Communities - CivicInfo

Response

to the

Report of the

BC Transit

Independent

Review Panel

Central Okanagan

Communities

September 20, 2012

DOC #: COJS-4

This page is intentionally left blank.

Response to the Report of the BC Transit Independent Review Panel

Central Okanagan Communities i | P a g e

Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... ES1

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Summary of the Joint Submission by Central Okanagan Communities .................................................................. 3

2.1 Identified Issues ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

3.0 Summary of BC Communities Input ....................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 What was Heard by the BC Transit Independent Review Panel ............................................................................... 7

4.0 Discussion of the Recommendations by the BC Transit Independent Review Panel ............................................... 9

4.1 Recommendation 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 9

4.2 Recommendation 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 10

4.3 Recommendation 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 10

4.4 Recommendation 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 12

4.5 Recommendation 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 13

4.6 Recommendation 6 ................................................................................................................................................ 14

4.7 Recommendation 7 ................................................................................................................................................ 15

4.8 Recommendation 8 ................................................................................................................................................ 15

4.9 Recommendation 9 ................................................................................................................................................ 16

4.10 Recommendation 10 .............................................................................................................................................. 16

4.11 Recommendation 11 .............................................................................................................................................. 17

4.12 Recommendation 12 .............................................................................................................................................. 17

4.13 Recommendation 13 .............................................................................................................................................. 18

4.14 Recommendation 14 .............................................................................................................................................. 18

4.15 Recommendation 15 .............................................................................................................................................. 19

4.16 Recommendation 16 .............................................................................................................................................. 19

4.17 Recommendation 17 .............................................................................................................................................. 20

4.18 Recommendation 18 .............................................................................................................................................. 20

5.0 Summary of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................23

5.1 Lack of Multi-Modal Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 23

5.2 Significance of the STPCO to Improve Transit’s Potential ....................................................................................... 23

5.3 Appropriate Shifting of Functions ........................................................................................................................... 24

5.4 Thinking “Outside the Bus” ..................................................................................................................................... 26

6.0 Considerations for Decision and Action ................................................................................................................27

6.1 Joint Response of the Independent Review Panel’s Report ................................................................................... 27

6.2 Additional Considerations ...................................................................................................................................... 29

6.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 30


ii | P a g e Central Okanagan Communities



Central Okanagan Communities ES-1 | P a g e

Executive Summary

Background

In response to the request for a review of BC Transit by communities across B.C., the Minister of Transportation

and Infrastructure, Honourable Blair Lekstrom, established the BC Transit Independent Review Panel to solicit

input into the review of the operations and performance, governance, funding relationships, and communications

and consultation of BC Transit. In response to the Independent Review Panel’s request, the communities of the

Central Okanagan jointly submitted to the Panel documentation of the transit-related issues experienced in the

Region.

The Independent Review Panel received responses from communities across the Province and produced a report

to the Minister consisting of 18 recommendations. In response to the Panel’s report, the Central Okanagan

communities have reviewed and summarized their findings and respectfully wish to make further

recommendations to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Review of Recommendations

A total of 18 recommendations, ranging from governance, communications & consultation, management,

operations, and reporting, were presented in the Report of the BC Transit Independent Review Panel. Each

recommendation was reviewed jointly by the Central Okanagan communities and a response, in terms of support,

and any further recommendations, were provided.

Overall, the recommendations were supported, with many conditionally supported relative to suggested changes

or improvements. In particular, the more significant recommendations addressed the following issues:

Clarity in Roles

• Establish Letter of Expectation [Rec. 1]

• More Clarity in BC Transit’s Role in the Provincial Transit Plan [Rec. 8]

• Enhance Accountabilities in Operating Agreements [Rec. 9]

More Local Government Responsibility and Role

• Improve Skill and Local Representation of the BC Transit Board [Rec. 3]

• Allow for Complete Local Representation of Transit Commissions [Rec. 4]

