aspects of each mode of transportation andland use. For example, to institute region wide Transportation Demand Management (TDM)measures, a single body would have to have the authority to say who should do what, how andwhere. TDM measures could be considered the ultimate in integration; they require cooperativeand complementary policies among all modes of transportation and land use.In order to gain a better understanding of how a central body would work and what aspects mustbe controlled, the next chapter will examine other practical and theoretical examples ofintegration among the above issues.EXISTING FRAMEWORK IN GREATER VANCOUVER /26FIGURE 1: EXISITII1G TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FRAMEWORK INGREATER VANCOUVER&MunicipalityPrivateDecision MakingPolicy ImplementationPolicy ControlFinancingInterestsVRTC ProvinceSource: Following Pikarsky and Christensen 1976, p. 8827ifi. POLICY INTEGRATION TIN OTHER CITIESA. INTRODUCTION.Like the human body’s veins, arteries and capillaries, a city’s transportationsystem is the lifeblood of municipal health. Transportation is a necessity forcommuting to work or school, reaching shops and entertainment, deliveringgoods, hauling refuse and even travelling purely for recreation. The city with thewell-designed and well-maintained transportation system will be moreprosperous, less polluted and congested, and able to boast of a better quality oflife than its poorly designed sister municipality. (Harnik 1982, p. 6).Harnik’s organic metaphor of the transportation system underscores the importance of anefficient system. Minimisation of the amount of unnecessary overlap and repetition is bestachieved through integration. Unfortunately, theoretical and practical examples of integrationbetween modes of transportation (i.e. Highways and Transit) are rare. The relationship betweenland use and transit, and to a lesser degree land use and highways, have been extensivelyresearched. In most cases, examples of modal integration are concerned with integration withina particular transit system; for example, the integration of a rapid transit line and the bus system.This thesis is concerned with integration between modes (ie, highways and transit), as well asbetween those modes and land use.The purpose of this chapter is to review some transportation and land use policies. Policymaking, policy implementation, policy control, policy funding, and political context will beexamined first through a theoretical literature review and second through practical examples.The implications and lessons learned for the successful implementation of an integrated systemin Greater Vancouver will be outlined.POLICY iNTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /28B. THEORETICAL LITERATURE REVIEWTransportation issues are far reaching. Not only do they influence the everyday lives of urbanresidents, but also the long term livability and competitiveness of the city. Clearly a welldesigned transportation system, with all elements considered in regard to each other, is ofupmost importance.A mutual understanding between different sectors of planning is, however, ofgreat importance at every planning level. In accordance with the kind oftransport provision undertaken, not only local authorities and various private andvoluntary organisations, but also regional and national authorities have to beinvolved. At the national level, for instance, it is important to balance differentinvestments in highways, railways, tunnels and air traffic against each other, sothat parallel systems, for which the number of travellers will never be sufficient,are avoided. The same criteria can of course be applied for each level ofplanning. (Norrbom 1987, p. 129).Norrbom outlines some economic reasons for integrated planning. In this respect integratedplanning will provide the most efficient urban form and encourage the most efficient use of thetransportation system. Hibbs sees the emergence of the automobile as a catalyst for encouraginga shift from an efficient convergent system to an inefficient divergent system:And while there is no doubt a deeper paradigm shift going on that reflects alleconomic thinking, it is as well to recognise the importance of technology in theurban transport situation. At the risk of over-simplification, it may be seen thatthe introduction of the electric tramway at the start of the 20th centurytransformed the divergent economy of the horse-drawn age into the convergenteconomy of big investment, only to be thrown into a divergent mode by theappearance of mass ownership of private cars. (1990, p. 1)Therefore, the mass use of the automobile perpetuates an environment in which the use of landand human interaction becomes more and more spread out.An essential element in the evolution of dispersed land use patterns has been theemergence of the automobile (including functionally similar vehicles such asvans, pickup trucks, and four-wheel drive recreational vehicles) as the dominantmode of personal transportation and the provision of highway infrastructure toaccommodate automobile travel (Hanson 1992, p. 60).POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /29The continued emphasis on new technologies which value the individual private interests overthe public social interests decreases the densities of land use, thus increasing the inefficiency ofthe urban system.It is this attitude which has created the current urban traffic conditions of today. Lynch andHack point out that:Wherever people are moving, there are social and aesthetic effects to beconsidered. These effects occur wherever people go, and not only when theyhappen to be on foot. In reaction to the horrors of American traffic, we think ofpersons as being unrelated to cars, which are mechanical monsters to be kept intunnels and garages. But cars have drivers. (1984, p. 202)Planners must consider humans and their everyday needs in planning for the future ofcommunities. It is essential that every aspect of the urban system, from land use to the privateautomobile, be considered. Further, the inter-relations between each mode most also beconsidered. For example “the circulation system should be tested in every dimension. The planis checked by mentally making routine trips and noting their nature. How does one get from thecar to the house? How do children walk to school or adults to the bus?” (Lynch and Heck 1984,p. 206). Finally, Lynch and Hack tell us that the system is in a constant flux; it must beadaptable to future technologies and changes in human interaction (1984, p. 206). Therefore thegoals of transportation planning must account for this flux.Pikarsky and Christensen outline nine goals of transportation planning:1. undertake sensible tradeoffs when faced with scarce resources;2. find ways to live in harmony with the environment;3. better meet our needs with less resources;4. modify institutional arrangements to improve efficiency and productivity;POLICY INTEGRATION iN OTHER CITIES /305. resist simplistic solutions for complex problems;6. obtain a better understanding of the consequences of our actions;7. respond to the basic needs of individuals;8. encourage increased participation in policy development by scientists andengineers;9. find useful and workable techniques for getting things done.(Pikarsky and Christensen 1976, p. 17-18).The goal of integrated transportation planning is to mould an environment which encouragessocial interaction and land use densification- a convergent system in Hibbs terminology.Integrated transportation planning must also meet the needs of humans, and be far reachingenough to embrace the sound principles of planning as outlined by Pikarsky and Christensen.1. POLICY MAKINGPolicy making in the public realm is unique. “Private managers do not make policy in the samemanner as public managers. Public management is dominated by federal [provincial in Canada]legislative policies” (Pikarsky and Christensen 1976, p. 12). Therefore, any public policy madeby government agencies or corporations will be based on a different agenda to that made byprivate organisations. This agenda, which is usually based on the social and economic needs ofthe community, is dependant on the particular government organisation. For example, BCTransit will be concerned entirely with public transportation, while the Ministry ofTransportation and Highways will be concerned with regional transportation issues. Land useplanning is generally the concern of the local governments.In his discussion on policy making, Glassborow distinguishes between two types of physical(land use) planning; “planning land use developments other than for transport, e.g. housingestates, schools, factories and office centres, and planning the transport infrastructure and its use,POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /31e.g. road developments, construction of bus stations and car parks, traffic management and oneway street systems” (1983, p. 109).Reichman and Salomon argue that traditionally “transport policy-making has been motivatedprimarily by market and performance approaches” (1987, p. 161). While they accept this asvalid, they believe that transport policy making must go further and include a needs assessmentwhich complements the traditional approach. “This new approach recognises a need to accesswhich varies by household, [and] life-cycle among others” (Reichman and Salomon 1987, p.162).In general, public policy making has been hindered either by a public misunderstanding of theissues or by more regional concerns. All too often, in Vancouver and elsewhere, governmentprocesses in developing plans have been largely difficult for the general public to interpret orparticipate in. As Dahms indicates, there is a need to restate problems so that individuals have abetter understanding:I believe we can improve the decision-making process for urban transportation ifwe take a fresh look at conventional statements of need, and try to formulatestatements that put the issues in a way that permits citizens to grapple with thekey policy questions, rather than simply confronting them with a statement ofneed that admits of no alternatives and paints a picture of the horrors that are tobe expected if the community does not act promptly to meet the needs stated(Dahms 1971, p. 9).2. POLICY IMPLEMENTATIONPolicy implementation strategies are critical to the success of an integrated transportation plan.Brant, Low, and Shea point out that “coordinated implementation involves not only space buttime as well. To fulfil a balanced plan, there must be means of implementing it in an organisedfashion” (1971, p. 20-21). They argue that implementation strategies must be considered at aPOLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /32very early stage in the planning process. Not only the logistics of implementation, but also thequestion of who will be responsible and how implementation will occur must be addressed.Brant, Low, and Shea go on to say that ‘perhaps special development corporations should becreated and given extraordinary powers to act as an agent for city, state and federal governmentsin implementing programs for specific areas or for specific projects” (1971, p. 20-21).Implementation must consider more than just the immediate concerns of transportation issues. Itmust also consider land use and the environment, among others.A 1988 Twin Cities (Minneapolis-St. Paul) Staff report states that:The use of land adjacent to the highway needs to be planned with highwaycapacity in mind. Travel management techniques that reduce or spread out thehighway demand created by the new development need to be put into effect.Interests need to be meshed so local development can occur and regionaltransportation mobility can be preserved. (Metropolitan Council of the TwinCities Area 1998, p. 13).Development decisions can be integrated with those of transportation. The first way is to restrictthe size and location of the developments. The second way is to implement travel demandcontrols to and from the new developments. The third way is to pass on the actual costs of newroad and transit infrastructures to the development (Metropolitan Council of the Twin CitiesArea 1988, p. 15). Therefore, while development decisions must be coordinated,implementation of those policies may be successfully done at the local government orcommunity level.3. POLICY CONTROLWhat is required is some form of metropolitan