Calgary Regional Partnership Workshop
BC Transit Governance and Funding Experience
Bill Lambert, Manager, Transportation Solutions,
April 16, 2013
BC Transit EvolutionTransit service in BC and involvement of the province has a long history
(unlike Alberta province today with limited exposure):
•1890’s- 1890’s-streetcar service in Vancouver & Victoria as well as interurban
connectors by BC Electric. 1899-streetcar in Nelson-private takeover
•1962- BC Hydro takes over Victoria & Vancouver transit systems from BC Electric
•1972- Province provides subsidy for community transit systems already in existence
•1970’s - Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Bureau of Transit Services-creates Crown
Corporation (Urban Transit Authority(1978) & provincial operating companies (Metro
Transit Operating Company)
•1980’s - BC Transit created as single transit entity covering the province
•1986 - Province involved early in rapid transit--first SkyTrain opened with EXPO 86
being the impetus
•1998 - Separate Transportation Authority and legislation set up for Metro Vancouver in
-TransLink
BC Transit Evolution
• Victoria and Vancouver - Local government responsibility introduced in 1978 with regional transit commissions with provincially-appointed municipal representatives
• Small Systems - Transit Partnership Program established between UTA/BC Transit, local governments and private operating companies (except 5 municipally run systems)
• BC Transit Board of Directors with political and appointed representatives from across province
• Capital infrastructure and vehicles -bulk purchase and design) funded by province and municipalities pay an annual cost for these over life of assets
BC Transit Evolution
• Fares and bus stops set by local municipalities and transit services determined by service plans prepared by BC Transit with local input
• Municipalities pay 54% of operating costs from fares and property taxes
• Marketing, planning, scheduling and operations, contract administration and management functions undertaken by BC Transit with municipalities contributing towards these annual costs
BC Transit Evolution
• Economies of scale with transit functions, specialized services and transit facilities (i.e. structures and designs)provide efficient and effective transit to communities
• Provide range of appropriate level of type of transit services to over 80 communities & greatly ease burden of capital and operating costs
• Integrate transit with other ministries and crowns e.g. Ministry of Transportation in design of roads-transit priority measures and park and ride lots
• Significantly improved mobility and inter-municipal connections in province and related economic development
• Advanced introduction of transit service more quickly and related benefits GHG reductions, economic development etc.
• Earliest systems in Canada to provide transit accessibility, fuel cells
• Developed funding partnerships with regional hospitals
• Improved integration of land use and transit at the regional level
Successes
BC Transit Evolution
• At times local municipalities and /or province have not been able to match desires financially for improved service
• Larger municipalities are seeking more autonomy from provincial control , and want transfer of functions with funding –Victoria, Kelowna, and Nanaimo in particular
• Can allow small municipalities to enter transit without understanding long term impact of costs on a localized budget
Risks
BC Transit EvolutionLearnings for CPR
• Provincial involvement and funding is essential for transit service growth and achieving its benefits –land use integration, economic development, highway transit priority measures, GHG reductions etc.,
• Need to carefully balance provincial, regional and municipal roles
• Great efficiencies can be achieved in joining services regionally-infrastructure and operating savings, improved connectivity, quicker transit service starts, efficiency in functions
• Planning, scheduling, marketing, contract administration, monitoring done together at region versus in individual municipalities
• Municipalities have to have significant financial contributions(i.e. “Skin in the game) of transit systems to act responsibly in terms of service type and growth
• Significant provincial involvement has aided in obtaining federal funds-”BC is first and most successful at the table”
Calgary Regional Partnership Workshop
Example of Work Completed for Increasing Mobility Connections with Same Resources –Scenario 1 to Scenario 2, and Other Analysis
Bill Lambert, Manager, Transportation Solutions, April 16, 2013
Creating a transit system
A B C
CAStep 1Identify connecting points
A B C
CA
Step 2Determine Basic Route, and connecting patterns
Creating a transit system
29.5 km
19.5 km10 km
Step 3Determine Distance of Route
A B C
CA
Creating a transit system
39.3 kph
33.4 kph24 kph
Step 4Determine Running Speed which allows calculation of a round time A B C
CA
Some local roads, some highway
Mostly highway with some local road
Mostly highway
Creating a transit system
45 min
35 min25 min
Step 5Determine Round Trip Time based on average speed estimate A B C
CA
Creating a transit system
Step 6Create a basic running
sheet that shows the number of buses needed to run a service.