Communications and Consultation

• Ensure Appropriate Consultation and Decision Making that Reflects Accountability [Rec 5]

• Greater Involvement of the Province and Local Partners in BC Transit’s Communications Plan [Rec. 7]

Administration and Process

• Require Only a Single Set of Operating Agreements for each Transit Service Area [Rec. 11]

• Establish Service Standards with Local Governments and Provide System Performance Data [Rec. 12]

• Provide Policy Framework and Mechanism to Establish Multi-Jurisdictional Intercity Routes [Rec. 18]

Although the recommendations are generally in the positive direction for the Central Okanagan, they do not

consider the key issues that are at the core of the issues related to governance, planning, and service delivery.


ES-2 | P a g e Central Okanagan Communities

Significant Issues Yet to be Addressed

Lack of Multi-Modal Scope

The most significant issue is the omission of a broader transportation perspective in the scope of the review

report. This issue is a matter for which the Minister should be asked to direct his attention to as any

improvements made through the adoption of some or all of the 18 recommendations may be nullified if a broad

multi-modal context is not considered.

Significance of the STPCO to Improve Transit’s Potential

The Sustainable Transportation Partnership of the Central Okanagan (STPCO) was designed with the objective to

increase the uptake of sustainable modes, of which transit is a key mode. The current silo-approach in transit

planning and service provision is considered by most experts to be a major cause of the ineffectiveness of transit

to gain market share. Therefore, the STPCO was developed to consider the modernization of not just transit, but

the whole transportation system—how it is governed, funded, planned, operated, and monitored. As such, it will

be imperative that the Minister understands the benefits of the STPCO and how it is a positive evolution towards

sustainable transportation.

Shifting of Functions

BC Transit’s scope covers 81 transit systems in collaboration with 58 local government funding partners that

provides services to over 130 communities across B.C. We believe the wide scale and varied nature of providing

management services to a diverse group throughout the Province is a key contributor of the numerous issues

identified in this submission regarding BC Transit’s record of management services performance.

As communities grow and increase in urbanization, they start to “come of age” and have need for more

independence and ownership of their own destinies. This process is evident both locally within this province, but

also world-wide. As the transportation system and needs of a community increase in size and complexity, there is

a tendency for more localized capacity and less dependence on the capacity from senior governments for local

services. This change in control can be demonstrated by the devolution of BC Transit in the Greater Vancouver

region through the creation of TransLink at the far end of the spectrum as per the diagram on the page opposite.

Mid-sized systems would be positioned in the middle of this spectrum.

As the size of the transit and transportation system grows, the need for locally-based expertise and capacity (green

area) grows proportionally. Conversely, the need for senior-level expertise and capacity (orange area) shrinks in

kind. The total scope of expertise and capacity remains the same, however the intensity or quantity of expertise

and capacity increases as the system increases. Based on these relationships, it is apparent that the Tier 1 systems

fit within the middle of this spectrum, to the left of independent systems such as TransLink, yet, to the right of

smaller systems.

Therefore, it is suggested that a tiered management services approach be provided by BC Transit to allow more

appropriate senior-level support to regional systems relative to their size, and therefore, their needs. This

approach would be a more efficient, effective, and equitable approach than the current “one-size fits all”

approach.


Central Okanagan Communities ES-3 | P a g e

Within the Central Okanagan, it is proposed that BC Transit’s role be streamlined to provide centralized and high-

level services in terms of procurement, supply services, funding (esp. from Federal government), partnerships

development, standards and regulatory oversight, sharing of best practices and inventory of key performance

indicators (KPIs), and corporate services (e.g. job descriptions, compensation, insurance, etc.). With the

establishment of STPCO, we believe BC Transit’s role to be more focused as a corporate service rather than the

owner of transit in the Okanagan, so that delivery is consistent with local accountability.