control over the functionalservices. Give me control over sewer, water, and roads, and I would be happy toleave you the endless joust over neighbourhood zoning. We all know that growthfollows the availability of infrastructure. (Babcock 1991, p. 82)POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /33There is a need for a central control over the policies of various agencies in regard totransportation. Policy control implies the rationing of resources to better facilitate the operationof the transportation system. In this respect, policy control is a form of traffic management. Bycontrolling the future form of all modes of transportation, the actual use of each mode can bestbe managed:Traffic management proposals form an important element in most strategictransport policies. Measures fall into three broad groups: those which increasethe capacity of the network, those which reallocate road space between competingdemands, and those which aim to achieve environmental improvements. (May1990, p. 25).Determining which of the above measures, or the proportions of the above measures, that are tobe implemented within a metropolitan region cannot successfully be done by individualagencies. As indicated earlier, if each agency is responsible for its own budget, it will beconsistently looking out for its own interests. To get beyond this, a central agency is required.This will permit a more objective assessment of the types of measures to be taken, fromincreasing the network capacity to achieving environmental improvements.Fischel provides a good argument for all regulations to do with growth controls to be done on aregion wide, if not province wide, basis. Fischel’s claim “is that such local ordinances causedevelopers to go to other communities. The most likely alternative sites are in exurban and ruralcommunities, where the political climate, at least initially, is more favourable to development”(1989, p. 55).4. FUNDINGLevin and Abend distinguish between cooperative and integrated financing:Under a cooperative arrangement, the individual agencies arrange for and financetheir own portion of a broader unified study. Under integrated procedure, bothagencies agree on the scope of the work to be done and place their funds in a jointPOLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /34account, so that neither agency theoretically has direct control over the outcomeof any portion of the study (Levin and Abend 1971, P. 250).Reichman and Salomon suggest when the market is not a feasible alternative that there are threeareas of consideration for funding: 1) Earmarked verses blocked grants. Is the fundingspecifically for a project or is it provided to a municipality to use it in the most efficient mannerit chooses; 2) Central government funding verses local or regional funding; and 3) Inner cityshare verses the suburban share (1987, p. 163-164). They go on to point out that “we generallyhave a large variety of administrative mechanisms which address themselves to the delivery oftransport services in the context of public policy. What is missing is a recognition that theprovision of transport services should be considered in terms of a comprehensive need-assessment framework” (Reichman and Salomon 1987, p. 164).5. POLITICAL CONTEXTFor a regional integrated transportation plan to work it requires the backing of all the peopleinvolved. This includes the governing agencies, the taxpayers, and the business community whostand to gain or lose in any restructuring of the infrastructure. Peter Self indicates that for majorchanges to occur they require political backing and co-ordination. However, “in whatcircumstances do these things occur? They do not necessarily occur through the existence of aregional or metropolitan authority or body of some kind, even if it is directly elected” (Self1987, p. 12-13).Self argues that for integrated planning to occur it requires a strong centralised authority:Metro governments, as usually conceived, may not prove to be very effectivestrategic planning authorities, although circumstances will very.... Moreover, ametro government will not be able to plan effectively if it includes other powerfullocal governments....Finally, metro governments cannot do without the support of the central orprovincial government; and such governments will often be jealous of a largePOLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /35metro government which is seen as a rival to their own powers. (Self 1987, p.27).Therefore, the success of integrated transportation planning will depend to a great deal on therelationships established between the various levels of governments.Backing up Self s arguments against regional planning by metropolitan governments is Levinand Abend’s argument for regional planning to be performed by state (or provincial in Canada’scase) governments:[M]etropolitan planning and development can be best approached as a branch ofstate government. With all its glaring weaknesses, state government offers themost realistic level for responsive metropolitan decisions.... First, in practicalterms, the state governments are not likely to consent to the creation of 250 or sostrong metropolitan governments because this would imply a transfer of powerthat would emasculate them. Second, many metropolitan problems areextraregional and require state or even interstate action for their solution... (Levinand Abend 1971, p. 259).They raise a good point. Not only are regional governments seen as a threat to provincial andlocal governments, but the geographical extent of the metropolitan region may change over time.Therefore, it will become necessary to enlarge the region incrementally to keep up with thegrowth of a region, or co-operation is required between adjacent regions. The latter has becomethe case in Toronto, where the commuter shed has far surpassed the geographical extent of theMetropolitan Toronto administration area. Levin and Abend go on to say that:Based on this experience, it is reasonable to suggest that metropolitan areaplanning and development should be, in fact, a branch of state government and,accordingly, should be administered through the state rather than through regionalagencies that must look to the federal agencies for financing and to the stateagencies for decisions. (Levin and Abend 1971, p. 259).Self, Levin and Abend all put forward powerful arguments. In each case the effectiveness of aregional government has been questioned based on its relationship with the other levels ofgovernment. They argue that for planning to be effective and efficient it must be carried out byPOLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /36the level of government that has the ultimate authority. Transfer of power to the regionalgovernments will, most likely, be opposed by higher order governments because these newregional governments will be viewed as becoming too powerful and thus undermining theintegrity of the provincial power base.The political sensitivity of any project must not be understated. Voorhees indicates that thepolitical question all too often gets overlooked. “In the desire to mobilize action, too muchattention has been concentrated on one or two options with little awareness of the receptivenessof the political decision-making process to them or to their real potential for improving the urbanenvironment” (Voorhees 1980, p. 21).In examining growth management programs in various states, Bollens suggests that there arethree intergovernmental structures. The first is termed Preemptive/Regulatory. The state retainsfull control over local planning authority and the right to repeal authority which the states deemsto be more than local importance (1992, p. 457). Vermont, Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey,Maryland, and California each have examples of this form of control. The second form of intergovernmental structure is termed Conjoint/Planning. The state imposes regional goals andstandards, but the implementation is at the local level. The consistency of the local plan withregional goals is achieved through the use of penalties and mandates (Bollens 1992, p. 457).“Conjoint is used here as in Welborn (1988) to indicate an inter-governmental relationship thatrests mid-point between preemption and voluntary cooperation” (Bollens 1992, p. 458). Oregon,Florida, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Maine, and Washington State each haveexamples of this form of control. The third form of inter-governmental structure is termedCooperative/Planning. The state imposes local goals and standards but the implementation isvoluntary at the local level. The consistency of the local plan with regional goals is achievedthrough the use of incentives. These strategies attempt to stimulate rather than mandate localaction and thus they closely resemble the ‘cooperative federalism’ of Elazar (1962) and GrodzinsPOLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /37(1966) (Bollens 1992, p. 458). New Jersey, Vermont, Georgia, Cape Cod, Maryland, and theGreater Vancouver Regional District each have examples of this form of control.Bollens concludes that because of the complexities of inter-governmental cooperation, stateplanning will not be easy.Collaborative state-local planning approaches appear to hold greater promise forachieving growth-accommodation goals, compared to circumstances in whichsuch goals are pursued through reactive state regulations that often preempt andantagonise local governments and citizens (Bollens 1992, p. 463).Gale defines the urban growth models based on the form of state- regional-local control. In thisrespect, there are four types of growth management models:1) State Dominant (Oregon, Florida, Maine, and Rhode Island);2) Regional-Local Cooperation (Vermont and Georgia);3) State-Local Negotiated (New Jersey); and4) Fusion (Washington State)(1992, p. 435).Gale suggests that “from the first (1973) to the most recently enacted program (1990 to 1991),the trend appears to be away from the state dominant model and toward the other threeparadigms” (1992, p. 437).6. LESSONS FOR GREATER VANCOUVERPolicy making in Greater Vancouver suffers from many of the same problems as outlined in theliterature review; public misunderstanding of issues, fragmented political structure, and the lackof a single authority with the power to act. Therefore, for reform in policy making to occur inGreater Vancouver many of these issues must be overcome. The issues should be restated,following Dahms recommendation, so that the general public have a clear idea of what theproblem is and what the solutions may be.POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /38Babcock’s plea to give him control of the infrastructure rings true for Greater Vancouver. It isthe provision of infrastructure that allows municipalities to sprawl and encourages the use of theprivate automobile. Both of these result in what Hibbs describes as a divergent economy. Inorder to switch this around, control over infrastructure is key to controlling the growing trafficproblem. Central control over these elements will enable the Greater Vancouver economy toswitch from divergent to convergent which will facilitate efficient use of the transportationnetwork.In times of increasing taxes and expenses it is necessary to find alternative forms of funding. Itis also important that an integrated system receive a reliable inflow of funding. Levin andAbend’s integrated funding approach combined with Reichman and Solomon’s earmarkedfunding appear to be the most effective. The approach offers the taxpayer and politicians at eachgovernment level assurance in knowing where their money is being spent. Under the integratedapproach, a central agency or a coalition of agencies would decide the appropriate projects to befunded based on regional and local goals. Existing and new taxes would similarly be earmarkedfor a particular project or program.Self suggests that a regional government may not be the best approach to solving the regionaltransportation problems. Therefore, a local-provincial partnership may provide the ultimatesolution for Greater Vancouver. Levin and Abend suggest that the planning done by a branch ofstate (provincial) government to be the most effective. The success of the Vancouver RegionalTransit Commission in providing regional transit services in Greater Vancouver suggests thatthis approach has possibilities. Considering