Step 7Calculate the daily
running times per bus and multiply by days of the year to get annual service hours
OkotoksCHINOOK 1 - Route A 1:30 Bus 1Lv. Downtown Okotoks 0:05 6:00 7:30 9:00 10:30Ar. Shawnessy LRT 0:40 6:40 8:10 9:40 11:10Lv. Shawnessy LRT 0:05 6:45 8:15 9:45 11:15Av. Downtown Okotoks 0:40 7:25 8:55 10:25 11:55CHINOOK 2 - Route B 1:30 Bus 2Lv. Downtown Okotoks 0:05 6:30 8:00 9:30 11:00Ar. Shawnessy LRT 0:40 7:10 8:40 10:10 11:40Lv. Shawnessy LRT 0:05 7:15 8:45 10:15 11:45Av. Downtown Okotoks 0:40 7:55 9:25 10:55 12:25CHINOOK 3 - Route B 1:30 Bus 3Lv. Downtown Okotoks 0:05 7:00 8:30 10:00 11:30Ar. Shawnessy LRT 0:40 7:40 9:10 10:40 12:10Lv. Shawnessy LRT 0:05 7:45 9:15 10:45 12:15Av. Downtown Okotoks 0:40 8:25 9:55 11:25 12:55
Start FinishExample for Bus 3•7:00 – 12:55 equals 5:55 hours of service•This equals 5.917 hours of service•Multiplied by 251 average weekdays per year•Equates to 1,485 annual service hours
Creating a transit systemStep 8Create a public
timetable version as a base
Lv. D
ownt
own
Oko
toks
Ar. S
haw
ness
y LR
T
Lv. S
haw
ness
y LR
T
Av.
Dow
ntow
n O
koto
ks
6:00 6:40 6:45 7:256:30 7:10 7:15 7:557:00 7:40 7:45 8:257:30 8:10 8:15 8:558:00 8:40 8:45 9:258:30 9:10 9:15 9:559:00 9:40 9:45 10:259:30 10:10 10:15 10:5510:00 10:40 10:45 11:2510:30 11:10 11:15 11:55
Commuter Route BOkotoks
Step 9Alternatives Analysis – Revise timetable based on potential demand to create trip scenarios
Dea
dhea
d to
S
omer
set L
RT
Lv. D
ownt
own
Oko
toks
Ar. S
omer
set-
Brid
lew
ood
LRT
Lv. S
omer
set-
Brid
lew
ood
LRT
Dea
dhea
d to
O
koto
ks
Av.
Dow
ntow
n O
koto
ks
- 6:35 7:15 7:20 7:50 -- 7:05 7:45 7:50 8:20 -- 7:35 8:15 8:20 8:50 -- 7:55 8:35 8:40 9:10 -- 8:25 9:05 9:10 9:40 -- 8:55 9:35 9:40 10:10 -
14:30 - 15:00 15:05 - 15:4515:00 - 15:30 15:35 - 16:1515:30 - 16:00 16:05 - 16:4515:50 - 16:20 16:25 - 17:0516:20 - 16:50 16:55 - 17:3516:50 - 17:20 17:25 - 18:05
OkotoksRoute to LRT
Step 10Create Trip and Schedule Alternatives
Dea
dhea
d to
S
omer
set L
RT
Lv. D
ownt
own
Oko
toks
Ar. S
omer
set-
Brid
lew
ood
LRT
Lv. S
omer
set-
Brid
lew
ood
LRT
Dea
dhea
d to
Oko
toks
Av.
Dow
ntow
n O
koto
ks
- 6:35 7:15 7:20 7:50 -- 7:05 7:45 7:50 8:20 -- 7:35 8:15 8:20 8:50 -- 7:55 8:35 8:40 9:10 -- 8:25 9:05 9:10 9:40 -- 8:55 9:35 9:40 10:10 -- 9:45 10:25 10:30 11:00 -- 11:05 11:45 11:50 12:20 -- 12:25 13:05 13:10 13:40 -- 13:45 14:25 14:30 15:00 -
14:30 - 15:00 15:05 - 15:4515:00 - 15:30 15:35 - 16:1515:30 - 16:00 16:05 - 16:4515:50 - 16:20 16:25 - 17:0516:20 - 16:50 16:55 - 17:3516:50 - 17:20 17:25 - 18:05
Added
to LRT OnlyOkotoks
Other Research for Service Scenarios-Comparison
Scenario 2 versus 1Capital Costs •Able to save in maintenance facilities and exchanges –e.g. common design, one heavy maintenance facility•Bulk bus purchases , bus stops and exchanges/terminals
• Administrative Costs•Planning ,contract management, marketing/branding, scheduling, performance monitoring•Stronger force-addressing railways, City of Calgary, provincial and federal funding, fare integration
• Enhanced Planning –issues like regional commuter rail service
• Consistent private sector contracting and performance monitoring
Other Research for Service Scenarios-Comparison
Scenario 2 versus 1
• Expanded Service Growth and related benefits-economic development, community connectivity, environment, mode share and ridership
• Operating Costs-greater efficiency-savings, more service in terms of connections, trips, and frequency
• Increased seamlessness for customers
• Smart Growth and TOD and overall land use integration
Other Research for Service Scenarios-Financing Principles
• Considers direct and indirect benefits
• Understandable and comprehensive
• Applies to all
• Existing transit investments
• Likely provincial and federal funding
• Short and long term plans
• All capital and operating costs
• Municipal ability to pay
• Municipalities leaving and entering
• Everyone makes some contributions
Other Research for Service Scenarios-Governance Options
• Enhanced municipal cooperation
• Inter-municipal partnership
• Regional controlled agency
• Controlled corporation
• Regional transit services commission
Other Research Required-Governance and Funding options
• More research and work required to move forward on implementation of regional Governance and Financing models
• Bow Valley-even after had determined regional transit commission
• Needed to answer questions • Details of governance structure• Particulars of financing• Operating bylaw• How handle new members