Conclusion

In summary, we continue to experience numerous issues regarding the timeliness and quality of management

services provided by BC Transit. Furthermore, there is a larger issue of the scope of BC Transit as a single-mode

entity. Although, there is an acknowledgement of integrating to other modes such as active transportation, the

transit planning process does not allow for effective planning within the larger goals of sustainable transportation.

As such, the transit planning process is required to be subservient to a larger multi-modal transportation planning

process which is more in-line with local official community plans (OCPs), regional growth strategies (RGS), and the

larger interests of the province in terms of efficient transportation and the reduction of related emissions.

The current framework for the planning and delivery of transit service in the Central Okanagan Region requires

major reform/change and a more progressive approach to achieve Local Government and Provincial strategic

goals. A key question is whether the targeted 7% transit mode share for commuting trips by 2035, as defined by

BC Transit’s Transit Future Plan for the Central Okanagan is adequate to support the achievement of sustainable

transportation within the region. However, the more important question is: what role can and should transit play

in the achievement of sustainable transportation in the Central Okanagan? And without a strategic view and scope

that includes other sustainable modes of travel, transit targets planned in isolation of other modes are too narrow


ES-4 | P a g e Central Okanagan Communities

to be able to answer the question of success when it comes to the much broader definition of sustainable

transportation.

A strategy to enhance the existing local transportation governance structure, plans, and programs within the

region has been developed based on a multi-jurisdictional partnership founded on a common ground of issues,

policies, and investments towards a common goal of sustainable transportation. This enhanced governance

strategy seeks to shift the region from a state of individual agencies working independently with only periodic and

informal coordination, to a more formalized partnership with regular and structured coordination of policies,

plans, resources, programs, and projects.

Within this new transportation governance structure in the Central Okanagan, issues and challenges raised

regarding the current transit arrangement and subsequent performance can be met in a more constructive

manner. The establishment of STPCO allows for a more functional, effective, and efficient environment in which

planning, scheduling, marketing, customer service, safety/security, monitoring, operations (e.g. service delivery

management) can all be done synergistically at the appropriate local level. This would also establish local

accountability, which is appropriate given that the transit system serves the local communities and should be

integrated more seamlessly into the overall transportation system and network of roads, sidewalks, bicycle

infrastructure, and regional gateways.


Central Okanagan Communities 1 | P a g e

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Establishment of the BC Transit Independent Review Panel

On September 14, 2011, approximately 40 mayors, elected officials and government representatives

from across the province met with Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, Honourable Blair

Lekstrom, in Victoria, B.C., to ask the provincial government to launch an independent review of BC

Transit amidst collective concerns regarding BC Transit’s communications, performance and operations.

On November, 2, 2011, Minister Lekstrom announced the initiation of an independent review of BC

Transit, inviting approximately 50 local governments for their participation in the review.

On March 15, 2012, Minister Lekstrom announced the establishment of the BC Transit Independent

Review Panel (“Review Panel”), consisting of three members. The panel’s term of reference focused on:

Operations and performance: examining the efficiency and effectiveness of transit services.

Governance: examining the existing structure, processes and policies in place for BC Transit, as

well as the Capital Regional District's request that the regional district perform the functions of

the Victoria Regional Transit Commission.

Funding relationships between BC Transit and local governments: examining the processes for

capital planning, budgeting and operating expenditures and how transit service is allocated,

priorities set, charges imposed and expenditures monitored. Increases to provincial and local

government funding will not be included in the review.

Communications and consultation between BC Transit and local governments.

1.1.2 Recommendations of the BC Transit Independent Review Panel

After consultation and acceptance of submissions by local governments throughout the province, the

Review Panel summarized feedback received on June 22, 2012, outlining concerns raised by BC

communities served by BC Transit. From this input, the Review Panel developed and submitted their

report of recommendations (“Report”) to the Minister on August 1, 2012, with the announcement of the

report being made public on August 14, 2012.