the constant flux in human interaction and ideals, thegovernment structure used must be adaptive and responsive to the local needs as well as theregional needs. Therefore, Bollens conjoint approach and Gale’s state-local negotiated or fusionmodels appear suitable. Each of these will enable some local control and some regional control.POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /39In addition, both approaches make concessions to the individual taxpayer’s local concerns andbig government’s regional concerns.C. PRACTICAL EXPERiENCE IN OTHER CITIESThis section will examine some actual examples of integrated planning. The examples selectedare included, not necessarily because they are the ultimate solution, but because they offerlessons that may be learned. In addition, the availability of the data has played a factor in theinclusion or exclusion of specific examples.The Canadian Constitution, 1982, has largely excluded the federal government from any form ofintervention in transportation issues. This is not the case in the United States. In that country,the federal government is able to enact laws requiring municipalities to meet certain objectivesand requirements. “In the US, every city must complete a comprehensive plan in order toreceive federal funding. The plan must consider air pollution, energy conservation, rights ofminorities and women, access by disabled and elderly, and assure public participation” (Harnik1982, p. 7).1. POLICY MAKINGPolicy making in Houston and Oregon are examined. Houston is interesting as it takes a pro-business approach to policy making, while Oregon is one of the first state sponsored models.a. Houston“Houston, a sprawling city of 1.6 million residents in 587 square miles [1500 square kilometres],has long exemplified the working of the free-market development process, unhampered bypublic regulation...” (Porter 1993, p. 27). Confronted with huge transportation problemsHouston has implemented an integrated approach to policy making. The Regional Mobility PlanPOLICY INTEGRATION iN OTHER CITIES /40requires cooperation between modal interests and business interests. In order to address theproblems of the region, “the state department of transportation allowed the small supergroup toset the agenda and priorities and to facilitate this complex process” (Dunphy 1993, p. 34).Therefore, in the case of Houston, policy making is under the control of the business communitywhich is supervised by the state transportation department.The Houston model tends to rely heavily on expensive supply based solutions to itstransportation problems. However, given the past pro-business anti-planning ideologicalframework in Houston, this is a step in the right direction. While the model could not be used asit is in Vancouver, elements of the approach may be adapted. In his review of the Houstonmodel, Dunphy tells us:1) do not limit the options to existing funding;2) agencies must work together;3) private participation is needed;4) there is no single solution;5) have a measurable objective; and6) keep it simple(1993, p. 34).b. OregonIn Oregon, the LCDC [Land Conservation and Development Commission] setsstate planning goals, promulgates rules to pursue them, and determines whetherlocal plans are consistent with those rules. Local governments prepare plans andrevise them until they meet LCDC approval. Planning is thus an integratedprocess. (Knaap and Nelson 1992, p. 215)Local governments must coordinate their plans with the other local governments. Disputes areresolved through the use of a regional planning board (Knaap and Nelson 1992, p. 215). “At thePOLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /41state level, a variety of agencies affect (sic) land use. State agencies construct highways,airports, and parks; they also protect fish and wildlife, environmental quality, and public health(Knaap and Nelson 1992, p. 215). State agencies are required to meet the requirements ofOregon’s planning goals and must therefore submit coordination programs to the LCDC (Knaapand Nelson 1992, p. 215).2. POLICY IMPLEMENTATIONPolicy implementation in Oregon and Washington State will be examined in this section.a. OregonImplementation in Oregon is the responsibility of the local governments. However, “At theheart of Senate Bill 100 [the Oregon Land Use Act] is the requirement that all cities, counties,regional agencies with planning authority, and other state and local agencies that affect land useprepare coordinated, comprehensive land use plans consistent with state goals” (Knaap andNelson 1992, p. 22).b. Washington StateLike Oregon, Washington State requires that the local communities, counties, and state agenciesprepare plans which meet state goals. However, in Washington State, only those communitieswhich are experiencing rapid growth, or have a population over 50,000 people are required toparticipate. The other communities may participate if they so desire (Gale 1992, p. 435).Therefore, while the implementation of plans in both states is at the local level, the Washingtonmodel provides for regional differentiation in needs (Gale 1992, p. 436).3. POLICY CONTROLPolicy control experiences in Houston and Oregon will be examined in this section.POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /42a. HoustonIn the case of Houston, policy control is in the hands of a small group of business people underthe direction of the state department of transportation (Dunphy 1993, p. 34). However, Dunphynotes that “battles over transit have taken their toll on the alliance between highway and transitsupporters” (1993, p. 33) indicating that the approach is far from flawless.b. OregonLand use control in Oregon is established through the use of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs).The Oregon Land Use program is often described as innovative and pioneering -perhaps for two reasons. First, Oregon was one of the first states to retract fromlocal governments, in whole or in part, the authority to plan and regulate land use,thus establishing a state role in land use control. Second ... Oregon’s programembraced many unique approaches to contemporary land use issues, includingurban growth management, public services, affordable housing, economicdevelopment, and resource conservation. (Knaap and Nelson 1992, 187).Knaap and Nelson go on to say that the establishment of Urban Growth Boundaries in Oregonrequire the cooperation of the state, county, and local governments. Therefore “the evidencefrom Oregon suggests that UGBs facilitate intergovernmental coordination” (Knaap and Nelson1992, p. 66-67).In Oregon, the control of the planning process is “accomplished primarily by LCDC andprimarily at three points in the planning process: during plan acknowledgement, during periodicplan reviews, and during certification of state agency coordination plans” (Knaap and Nelson1992, p. 217).4. FUNDINGThis section examines experiences with funding in Houston, San Francisco, and the Twin Cities.POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /43a. HoustonFunding for the Houston Regional Mobility Plan came from several new sources. Examplesinclude increased state funding in the form of a State Motor Fuel Tax, vehicle registration taxes,and the more equitable allocation of state taxes. These taxes raise approximately $500 millionannually. Another source of funding is the transit sales tax. This source raises over $180million annually. However, it is not being applied directly to transit and there has been somecriticism of its applicability. Bond programs, toll roads and direct private sector participationhave all contributed significantly to the funding and building of the road infrastructure (Dunphy1993, p. 32).b. San FranciscoIn San Francisco Bay Area there are various forms of funding other than government imposedtaxes. Funding can be raised through private corporations, user fees as well as the traditionalgrants from the other levels of governments:Financial support [is] mainly by employers and property owners throughmembership fees based on size of firm (employees or square feet). Many receivein-kind contributions such as staff, office facilities, and administrative servicesfrom members (Dunphy and Lin 1990, p. 45).Regional coordination and funding for transportation planning in the Bay area(San Francisco) comes from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC). This is a federally designated metropolitan planning organization. MTCapproves transportation projects and receives state and federal funding andallocates funds from other sources for transit operations (Dunphy and Lin 1990,p. 119).c. Twin CitiesIn the Twin Cities of Minnesota (Minneapolis-St. Paul) funding for infrastructure costs,including transportation, is controlled by the Metro Council. “The operating subsidiaries of theMetro Council depends on fees, grants from the legislature, and bond issues, all of which mustbe approved by Metro” (Babcock 1991, p. 83).POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /44The Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area recommends that funding should considerthat:Highway and Transit funding needs should be addressed jointly.Funds should be generated by users and others who benefit directly, withprovisions made to meet the basic transit needs of those unable to pay.Funding sources should be adequate to maintain current service levels and shouldgrow as real costs grow.Funds should also be stable and predictable, and probably derived from bothpublic and private sources.(Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 1988, p. 16).5. POLITICAL CONTEXTThis section will examine the political context of integrated planning approaches in Oregon andOrange County, California.a. OregonPlanners in Oregon realise that the political acceptability of a particular project will depend onthe nature of that program and the socio-economic status of the residents. Knaap and Nelsonargue that the Oregon model serves to “provide insights into the focus and policy direction ofstate-level planning programs. Since support for state planning comes primarily from urban,service based workers in metropolitan areas, by implication, politically viable state planningprograms must contain elements that elicit the support of those constituencies” (1992, p. 204).In this respect, successful transportation planning must consider, not only those goals directlyrelated to reducing congestion, but also other related goals. Thus, Knaap and Nelson go on tosay that “successful state planning initiatives are likely to contain objectives that include urbanPOLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /45growth management, environmental preservation, and urban economic development, althoughconflicting goals may require lip service at the adoption stage” (1992, p. 204).b. Orange CountyA University of California-Irvine survey of Orange County illustrates the reasons for lack ofsupport by the residents for a regional government. In reviewing the survey, Baldassare pointsout that the lack of support is not because there is no concern for traffic or growth. Certainlythese two factors ranked the highest on the survey. Also the lack of support cannot be blamedon the ‘provincial’ view of community issues. The annual survey revealed a high degree ofawareness on these issues (1991, p. 117).The factors in the Orange County annual survey that best explain the public’s lackof enthusiasm for regional solutions involves attitudes toward government. By atwo to one margin, local residents believe that the current system of city andcounty government sharing responsibility was effective. Whatever frustrationsthey may have with traffic and growth problems, residents do not associate thesecommunity problems with a need to change the local political structure.