CityHallWatch has obtained a copy of this letter to Mayor and Council about the City’s Draft Transportation 2040 Plan, being discussed and likely to be adopted in City Council today. They cover many critical points about the plan, point out that the public has not had enough time to properly review it (released just days ago), and ask Council to consult more with the public.
October 30, 2012
Mayor Robertson and Councillors, City of Vancouver
Dear Mayor Robertson and Councillors,
Re: Transportation 2040 – City of Vancouver report – Oct. 30, 2012
We are requesting that the City of Vancouver’s Transportation 2040 - Report to Council Oct. 30, 2012 be accepted for information only and that Council NOT approve any of the recommendations.
A more comprehensive and meaningful consultation process is required. http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20121030/documents/rr1.pdf
Again we are faced with a large and complex report with only a few days to respond before council consideration for approval. Although there was a previous draft for public review, much of this report doesn’t address previous concerns raised and the new report has also been broadly expanded, particularly on land use issues, without any public consultation at all.
Upon quick review we have the following concerns:
- Neighbourhood impacts should be minimized by a priority to replace diesel buses with electric trolley buses. The city is moving towards densification of the arterials but there is no priority to reduce environmental impacts with enforceable air quality controls.
- Land use is listed at the top of the list of directions in the report. Increasing density along proposed transit corridors will increase demand on already underserved transit areas, such as the Broadway Corridor. The City of Vancouver is not the top regional area for transit improvements, yet if increasing density is a city priority without added transit, the city will become more auto-dependent not less.
- Page 112/123 – quote: “T 6.1.2 Explore how development can be used to help pay for rapid transit projects, while recognizing the need for other public amenities that are also required with increased densities.- Explore funding options” Using the Hong Kong model of funding transit with development was strongly opposed by the community in previous consultations. This is a form of senior government downloading since transit is a provincial responsibility.
- Transit funding should use mileage-based vehicle charges and carbon taxes rather than development, invasive road tolls or increased transit fares.
- Page 74 of 123 shows a new map that defines locations of Rapid Transit Station Areas and Corridors. These areas cover most of the communities of Mount Pleasant, Grandview, Fairview, Kitsilano, Point Grey, Downtown, Norquay, Joyce, Renfrew, etc. These precedents, if applied to all of the proposed corridors on the map on page 85 of 123, would cover even more of the city. (See attached)
- Regional designation of roads or transit corridors would be added to the Regional Context Statement due next July 2013 under the requirements of the Regional Growth Strategy. This will give Metro Vancouver and TransLink much more influence in land use planning within the Station Areas and Corridors that cover most of the city, so is a transfer of authority from the municipal level. If TransLink is using development to fund transit, this creates a systemic conflict of interest.
- The Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability recommendations such as the Interim Rezoning Policy are listed as related reports to Transportation 2040. The MTF rezoning policy is roughly based on TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network, so this could give it regional significance, covering most of the city.
Generally, transportation planning should not be used primarily to direct land use planning. Land use is a complex process that should be originating from community-supported planning, including Community Visions and Local Area Plans, that is within the local scale and context. Transit should serve the community rather than the community serving P3 transit investors. The potential for land use authority being transferred to senior governments and the unaccountable TransLink, raises great concerns and need for caution.
We do not feel that there has been enough time for proper community consultation on the recommendations in this proposed report. We request that the proposed recommendations are not adopted by Vancouver City Council and allow public consultation on the proposed report with amendments to reflect the issues raised.
Supporting Groups or Individuals:
- Arbutus Ridge Community Association
- Dunbar, Linda MacAdam **
- Dunbar Re-Vision, Mike Andruff
- False Creek Residents Association
- Grandview Process Advisory and Civic Engagement Group (PACE), Bruce Macdonald **
- Grandview Heritage Group, Jak King **
- Grandview Woodlands, Tom Durrie **
- Grandview Woodlands, Petronella Vander Valk **
- Kitsilano Arbutus Residents. Association (KARA)
- Kitsilano Point, Lynne Kent **
- Norquay, Joseph Jones **
- North West Point Grey Home Owners. Association
- Residents Association Mount Pleasant (RAMP)
- Riley Park / South Cambie CityPlan Vision Implementation Committee (RPSC), Allan Buium, Chair **
- Riley Park / South Cambie CityPlan Vision Implementation Committee (RPSC), Ned Jacobs **
- Shannon Mews Neighbours Association (SMNA), John Brimacombe **
- Strathcona/East End, James Johnstone **
- Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
- Victoria Fraserview Killarney CityPlan Committee (VFK), George Grant **
- West End, Randy Helten**
- West Kitsilano Residents Association
- West Point Grey CityPlan Vision Community Liaison Group (WPG-CLG)
** Signed as an individual only (insufficient time to consult with full group)
* Majority board support but insufficient time for a membership vote
Note: Some groups are unable to respond at all due to short notice from the City on this report and therefore are not listed.
cc – maps attached as Appendix A
Report Page 74/123
Rapid Transit Station Areas and Corridors
Report Page 85/123
The City of Vancouver’s Transportation 2040 recommendations on land use are mostly the implementation of Sam Sullivan’s EcoDensity initiative, which Mayor Gregor Robertson and the Vision Council criticized and promised to address before and after their election win in 2008. EcoDensity was strongly opposed by the public. At the Heritage Hall neighbourhood event December 10, 2008 Mayor Robertson acknowledged that EcoDensity was not a good idea and praised the neighbourhoods for their effective opposition. But the Transportation 2040 recommendations are in reality another example of the implementation of EcoDensity. (See video of Mayor) http://nsvancouver.ca/about-us/history/