1.2 Purpose

This joint report from the communities of the Central Okanagan (District of Lake Country, City of

Kelowna, District of West Kelowna, Westbank First Nation, District of Peachland, and the Regional

District of Central Okanagan) is in response to the recommendations of the Report of the BC Transit

Independent Review Panel.


2 | P a g e Central Okanagan Communities

The purpose of this joint response is to:

Provide analysis and discussion on each of the 18 recommendations and their significance to the

Central Okanagan;

Identify significant and strategic issues that are within and outside the Review Panel’s scope that

the Minister can address to ensure sustainable and intended transportation goals are met; and

Suggest alternative solutions and arrangements that improve the recommendations and better

align with local and provincial objectives.



2.0 Summary of the Joint Submission by Central Okanagan

Communities

2.1 Identified Issues

A joint submission was provided by the Central Okanagan Communities. The submission consisted of: a

6-page brief, presentation (made to the Panel during their visit to the Okanagan), and a full report. It is

understood that only the 6-page brief has been made public and only the Panel has viewed the

presentation and full report.

Currently, the arrangement for the delivery of transit is based on a 3- way partnership comprised of BC

Transit, local government partners, and an operating company/contractor. The most recent operating

budget for transit has grown by 73% over a 4 year period since 2007/2008, to a total of just under $17

million. The administration cost for management services provided by BC Transit has grown at a faster

rate, or 122% over the same 4-year period, to a total of $1.05 million.

A number of issues in the partnership between BC Transit and the local governments of the Central

Okanagan have created challenges in the planning and provision of transit services in the region. With

reference to the specific question posed to the local governments from the BC Transit Independent

Review Panel, a number of issues and concerns have been identified by the local governments of the

Central Okanagan:

2.1.1 Responsiveness

Numerous occurrences of delayed deliverables and services have been documented. The timeliness of

response during key situations, such as local budget approvals, has created problems for local

governments and may be symptomatic of compounding issues described further in this section.

2.1.2 Quality of Service and Materials

The quality of materials and services from BC Transit has not met expected standards. Often, requests

for materials have required multiple versions due to errors and omissions, further exasperating the

timeliness of required information for key processes.

2.1.3 Efficiency and Effectiveness

The efficiency and effectiveness of services performed remotely from Victoria draws questions as to the

cost-effectiveness of such services. As an example, having BC Transit staff fly into local jurisdictions to

time and plan routes may be better served by local experts, who do not require the time and cost to

travel, and understand the local road system and context much better. Furthermore, the use of multiple

Annual Operating Agreements (AOAs) for essentially a single regional transit system causes unnecessary

administrative effort.



2.1.4 Consultation

Disagreements have arisen regarding the planning and design of new transit infrastructure and the

general direction of transit planning (e.g. Rapidbus stations and exchanges, transit route structure).

Major decisions affecting vehicle replacement and new fare box technologies were arrived at without

adequate consultation with local government partners. Consultation and communication between local

governments, BC Transit staff, the local transit operator, and local transit users is currently fragmented

and very challenging within the current governance structure.

2.1.5 Accountability and Ownership

Accountability and ownership go hand in hand. With the only representative within the community

being the local government, most issues with transit customers are fielded at city hall. And with the

local constituents holding local elected officials accountable for transit service quality, the ownership of

transit should reside mainly with the local governments. Therefore, the representation of the

ownership of transit, such as the image and livery of vehicles, should be agreed upon with local

governments.

2.1.6 Scope and Perspective

BC Transit, by definition, is a single mode agency. Although integration to other modes, such as walking

and cycling, has been identified in recent plans and strategies, by nature due to jurisdictional and

funding scope, this single-mode focus is one of the main deterrents for a more efficient and effective

transportation system.

In order to progress towards a sustainable transportation system, a complete system view is required.