(Baldassare 1991, p. 117)Based on his analysis of the survey’s data, Baldassare concludes that, for the suburban residents,“regional powers must be proved to be more effective than the now-favoured city and countygovernment approaches to problem-solving. Suburban residents would thus need to be shownconcrete examples of how traffic and growth would improve with a regional authority” (1991, p.118).6. LESSONS FOR GREATER VANCOUVERThe Houston and Oregon experiences suggest that there needs to be a mechanism for localinvolvement and dispute resolution. Houston’s approach to give control over policy making to agroup of local business interests ensures that the plan will be economically viable. Dunphy’s sixconclusions or lessons provide a framework from which to mould an integrated plan for GreaterPOLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /46Vancouver. Oregon, on the other hand, has a state imposed model. In this case, the public isinvolved mainly through their local planning agencies. In Vancouver, the policy making andimplementation processes must have provisions to involve the public in a meaningful manner.Policy control in Oregon is managed by the use of Urban Growth Boundaries. By maintainingcontrol over the policies at three key locations - during plan acknowledgement, during periodicplan reviews, and during certification - Oregon is able to ensure that the regional goals are metwhile the integrity of local planning is maintained. A similar model for Greater Vancouvercould incorporate this check-point control system.The Houston, San Francisco, and Twin Cities experiences suggest that alternate forms offunding, usually from the private sector, are an ideal and acceptable means of fundinginfrastructure improvements. However, it is important that the funding be channelled to the mostappropriate infrastructure to ensure the efficient growth of the community and its transportationnetwork. Therefore, funding must be carefully controlled by a central agency which willallocate funds as it sees fit.The Oregon referenda and the Orange County study suggest that the publics assessment of theproblem is not always how planners and politicians envision it. It is therefore important to havea good understanding of what the public wants and is willing to support. Political support willclosely follow popular support. As the public is generally more distrustful of largergovernments than smaller governments, it is important to retain the integrity of localgovernments and use them to their best advantage. Therefore, an integrated transportationframework must include a significant role for local governments.POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /47D. CONCLUSIONThis chapter has been concerned with reviewing ways and means of improving the efficiency ofmetropolitan and regional transportation systems. Self defines efficiency “to be the argumentthat by having a planned development the necessary investment and infrastructure can be coordinated more effectively, economies of scale can be realized....” (Self 1987, p. 4-5).The current situation in Greater Vancouver is a consensus planning model, or what Bollensterms “cooperative federalism,” with no central authority at the helm. An integrated processwould provide direction at the higher provincial level, while allowing flexibility at the locallevel. Moving from the existing Greater Vancouver consensus model to this new approach neednot be difficult nor politically unacceptable. Elkin, McLaren and Hillmen suggest that thesolution is to proceed with change in an incremental fashion (1991, p. 72).Kirlin reminds us that regional problems are not new, and that attempts at regional governancehave been tried before. These ‘orthodox’ approaches have generally attempted to reduce thenumber of local governments, create one metropolitan government, reorganise serviceresponsibility based on ‘rational design’, concentrate powers among bureaucrats and electedofficials, and reply on higher governments to solve regional trans-municipal boundary problems(Kirlin 1991, p. 122). Recognising the public’s resistance to regional governments, lack offunding and an increase in the understanding of the weaknesses of large governments, Kirlinsuggests that the old approach is no longer valid (1991, p. 123). Recognising this, Kirlinoutlines ten emerging ideas which will provide a framework for reorganising metropolitangovernments:1. region specific institutions are needed to respond to regional issues;2. the fragmentation of the metropolitan area must be overcome;3. the region must have political accountability;POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /484. regional, as well as neighbourhood governance, must be strengthened;5. recognise that plans and bylaws are static, and thus are limited tools;6. make better use of legislative decision rules and of prices in governance;7. make better use of the private and the public sectors;8. ensure equatability of access to policy making to all people;9. recognise that a vision is critical; and10. remember that effective government requires a sustained effort by everybodyinvolved(Kirlin 1991, p. 124-131).The Oregon approach, the basis for many other U.S. state integration models includingWashington State, provides some insight on how this model works:[M]ultiple statewide planning goals, a state and local planning structure, and localimplementation represents the fundamental elements of Oregon’s statewideplanning program. Multiple statewide planning goals establish the scope of stateland use planning. An intergovernmental planning structure helps coordinate theplans of disparate state and local agencies. Local implementation serves tomaintain local control over land use decision making. But because the stateparticipates less in plan implementation than in plan formulation, state interestsare less effectively expressed in land use than in land use plans. (Knaap andNelson 1992, p. 218-219)The conjoint approach used in Oregon has been widely adapted in many other U.S. States, and itis adaptable to the Greater Vancouver Region.Each of the practical and theoretical examples in this chapter have attempted to address theproblem of political fragmentation typical of urban centres throughout North America. They areadmissions that the old local based planning approach is no longer efficient in times ofincreasing population pressures and increasing fiscal restraints. Pikarsky and Christensen arguePOLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /49that planning in the U.S.A. is moving from the “Modal Interests” individual approach, to anintegrated policy involving more than just the modal interests (1976, p. 86-90). Figure 2illustrates this integrated emerging policy, which centralises the policy making, policy control,and financial processes for all involved parties.Most of the literature reviewed in this chapter is involved primarily with land use planning in theU.S.A. as well as provisions for controlling or accommodating urban growth. Nevertheless, theprinciples may be applied to a framework designed primarily to integrate the modal and land useinterests of a community in Canada providing that the major logistical and legislative differencesare noted and dealt with. As argued in Chapter II, Greater Vancouver is currently operatingwithin the “Modal Interests” individual approach. This chapter has served to provide theoreticaland practical frameworks from which to develop an integrated approach to planning based on thePikarsky and Christensen model. Chapter four will outline a new framework for GreaterVancouver transportation planning. Lessons learned in this chapter will be incorporated andadapted to the unique ideological and political situation which exists in Greater Vancouver.POLICY INTEGRATION IN OTHER CITIES /50FIGURE 2: EMERGING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FRAMEWORKBalanced Needs,Evaluation of ConsequencesSource: Pikarsky and Christensen 1976, p. 8951IV: A POLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVERA. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter is concerned with developing a policy framework for integrated transportationplanning in Greater Vancouver. Whereas Chapter II explored the existing conditions in GreaterVancouver, this chapter will explore what each agency must do if integrated planning is to beachieved. The first part of this chapter will be devoted to the theoretical organisation of the newframework, part two will be a case study designed to show how the new framework would workin practice.B. THE NEW FRAMEWORKChapter II illustrated the importance of local autonomy over planning powers in BritishColumbia. For example, the planning authority of the Lower Mainland Regional PlanningBoard (LMRPB) was deemed too powerful by the provincial government. It was subsequentlydivided up into four smaller regional districts. The planning mandate of these districts wasremoved in 1983 in favour of local government (Forum for Planning Action 1991, p. 3).Therefore, as indicated by Kirlin (1991), any attempt at centralising planning authority in a newregional bureaucracy will most likely fail. These types of authorities will be viewed as anotherlevel of government by the general public and a threat by the provincial government to its ownauthority (Levin and Abend, 1971).A review of the literature and practical experiences in other cities indicates that funding andpolicy control are the key areas for central control. While involvement is essential in policydecision making and policy implementation, these functions may be successfully carried out atthe local level. The process of planning combines many steps in the development of plans, eachPOLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /52of which builds on previous steps, and a plan may be influenced at any juncture. The stepsidentified in this thesis are policy making, policy implementation, policy control and funding.It will be argued in this chapter that Greater Vancouver needs a regional integratedtransportation planning system that is equally represented by the provincial government and thelocal governments. The centre of this thesis is not a new level of government or increasedpowers for a regional district, but a new conjoint provincial-local organisation which controlsand finances the various aspects of transportation and land use planning in Greater Vancouver.The proposals contained in this chapter are designed to operate within the existing politicalstructure. While it may seem much more efficient to reorganise local governments and redistribute the allocation of powers among them, for the purposes of this thesis this is notconsidered an option. First, the reorganisation of local governments may be extremely timeconsuming and is generally not popular with politicians. Second, it assumes that there is thepolitical will to make major changes in the political structure. Third, as outlined in the literaturereview, this reorganisation is usually at the detriment of the provincial government.The proposals put forth are designed to require a minimum of political intervention. It must bepointed out that integration cannot occur without some changes in provincial legislation; all landuse controls and planning fall under the jurisdiction of provincial legislation.The key to the successful operation of the new framework is the establishment of TheVancouver Regional Transportation Commission. This commission is designed to deal with thefuture planning of the region’s transportation network, provide flexibility, make the best use ofthe existing political structure, provide a major role for local governments and provincialagencies, and be implementable with minimum changes to provincial legislation.POLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /531. THE VANCOUVER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONThe Vancouver Regional Transportation Commission (hereafter referred to as the newcommission) is based on the existing Vancouver Regional Transit Commission and the GreaterVancouver Regional District (GVRD). The new commission would have an expanded role intransportation planning including such issues as land use and highway concerns. As with theexisting regional commission each municipality would be given a chance to sit on the newcommission for a set term. In addition, the GVRD, BC Transit, and the Ministry ofTransportation and Highways must also sit on the new commission. This will ensure that bothregional and local concerns are addressed.The new commission is favoured over an expanded role for the GVRD simply to overcomeconcerns of the GVRD becoming a fourth level of government. While technically a provincialorganisation, the GVRD is made up entirely of councillors from local municipalities andunorganised territories. The councillors from the local municipalities are elected by the people tomunicipal office and then appointed by the municipal council to the GVRD Board. Thecouncillors from the unorganised territories are elected by the people to the