Multi-modal integration is not necessarily the connection of separate systems and plans, but one that is

based on a single vision and strategy as the core of every plan. The current arrangement is one of silos

vs. a truly integrated and seamless transportation system required to optimize the use of the system as

a whole and support sustainable demand for travel. BC Transit is focused on only transit planning,

whereas the Central Okanagan and local governments are focused on transportation planning. This is

evident in the single strategic target of a 7% transit mode share for the Central Okanagan by 2035. Even

if this target was achieved, unintended consequences, as a result of a single-mode vision, could nullify

this achievement. Transportation planning is a more holistic framework and includes the movement of

automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and goods and services—modes that account for the clear majority of

how residents and visitors travel in the region.

The full integration of transit to a region’s transportation system in terms of planning, operations, and

marketing, is more essential in achieving the broad goals of sustainability than the standardization of

transit planning and services through a central body. Furthermore, transit planning needs to consider

other modes in order to understand the true demand for transit (what it can be) vs. forecasting demand

based singularly on current system design and operations (what it currently is).



2.1.7 Alignment and Coordination

The alignment of BC Transit planning, scheduling, and services to local plans and needs has at times

been an ongoing issue, most likely due to the systematic issue of scope as described previously. The

coordination of transit service planning with the opening of new centres and facilities has been off at

times due to delays in response by BC Transit. Similarly, the introduction of transit signal priority on

Highway 97 configured to provide unconditional priority to transit buses can cause avoidable

inefficiencies to traffic on opposing approaches, which can include goods movement and related

services and business travel, and HOV vehicles that may at times be carrying more people than transit

buses themselves. A wider perspective that acknowledges and respects all modes can ensure that

transit, as a part of an integrated transportation system, is more efficiently run.

2.1.8 Defined vs. Actual Roles

Responsibility for various transit planning functions is currently split between BC Transit staff in Victoria

and local staff. Although this model may be suitable for smaller communities with limited transit

service, the scale of the Kelowna Regional Transit System and the forecasted population growth in the

Central Okanagan Region warrants fully dedicated staff who are focused on transit service and multi-

modal transportation integration encompassing active transportation, transit, roadway planning, TDM

and land use planning, which are undertaken by local governments. Furthermore, the Central Okanagan

has the knowledge (data) and abilities (modelling) required to conduct proper multi-modal planning,

which was not utilized in the current transit planning process conducted by BC Transit.

2.1.9 Appropriate Expertise

BC Transit has limited experience in managing large, complex transit infrastructure projects, such as new

Rapidbus services and maintenance facilities, and is relying heavily on private contractor support. Some

functions such as concept design, land acquisition, mapping, surveying and community engagement

could be handled more cost-effectively and efficiently by local government staff who have experience

and expertise in these areas, not to mention appropriate local knowledge.

2.1.10 Information and Data Limitations

Without information, it is difficult to produce plans and designs that are effective. Furthermore,

without a thorough understanding of the market and demands for travel within a region, it is difficult

to produce plans and design routes that meet the needs of the residents and visitors of a region. The

lack of ridership data – integral for planning and evaluation of routes—is a cause for concern as to the

effectiveness of the limited resources available and services provided.

Implementation of the Transit Future Plan goal of a 7% transit mode share requires at least an annual

growth of 17,000 hours annually across the Region and more than doubling of the conventional transit

fleet over the next 25 years. A serious question is whether this is a reasonable goal given current and

anticipated budget constraints, the existing dispersed land use patterns in the region and the

incomplete nature of pedestrian and cycling facilities in local communities (which are required to

provide safe and effective access to transit stops). Moreover, it is questionable as to whether this



increase in transit service and capacity will achieve a 7% transit mode share given increasing difficulty in

capturing additional mode share at the margin. Finally, is a 7% mode share enough to have transit

become a significant mode in the region, especially when this 7% transit mode share target is only based

on commuting trips which account for only 1/3 of all trips in a day? With an increasing retirement

demographic over the next 25 years, the significance of this target could shrink relative to the share of

commuting trips.