GVRD Board.Therefore, while the bureaucrats are provincial employees, the deciding body is locally oriented.Each councillor will, most likely, be looking out for the interests of their own community. TheGVRD could be an effective organisation in the operation of a regional integrated transportationframework only if the structure of the organisation is changed. As indicted earlier, thisdevelopment will be seen as a threat by the local and provincial governments. A major premiseof this thesis is to develop a framework which will fit into the existing political structure ofGreater Vancouver. Therefore, the GVRD will maintain its role in long range planning in anadvisory capacity.POLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /54a. OrganisationThe new commission should be made up of voting representatives which are one third appointedby the municipalities, one third appointed by the Crown (BC Transit, Ministry of Highways, andthe Lieutenant Governor in Council), and one third directly elected (Figure 3). This arrangementrecognises that appointed officials will be looking out for the interests of their respectivemunicipalities, while directly elected officials will be looking out for the interests of theindividual. In order to maintain the balance, any decision requiring a vote will require a twothirds majority. It is recommended that there be nine positions in each of the three categories fora total of twenty seven representatives on the VRTC. This arbitrary numberFIGURE 3: ORGANISATION OF THE VANCOUVER REGIONALTRANSPORTATION COMMLSSIONBC Transit (3 seats)-appointment at thediscretion of thePremefre-Bus Service-SeaBus Service-Rapid Transit-New Tecimologies-Primary and SecondaryHighways-BridgesPOLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /55was chosen as it is easily divisible by three, and the total number of twenty-seven councillors isnot too large a group for face to face discussions. It is important to keep the total number ofrepresentatives to a minimum in order to retain a sense of purpose.The directly elected officials will each be elected by and represent one of nine wards, and willhold office for three years. To ensure fair and effective representation, the entire region shouldbe divided into nine wards which cut across the different socio-economic enclaves of GreaterVancouver. For example, the nine wards could be configured as nine narrow strips extendingfrom Point Grey to Maple Ridge and Langley. This form of division ensures that each councilloris responsible to urban and rural residents. The elections will be held in conjunction with theprovince wide municipal elections.The nine municipally appointed representatives will hold office for one year, and will not beappointed more than once in any three year period. In recognition of the unique role of theGVRD in the region, three of these appointed positions must be held by municipal councillorsconcurrently appointed to the GVRD Board. The frequency of representation, and the totalnumber of representatives at any one time will be based on the population of the municipality.Therefore, Vancouver will always have one or two representatives on the VRTC, while PortMoody may only have one every three years.The nine appointed representatives from the Crown (three appointed by BC Transit, threeappointed by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and three appointed by theLieutenant Governor in Council) will hold office for a period of three years.The three way split between directly elected officials, locally appointed officials, and Crownappointed officials represents the need to provide a balanced deciding body which provides fairrepresentation to all concerned. In this conjoint approach, the general public and the two levelsof government (local and provincial) each receive a fair degree of representation. The ProvincialPOLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /56government is allocated a one third representation through the nine positions occupied by theCrown corporations and the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The local governments receive onethird representation through the nine locally appointed positions. While the general publicreceive one third direct representation, in effect they are represented one hundred percent, eitherdirectly, locally or provincially.b. FeesWhile the new commission is designed not to be an undue burden on the taxpayer, there isnevertheless the issue of operating expenses. It is proposed that the fees be organised much thesame way as the structure of the new commission. Therefore, one third of the cost will be bornedirectly by the Province, one third by fees collected from the municipalities, and one third byfees collected directly from the electorate. The latter may be in the form of a gasoline or parkinglevy. It is important to ensure that the funding for the operation of the new commission is clearlyearmarked, so as not to be confused with funding for road and transit projects. In this way, thenew commission will remain accountable to the general public, the municipalities, and theProvincial Government.c. GoalsThe goal of the new commission is to regulate the urban environment to ensure the futureefficiency of the metropolitan transportation system. The first step should be to establish theregional goals to which each municipality and government agency must conform. As indicatedby Dahms (1971), the problem must be stated in a manner that is understandable to the generalpublic; the success of planning depends on its acceptability and adaptability. In addition, Kirlin(1991) reminds us to ensure accessibility to all. An excellent starting point is the alreadycompleted Livable Region Strategy: Proposals document by the GVRD. By adopting (oradopting a revised) Livable Region Strategy: Proposals (or any other regional goals) the newcommission will be elevating it from a recommendation to an adopted policy. This policy willPOLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /57become the basis for decision making within the new commission. Whereas today the documentis merely a guide, in the future it will become law.Another important goal of the new commission is its expandability. As the Greater VancouverRegion grows it will become necessary to incorporate the surrounding municipalities and theirregional districts. An excellent example of this expandability is the 1991 annexation of PittMeadows and Maple Ridge by the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. Pitt Meadows andMaple Ridge remain (in 1993) outside the Greater Vancouver Regional District, however, thetransit services are provided by the Vancouver Regional Transit System. The new commissionwill similarly expand as required into municipalities in other regional districts. The legislationempowering the Vancouver Regional Transportation Commission must be flexible enough toallow for this expansion.The Vancouver Regional Transportation Commission must not threaten the integrity of theprovincial or the local governments. Higher levels of governments (provincial in this case) mayresent and oppose powerful metropolitan governments (Self 1987). Any new organisation of thepolitical structure which favours the regional government over the provincial would be seen aspolitical suicide by the provincial politicians (Self 1987; Levin and Abend 1971). In addition,the general public tends to be more distrustful of larger governments than local governments,and that local governments are in the best position to solve local problems (Knaap and Nelson1992; Baldassare 1991). Therefore, the creation of the new commission is designed to give thelocal governments as much control as possible without compromising regional and provincialconcerns. It must have a small paid staff whose role is to provide direction and a liaison togovernment agencies, private individuals, and municipalities. The actual technical work shouldbe carried out by the staff of the various municipalities and agencies (such as the GVRD). Inthis regard, the model attempts to make the most out of existing resources (Pikarsky andPOLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /58Christensen 1976). The model is thus conjoint; it is a combination of regional goals and localimplementation (Bollens 1992).2. GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICTAs argued earlier, the GVRD was not considered a suitable agency for the purposes of integratedtransportation planning. The GVRD being made up of indirectly elected officials would be seenas a threat to the general public, the Provincial Government, and the local municipalities. Thegeneral public would see it as another level of government which does not have to answer tothem. The Provincial Government would feel threatened and be unwilling to turn over provincialfunctions such as transit and highways to a powerful regional organisation; this is especially trueif the Provincial Government is expected to continue to provide funds to the agency. Themunicipalities would also feel that their power base, especially with regards to land useplanning, is being undermined.The GVRD will work closely with the new commission providing many technical and advisoryroles which the commission is unable to do. From an operational point of view, the newcommission may be seen as an add on to the GVRD; the GVRD will continue to develop longrange and medium range plans which it will present to the new commission for approval andadoption. In many respects, the new framework will strengthen the role of the GVRD in regionalplanning through its association with the new commission.3. POLICY MAKINGMuch of the policy making would remain under the control of the individualjurisdictions.However, this is where the similarity with the existing framework ends. Figure 4illustrates the changes between the old consensus and the new integrated policy making models.POLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /59FIGURE 4: POLICY MAKING IN GREATER VANCOUVER4A: Existing Policy Making Framework4B: Integrated Policy Making FrameworkSource: Following Pikarsky and Christensen 1 976, p. 88-89POLICY II%TEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /60Whereas the old system provided no formal framework for cooperation between the modes, thenew one does. Each of the jurisdictions within the circle on figure 4 has an interest in the policymaking of the others. This interest is served indirectly by the input of the Vancouver RegionalTransportation Commission and the GVRD (and other regional districts as expansion warrants).The role of the VRTC and the GVRD is purely advisory; in this way, the integrity of local needsand nuances is retained while the greater good of the region is addressed.Transit policy making would be functionally similar to what is available today. However, theexpanded roles of the new commission ensure that other modes are also considered. TheMinistry of Transportation and Highways would retain policy making functions with regards toprimary and secondary roads. However, they must now be subject to a review by the newcommission. Similarly, municipalities will retain responsibility for policy making regardinglocal roads subject to a review by the Regional Transportation Commission. Land use policymaking will be essentially local with regional concerns addressed by the Vancouver RegionalTransportation Commission. In this regard the new commission will be involved in the creationof a set of criteria to which municipalities are expected to conform. The new commission willconcern itself with the needs of the region. Thus flexibility will be inherent in the system whichwill allow for variation between the needs of municipalities.4. POLICY IMPLEMENTATIONSimilar to policy making, there would not be much difference in the policy implementationstage. Following recommendations made during the literature review, the actual implementationof the projects is left to the appropriate jurisdiction (Brant, Low, and Shea 1971). It is assumedthat the controls imposed at earlier stages will suffice in ensuring the project is acceptable.Brant, Low and Shea argue that implementation is best left to “special developmentcorporations” (1971). The Greater Vancouver region already has an established network ofdevelopment corporations and agencies; BC Transit is the agency responsible for all aspects ofPOLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /61transit, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is responsible for roads and highways, andthe local municipality (by law a corporation) is responsible for local roads and land useplanning. Therefore, this thesis proposes that an integrated transportation plan must make use ofthese existing agencies and corporations. This not only makes the best use of resources, but italso retains an element of local control and familiarity over the development of the communities.Policy implementation at the local level provides a retained feeling of autonomy in localdevelopments and needs. Considering the powerful force of local governments in the LowerMainland, this concern cannot be overstated.BC Transit will still be responsible for the implementation of transit routes within the region,under the guidance of the Vancouver Regional Transportation Commission. Functionally, forthe Ministry of Transportation and Highways, there will be no change in the process of policyimplementation. The implementation of primary road projects will be by the Ministry ofTransportation and Highways, secondary highways will be by the Ministry in cooperation withthe municipalities, and local roads will remain the responsibility of the municipality. Liketransit and highways there is no real change in the process of policy implementation for land use.It will remain with the local body responsible.5. POLICY CONTROLPolicy control is one of the two areas in which the new framework differs greatly from the old.Figure 5 summarises the major differences between the two approaches. The establishment ofthe Vancouver Regional Transportation Commission as the sole agent responsible for policycontrol is crucial to planning integration. The new commission’s role is limited to policy controlat key points in the planning process, balancing regional needs with local needs. Therefore, thecentralisation of policy control in the VRTC is designed as a ‘checkpoint’ on local andgovernment agencies’ developments. As suggested by Knaap and Nelson, control must beexercised at three key junctures: “during plan acknowledgement, during periodic plan reviews,POLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /62and during certification of state [provinciall agency coordination plans” (1992). The newcommission must have the power to refuse a project at any one of these key junctures based onthe project’s conformity to the adopted plan. Public transport policy must be under the control ofthe new commission. It must institute periodic reviews of plans and evaluate them inconjunction with highways and land use projects. Roads and highways policy control must alsobe relinquished to the new commission. Periodic reviews of local plans to ensure that theyFIGURE 5: POLICY CONTROL IN GREATER VANCOUVER5A: Existing Policy Control Framework5B: New Policy Control FrameworkOther InterestsLand UsePrivate InterestsModal InterestsPublic TransitRoads & HighwaysVancouver RegionalTransportation CommissionSource: Following Pikarsky and Christensen 1976, p. 88-89POLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /63conform to regional goals is essential to the integrity of regional transportation planning. Thenew commission must have legislative veto power over any land use development that it deems‘radically’ nonconforming. The municipality must have a recourse over decisions by the newcommission that it believes are unfair.6. FUNDINGFunding is the second area identified as critical to the control of urban development. Figure 6illustrates the major differences between the old the new frameworks. The rationalisation behindcentralising funding under one authority is twofold. First, by centralising previously fragmentedfunding distribution, individual agencies do not exercise direct control over the planning process(Levin and Abend 1971). Therefore, scarce taxpayers’ monies are allocated more efficiently.Second, by one agency being responsible for the financial health of all aspects of transportationplanning and operation, it increases the awareness of negative and positive consequences ofvarious projects; a new freeway bridge, will (most likely) reduce the ridership of a transit line orthe failure of a city to install transit priority devices will result in increased costs for the transitcompany. For example, following the opening of the $400 million Alex Fraser Bridge,automobile traffic to Vancouver from south of the Fraser River increased by 39 percent whilethe actual increase in population was only 31 percent (Munro 1993, A1-A2). Under the oldsystem the cost and revenue sides are divorced; the Ministry of Transportation and Highwaysbuilds a freeway or bridge, but BC Transit looses the revenue and suffers increased costs. Underthe new system, the Vancouver Regional Transportation Commission will bear both the cost andthe revenues. Therefore, the negative costs to transit of building a new freeway bridge will befelt by the authority making the decisions.POLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /64FIGURE 6: POLICY FUNDING IN GREATER VANCOUVER6A: Existing Funding Framework6B: New Funding FrameworkSource: Following Pikarsky and Christensen 1976, p. 88-89The new commission will take over the funding responsibility of the old VRTC. However,unlike the old method of raising money for transit and then placing it in the government’sgeneral revenue fund, the new agency must have its own accounts from which to draw funding.Removing this funding from general revenue will ensure that the money is not transferred tosome other use.Provincial funding which formerly went direct to the Ministry of Transportation and Highwaysmust now be channelled to the new commission. Local funding will be required, along the linesProvinceProvince& MunicipalityVRTCPOLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /65of the old VRTC (for transit). For example, the BC Hydro Transit levy would now be the BCHydro Transportation Levy. This levy would be channelled into the new commission’s accountand allocated to particular transportation projects.Unlike the modal policies, land use is generally funded by the private developer. Therefore, theVancouver Regional Transportation Commission will not have much control over this aspect.However, through a change in provincial legislation, the new commission must have theauthority to provide or withhold grants and other funding for infrastructure developments. Itwould be ideal to channel some of the income generated by local governments in the landdevelopment process to the new commission. This funding should be used to develop newtransportation infrastructure or programs to deal with the expected traffic generated by thedevelopment. This form of Development Cost Charge (DCC) may encourage the developer andmunicipality to reduce the impacts of the development.7. POLITICAL CONTEXTThe new framework is designed to fit into the current political and ideological make up ofGreater Vancouver. It attempts to address the problems caused by the current local baseddecision making and control system of planning by centralising the decisions made at key pointsin the process. However, none of these changes are possible without adjustments to provinciallegislation. Thus, even though this framework strives to fit into the existing political system,change cannot occur without the political will to do so.To put the changes in public transit planning into operation requires the provincial governmentto enact changes to the BC Transit Act and other legislation. The legislation must abolish theold Vancouver Regional Transit Commission and enable the new Vancouver RegionalTransportation Commission responsible for transit. Changes are required to the Highway Act,Municipal Act, and Vancouver Charter to enable the new Commission responsible for controlPOLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /66and funding of roads and highways. Changes to the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charterare required to enable the new commission to fund and control land use planning. Thesechanges must recognise the new commission as having financial and policy control functionsover public transit, roads and highways, and land use.8. PRIVATE INTERESTSThe interests of private companies must be provided for within the new framework. Forexample, the control of licensing taxicabs and airport shuttle buses should be relinquished to theVancouver Regional Transportation Commission. In doing so, the new commission will be in aposition to efficiently allocate the licences (and maybe provide funding) to the variouscompanies.9. POLICY IMPLICATIONSa. Public TransportationThe everyday process of planning and operating the public transit system in Greater Vancouverwill now consider more than just the financial bottom line of the transit system. Labourrelations will continue to play a major role in the operating procedures employed by BC Transit.While the centralisation of funding and policy control will do a lot to encourage the moreefficient operation of the system, the labour unions will continue to oppose any plan whichwould j eopardise their members’ standard of living. In addition, the political situation will alsocontinue to place the financial responsibility of the transit system ahead of the socialresponsibility. Therefore, at best, the integration of transit planning with that of the Ministry ofTransportation and Highways, and land use ensures the more efficient allocation of resources. Itmay also open up other possibilities. For example, road pricing, toll roads, and living close towork are all options that may be pursued in an integrated fashion for the entire region (Transport2021, 1993).POLICY IITEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /67b. Highways and RoadsThe greatest change at the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is the loss of responsibilityover policy control and policy funding of its projects. Whereas previously, the Ministryconsidered the need for a new road project without (technically) the serious consideration ofother non-Ministry solutions, under the new arrangement these non-Ministry considerations arebuilt into the process. For example, the Ministry may wish to build a bridge and charge a toll topay off the costs involved. Under the new framework the bridge still may be built, but the tollwould be levied, not to pay off the cost of the bridge, but to discourage Single OccupancyVehicles (SOy). This form of road pricing would encourage the use of other more efficientmodes of transportation, such as car pooling, public transit, among others.The Ministry will continue to operate in much the same way as it did before; however, theMinistry will now be subject to input by the Vancouver Regional Transportation Commission,GVRD, and other municipalities and government agencies in the early stages of development.They will then be subjected to complete ongoing reviews by the VRTC at key stages in thedevelopment. Therefore, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways retains much of itsprevious jurisdiction, but relinquishes policy control and funding to the regional body.c. Land UseLand use planning, long considered a right of local governments in British Columbia, willcontinue to be practised at the local level. The actual designation of land for developments, thezoning designations used, and the ultimate use of that land will continue to be a responsibility ofthe local governments. However, the developments will be subject to a review by the newcommission at key points during the process. The new commission will evaluate the plans basedon the established regional goals. As the new commission represents the views of themunicipalities and the provincial agencies, the actual variation between the local plan and theregional goals should theoretically be quite minor.POLICY iNTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /68Control over land developments will be exercised by the Vancouver Regional TransportationCommission through the use of its authority over funding. The VRTC will tie in the availabilityof funds for such things as infrastructure development to the compliance of a municipality’s planto the regional goals. Therefore, compliance results in a high level of funds being returned tothe community for infrastructure to service the development, while non compliance results inlittle or no funds being returned. As each community is expected to contribute funds to theVRTC, the withholding of those funds to the community will be viewed as a penalty.It is this last point that may not be popular. People may see the transfer of funds frommunicipalities to the new commission as a form of tax. This need not be; the funds providedrepresent what the community would have spent on infrastructure for developments. In manycases much of this funding is received in the form of grants from the provincial government;therefore, most of the funds ‘contributed’ by the municipality will be grants redirected to the newcommission. The VRTC acts as a bank for the member municipalities; the monies will bereleased for a development based on the merit of that development in the regional context.10. CONCLUDING COMMENTSFigure 7 illustrates the new framework for transportation planning in Greater Vancouver. Themodel recognises that transportation planning is more than building roads or transit systems inisolation of each other, or in isolation to land use planning. It recognises that the urban structureis inter-related; a change in one area will cause change, both negative or positive, in other areas.In Figure 7, the box entitled ‘Modal Interests’ represents the traditional approach totransportation planning. The other two boxes represent the need to include other importantelements in an integrated fashion such as land use, long range goals, public advocacy, andtechnical considerations.POLICY II’4TEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /69Policy making, as illustrated in Figure 7, is proposed to remain the jurisdiction of individualagencies and organisations, but with a proviso; the new commission and the GVRD will have anadvisory role in the policy making process. The VRTC, made up of local and governmentrepresentatives, represents the needs of the entire region while the GVRD represents the areasunder its jurisdiction or for which it does planning.It has been the argument of this thesis that integrated planning requires one agency to controlcertain aspects of the planning process. It has also been argued that local and regional concernsmust be balanced; a centralised provincial agency, while considered the most efficient, may bemet with resistance by local governments and the general public. At the same time, a regionalgovernment may be viewed as a threat by the provincial government, and an unnecessary wasteof money by the taxpayers. Therefore, the new commission, being made up of provincial andregional members, strikes that much needed balance.The Vancouver Regional Transportation Commission must be given complete control over keyelements of the planning process as well as complete control over all aspects of funding. As abody composed of a mix of local and provincial elected officials, representatives, and technicaladvisors, the new commission does not need to be viewed as another level of government. It is amelding of provincial and municipal governments designed to plan for the orderly future growthof the Greater Vancouver region. Policy implementation will remain a responsibility of thebody which has jurisdiction. Funding for implementation will be administered, based on a set ofcriteria, by the new commission.C. CASE STUDY: ADOPTING AN OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLANIn the early stages of the new commission, municipalities and Crown corporations will berequired to bring their community and corporate plans in line with the regional goals. InPOLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /70addition, BC Transit and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways will be required todevelop long range plans which are consistent with the regional goals. Later amendments tothese plans will also have to conform. Therefore, the primary functions of the new commissionwill be to create and ensure compliance with regional goals.FIGURE 7: INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FRAMEWORKFOR GREATER VANCOUVER.Long RangeGoalsTechnicalEvaluationPublicAdvocacyPolicy MakingPolicy Controla-FinancingBalanced Needs,Evaluation of ConsequencesPolicyImplementationSource: Following Pikarsky and Christensen 1976, p. 89POLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /71As indicated throughout this thesis, the issue of integrated transportation planning involves manyfacets of urban life. It is impossible to develop a case study which is able to deal with allpossible scenarios in integrated transportation planning. For example, the development processof a new bridge or Skytrain line would be different than a rezoning application within amunicipality. While roads and transit, for the most part, fall into the jurisdiction of a Crowncorporation, land use planning generally does not. Land use planning is generally a function ofthe municipal governments. As indicated earlier, the land use organisation of urban areas greatlyinfluences the transportation structure. Therefore, the biggest challenge to the successfulintegration of transportation planning in Greater Vancouver is the acceptance of certain keyaspects of land use planning being relinquished to the new commission.Municipalities currently have the option of adopting an Official Community Plan (OCP). Anincentive to do so is that they become eligible for funding from the Province. The newframework will require that, in Greater Vancouver, the OCP must be endorsed by the newcommission to become eligible for this funding. In this regard, the OCP is the most basic level atwhich planning may be controlled. Therefore, this case study will examine the steps required toadopt an Official Community Plan.1. POLICY MAKINGThe structure and content of the OCP will remain the responsibility of the municipality;however, the OCP must now address the regional goals as outlined by the new commission. Inthe stages of creation or amendment, the OCP must be forwarded to BC Transit, Ministry ofTransportation and Highways, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and the VancouverRegional Transportation Commission. Each organisation will have the opportunity to expressconcerns and suggest modifications to the document. The OCP must be forwarded to the newcommission, between the second and third readings by the municipal council, for endorsement.If the OCP conforms with the regional goals, then it may be adopted and endorsed by the newPOLICY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /72commission. The municipality will then hear the third and final reading, At this stage they maydecide to adopt or reject the OCP.2. POLICY CONTROLIf the OCP does not comply to the regional goals, then the new commission will not bepermitted to endorse the OCP. If the new commission refuses to endorse the amendment, and themunicipality insists on adopting the OCP, the new commission has two recourses -financialpenalties or provincial intervention. If the OCP only marginally violates the regional goals, thenthe new commission may only wish to refuse to endorse the OCP; however, if the OCP is a grossviolation of the regional goals, and the municipality insists on adopting it, then the newcommission may vote to request that the legislature declare the OCP as void.3. FUNDINGOnce the OCP has been endorsed by the new commission, then the municipality is eligible forvarious forms of funding. The funding is allocated based on a balance of needs, and anevaluation of the consequences. In the case of an OCP, it may be funding for infrastructureimprovements such as water, sewage, roads, or any other relevant service. If the OCP was notendorsed, but the municipality decides to adopt it without modifications, then the newcommission will impose financial penalties on the municipality. These may be in the form ofincreased transfer funds from the municipality, or the withholding or reducing of transferpayments to the municipality.4. POLICY IMPLEMENTATIONOnce the OCP has been endorsed by the new commission, the implementation of individualprojects is the sole responsibility of the municipality - providing that the developments conformto the OCP. If the project requires a rezoning not supported by the OCP, then the OCP will haveto be amended. As indicated above, OCP amendments require the approval of the newcommission.POLICY iNTEGRATION FRAMEWORK FOR GREATER VANCOUVER /735. CONCLUDING COMMENTSThis case study has served to illustrate the basic operation and purpose of the new commission.The two key components in the new framework are policy control and funding. These twoaspects are closely linked; funding is used as a tool to enforce the regional goals. Themunicipality retains the right to produce an OCP which meets the needs and desires of the localpopulation, but the OCP must now consider more than just local concerns. It must be noted here,that under the Municipal Act, a municipality retains the right not to adopt an OCP. This will notchange under the new framework. It is anticipated that the fmancial incentives tied to adoptingan OCP will encourage most (if not all) municipalities to do so.As this case study has illustrated, the new commission is only involved at the creation oramendment stage of an OCP. Therefore, the way in which a municipality responds to theregional goals is a local responsibility. By exercising control at key points in the process, thenew framework provides the necessary central control while retaining much of the decisionmaking at the local level.D. CONCLUSIONThis chapter has been concerned with developing a framework for integrated transportationplanning in Greater Vancouver. The framework necessarily requires some changes to theideological and political structure of the region. Therefore, the establishment of a newcommission made up of representatives of local and provincial agencies provides a balancebetween truly local fragmented planning and truly provincially controlled top down planning.The Greater Vancouver region has strong local government structures and government superagencies in place. By coordinating the control and funding of these governments and agencies atvarious key points in the process, while maintaining their control over policy making andimplementation, a framework that operates at a greater level of efficiency may be established.74V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThe purpose of this thesis was to develop an integrated framework for transportation planning inGreater Vancouver. It was intended to be a framework which could be implemented withminimum changes to existing legislation and which would utilise the existing institutionalstructure to its maximum advantage.A. SUMMARYChapter II uses library data and interviews to outline the existing framework for transportationplanning in Greater Vancouver. There is no legislation requiring coordination or integrationbetween jurisdictions or Crown corporations in the planning process. It was concluded that acentral body responsible for key aspects of planning is needed to guide the future growth of theregion.Chapter III uses library data to examine theoretical and empirical examples of integratedplanning. Lessons for Greater Vancouver are extracted from the data and provide a basis fordeveloping a new framework. It was concluded that a central body must have jurisdiction overpolicy control and policy funding in order to be effective.Chapter IV uses the information and conclusions from chapters II and III in order to develop anew integrated framework for Greater Vancouver. To be successful, the framework mustrequire a minimum of change in existing legislation, must utilise existing institutions, and mustprovide a balance between top-down and bottom-up planning. It was concluded that a newregional commission made up of municipal and Crown representatives, with jurisdiction overpolicy control and policy funding, would be the most effective.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 175B. CONCLUSIONSThe conclusion of this thesis is that integration is possible without radical change in the currentstructure of the planning system. Integration will require some commitment by local andprovincial governments in order to bring about the necessary changes in legislation. The use ofa commission will blend the municipal and provincial government structures, providing aframework which is responsible to the local community and is responsible to the needs of theregion.Integration is a step in the right direction to solving the problems of urban sprawl and trafficcongestion. It will allow projects to proceed based on their contribution to improving the overallmobility of the region, rather than their political acceptability and popularity. More importantlyit will foster a shift in attitudes among professionals on the issue of transportation andcommunity. Over time, hopefully, this will filter down into the collective consciousness of thegeneral population:[Tiraffic problems are extraordinarily complex and defy quick fixes. In the finalanalysis, traffic congestion is neither a technical problem nor a problem ofinadequate facilities, but an inescapable consequence of the manner in which wechoose to live and the way we have organized our metropolitan areas. Only whenwe decide - or are forced - to change the way we live will an accessible andlivable region be possible (Seelig and Artibise 1992, p. 70).76REFERENCE LISTArmstrong, Christopher and H.V. Nelles. (1986). “Suburban Street Railway Strategies inMontreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, 1896-1930.” Power and Place: Canadian UrbanDevelopment in the North American Context. Edited by Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F.J.Artibise. Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press.Artibise, Alan F.J. (not dated). “Commuters Driven to Distraction.” Globe and Mail. EdmontonEdition, 1992.Artibise, Alan F.J., Jay Wollenburg, Norman Hotson, and Arther Fallick. (1990). Town Centresand the Livable Region: A Strategy for the 1990s. Burnaby, B.C.: Greater VancouverRegional District. April 1990.Babcock, Richard F. (1991). “Implementing Metropolitan Regional Planning.” ConfrontingRegional Challenges: Approaches to LULUs, Growth, and Other Vexing GovernanceProblems. edited by Joseph DiMento and LeRoy Graymer. Cambridge, Mass.: LincolnInstitute of Land Policy. 79-87.Baldassare, Mark. (1991). “Attitudes: On Regional Solutions and Structures.” ConfrontingRegional Challenges: Approaches to LULUs, Growth, and Other Vexing GovernanceProblems. edited by Joseph DiMento and LeRoy Graymer. Cambridge, Mass.: LincolnInstitute of Land Policy. 105-120.BC Transit. (1991). BC Transit Annual Report 1990-1991. Vancouver, B.C.: BC Transit.Bollens, Scott, A. (1992). “State Growth Management: Intergovernmental Framework andPolicy Objectives.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 4.: 454-466.Brant, Austin E., Dana B. Low, and Gerald P. Shea. (1971). “Urban Transportation Needs:Problems and Solutions.” New Approaches to Urban Transportation Needs. Specialtyconference, March 30-31, 1971, Philadelphia, Penn. New York, N.Y.: American Societyof Civil Engineers. 13-24.Dahms, Lawrence D. (1971). “Let’s Make the Needs Known so Someone Will Do SomethingAbout Them.” New Approaches to Urban Transportation Needs. Specialty conference,March 30-31, 1971, Philadelphia, Penn. New York, N.Y.: American Society of CivilEngineers. 1-11.Downs, Anthony. (1992). Stuck in Traffic. Washington, D.C. The Brookings Institution.Dunphy, Robert T. (1993). “Houston Takes a Business Approach to Regaining Mobility.” UrbanLand, March 1993: 31-34.77Dunphy, Robert T., and Ben C. Lin. (1990). Transportation Through Partnerships. WashingtonD.C.: The urban Land institute.Elazar, Daniel. (1962). The American Partnership. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Elkin, Tim, Duncan McLaren, and Mayer Hillman. (1991). Reviving the City: TowardsSustainable urban Development. London, TJK(?): Friends of the Earth.Fischel, William A. (1989). Do Growth Controls Matter: A Review of Empirical Evidence onthe Effectiveness and Efficiency of Local Government Land Use Regulation. Cambridge,Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Faubert, Reginald Paul. (1990). Coordination of Transportation and Land Use Planning: A CaseStudy of Greater Vancouver. Master’s thesis. School of Community and RegionalPlanning, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C.: University of BritishColumbia.Forum for Planning Action. (1991). Achieving Vision Renewing Vision: A Discussion Paper onReforming Regional Government in the Lower Mainland. Vancouver, B.C. November 7,1991Gale, Dennis, E. (1992). “Eight State-Sponsored Growth Management Programs.” Journal of theAmerican Planning Association. 58, 4.: 425-439.Glassborow, D.W. (1983). “The Constraints Imposed by Physical Planning on RegionalTransport Organisation.” The Regionalisation of Transport and Regional Planning inPractice: An Examination Based on Case Studies. Council of Europe Seminar.Strasbourg.: European Conference of Ministers of Transport. December 5 and 6, 1983.107-112.Grodzins, Morton. (1966). The American System. Chicago, Ill.: Rand-McNally.GVRD. (1983). Parking Policy Study For Suburban Downtowns in the GVRD. Prepared byHamilton and Associates. Burnaby, B.C.: GVRD._____(1989). “Regional Transportation: The Need for a Comprehensive Plan.” Bulletin.Burnaby, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional District. March 1989.(1991). Vancouver Regional Transit System: A Proposal for Improving the Structure andAccountability of the Transit Service. Burnaby, B.C.: Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict.(1992). Choices 1: Creating our Future: The Livable Region Strategic Plan. Transport202 1. Burnaby, B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional District.78_____(1993). Livable Region Strategy: Proposals. Burnaby, B.C.: Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict. August 1993.Hanson, Mark, B. (1992). “Automobile Subsidies and Land Use: Estimates and PolicyResponses.” Journal of the American Planning Association. 58, 1.: 60-71.Harnik, Peter. (1982). Design and Transportation: Technical Bulletin No. 9. Washington D.C.:National League of Cities.Heaver, Trevor D. and Lennart E. Henriksson. “Subsidies, Taxes and Prices: Their Roles andEffects in Transportation Planning in Vancouver, Canada.” Centre for TransportationStudies, University of British Columbia. Photocopy of typescript.Hibbs, John. (1990). Using the Market to Achieve Optimal Transport Systems (Both Private andPublic) in Urban Areas. Rees Jeffreys Road Fund, Transport and Society, DiscussionPaper 9. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University. January 1990.Hodge, Gerald. (1989). Planning Canadian Communities. Scarborough, Ont.: Nelson Canada.Ince, John G. (1977). Land Use Law: A Study of Legislation Governing Land Use in BritishColumbia. West Coast Environmental Law research Foundation. Vancouver B.C.:Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, Centre for Human Settlement,University of British Columbia.(1984). Land Use Law: British Columbia Handbook. West Coast Environmental LawAssociation. Vancouver, B.C.: Butterworths Legal Publishers.Kirlin, John J. (1991). “Policy Responses: Creating the Conditions for Devising Reasonable andRegional Solutions.” Confronting Regional Challenges: Approaches to LULUs, Growth,and Other Vexing Governance Problems. edited by Joseph DiMento and LeRoyGraymer. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 121-132.Knaap, Gerrit and Arther C. Nelson. (1992). The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State LandUse Planning from Oregon. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Leicester Glen. (1991). Transit and Nodal Development. Prepared for BC Transit.Vancouver, B.C.Levin, Melvin R., and Norman A. Abend. (1971). Bureaucrats in Collision: Case Studies in AreaTransportation Planning. Cambridge, Mass.: JVIIT Press.Lynch, Kevin and Gary Hack. (1984). Site Planning. 3rd edition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.79McCarthy, Michael P. (1986). ‘The Politics of Suburban Growth: A Comparative approach.”Power and Place. edited by Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F.J. Artibise. Vancouver, B.C.:University of British Columbia Press. 323-33 9.May A.D. (1990). Integrated Transport Strategies: A New Initiative or a Return to the 1960s?.Rees Jeffreys Road Fund, Transport and Society, Discussion Paper 21. Oxford, U.K.:Oxford University. September 1990.Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area. (1988). Transportation Congestion: SomethingVery Big is Building in the Twin Cities. A Metropolitan Council Staff Report preparedfor the 1988 State of the Region. St. Paul, Mm.: Metropolitan Council. March 1988.Ministry of Transportation and Highways. (1987). Classified Highways - Part 3 Highway Act:Responsibility and Cost Sharing. Victoria, B.C.: Province of British Columbia.—. (1988). “An Introduction to the Transportation Planning Process.” A/V Transcript, Tuesday,November 29, 1988. Victoria, B.C.Munro, Harold. (1993). “Skytrain Fails to Convert Commuters.” The Vancouver Sun. Sec. A, p.1-2. July26, 1993.Nijkamp, P. and S. Reichman. (1987). “Transportation Planning in a social context.”Transportation Planning in a Changing World. edited by P. Nijkamp and S. Reichman.Aldershot, U.K: Gower Publishing Company. 1-8.Norrbom, C.E. (1987). “Planning Criteria in the Provision of Public transport Services.”Transportation Planning in a Changing World, edited by P. Nijkamp and S. Reichman.Aldershot, U.K.: Gower Publishing Company Ltd in association with European ScienceFoundation 1987. 129-138.Nowlan, David M. (1978). “Toward Home Rule for Urban Policy.” Journal of Canadian Studies.13, 1: 70-78.Owolabi, B.O. (1986). “The Transportation Engineer: An Indispensable Entity in Land UsePlanning.” Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal. 56, 6: 37-3 9.Pikarsky, Milton, and Daphne Christensen. (1976). Urban Transportation Policy andManagement. Chicago, Ill.: Lexington Books.Porter, Douglas R. (1993). “Houston’s New-Wave Zoning.” Urban Land, March 1993: 27-30.Province of British Columbia. (1962). B.C. Municipal Act. Victoria, B.C.: Province of BritishColumbia.80Reichman, S. and I. Salomon. (1987). “Travel Demand or Need for Access as FutureDeterminants of Transport Policy-Making.” Transportation Planning in a ChangingWorld. edited by P. Nijkamp and S. Reichman. Aldershot, U.K.: Gower PublishingCompany Ltd in association with European Science Foundation 1987. 152-167.Replodge. (1991). Integrating low and high tech transportation strategies. 2nd annualTransportation 2000 conference. Snowmass, Col.: October 6-8, 1991.Roseland, Mark. (1992). Toward Sustainable Communities. Ottawa, Ont.: National Round Tableon the Environment and Economy.Rutter, Laurence. (1980). The Essential Community: Local Government in the Year 2000.International City Management Association.Seelig, Michael Y., and Alan F.J. Artibise. (1991), From Desolation to Hope: The Pacific FraserRegion in 2010. Vancouver, B.C.: School of Community and Regional Planning, UBC.Self, Peter. (1987). The Role and Limitations of Metro Government in positive Urban Planning.Vancouver, B.C.: Centre for Human Settlement, UBC.Transport 2021. (1993). Transportation Demand Management Measures and Their Potential forApplication in Greater Vancouver. A joint project of the Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict and the Province of British Columbia. Burnaby, B.C.: Greater VancouverRegional District. January 1993._____(1993 a). A Long-Range Transportation Plan for Greater Vancouver. A joint project ofthe Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Province of British Columbia. Burnaby,B.C.: Greater Vancouver Regional District. September 1993.Transportation Association of Canada. (1993). A New Vision for urban Form. A briefingpublished March 1993.Voorhees, Alan M. (1980). Failing and Succeeding in Planning for Transportation. Vancouver,B.C.: Centre for Human Settlement, UBC.Weborn, David, M. (1988). Intergovernmental Relations in the American Administrative State:The Johnson Presidency. Austin, Tex.: university of Texas Press.Wichern, Phillip. (1986). “Metropolitan Reform and the Restructuring of Local Governments inthe North American City.” Power and Place: Canadian Urban Development in the NorthAmerican Context. Edited by Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F.J. Artibise. Vancouver, B.C.:University of British Columbia Press. 292-322.81InterviewsBrand, Sam. Manager, Public Policy Branch, Ministry of Transportation and Highways.Telephone interview. 13 May 1993.Szalay-Swan, Maria. Senior Planning Engineer, South Coast Region. Ministry of Transportationand Highways. Personal interview. 13 May 1993.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087353/manifest

Comment

Related Items