3.0 Summary of BC Communities Input

3.1 What was Heard by the BC Transit Independent Review Panel

Approximately 30 written submissions were provided to the BC Transit Independent Review Panel from

local governments of B.C. On June 22, 2012, the BC Transit Independent Review Panel provided a high-

level summary of what they heard. The comments and concerns expressed to the Panel, which will be

used by the Panel to inform its conclusions and recommendations in its Final Report, included the

following1:

3.1.1 Operations and Maintenance

Strong support for having transit services available to residents of the communities we visited;

A belief that local knowledge, including that of operating companies, is not taken into account

by BC Transit and too many decisions are made unilaterally in Victoria;

A desire to have more relevant and timely ridership information;

Some local governments have built capacity to provide services traditionally provided by BC

Transit and do not want to pay BC Transit to provide those services;

Frustration regarding the respective roles of BC Transit and local governments in promoting

transit ridership;

Concern regarding the lack of local government profile on BC Transit buses; and,

Concern regarding unilateral fleet management decisions that impact local communities.

3.1.2 Governance

A desire to have enhanced local government representation on the BC Transit Board;

A strong desire to be a partner in the delivery of transit services but concern that local

governments were not being treated as an equal partner;

Many local governments are moving towards a holistic view of transit services as an integral part

of community, transportation planning, and urban mobility;

Transportation planning requires expertise that is beyond BC Transit’s mandate;

In some areas of the province addressing inter-community and regional transportation needs

does not work well within the existing transit governance model which is focused on individual

communities;

Transit commissions allowed under existing legislation do not guarantee appropriate local

representation; and,

The Victoria Regional Transit Commission membership structure does not adequately represent

the member municipalities within the service area of the Commission.

1 Items highlighted red relate to issues that match the joint submission by the Central Okanagan communities.



3.1.3 Communications and Consultation

Local governments are not convinced they get value from BC Transit for all the services it

provides;

A lack of transparency by BC Transit regarding its decisions and resulting costs;

Frustration about the quality and lack of timeliness of communications between BC Transit and

local governments on a range of issues;

Concern that BC Transit makes unilateral decisions on issues that impact local taxpayers;

Support for the Regional Transit Manager (RTM) model of connecting to local government,

although most local government’s feel that RTMs are under resourced which results in slow

response times;

Guarded appreciation for recent efforts to change BC Transit’s service culture; and,

General support for BC Transit’s Enterprise Investment Initiative (EII) as a better way of seeking

input and involving local governments in decision making.

3.1.4 Funding Relationship

Appreciation for the level of funding support received from the Province for local transit services

Many local governments are concerned about the escalating costs of providing transit;

Concern that the misalignment of BC Transit and local government fiscal years causes budget

and planning problems;

General support for BC Transit’s move to providing three year budget information; and,

A desire to streamline the cumbersome Annual Operating Agreement process.

It should be noted the above high-level summary is what was received by the Review Panel, and it does

not necessarily agree with any or all of the statements.



4.0 Discussion of the Recommendations by the BC Transit

Independent Review Panel

On August 1, 2012, the BC Transit Independent Review Panel submitted their report titled “Modernizing

the Partnership – Report of the BC Transit Independent Review Panel” to Minister Lekstrom consisting of

18 recommendations. The recommendations, and corresponding responses by the Central Okanagan

communities, are discussed in the following sections.

4.1 Recommendation 1

Establish Letter of Expectations2

“The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure should work with local governments with public

transit services to develop the Government Letter of Expectations to BC Transit. The Letter of

Expectations should clearly establish the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of the provincial

government, local governments and BC Transit.”

4.1.1 Discussion

A clear letter of expectations that formally acknowledges the local government as a funding partner

and outlines the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of all partners will help to form a structure

and process that clarifies the currently vague scope and roles of each partner.

4.1.2 Response

Specific requirements (i.e. detailed and mutually-approved roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities

terms of reference) should be identified to ensure the intention of this recommendation flows down to

all aspects of the Partnership. However, the Letter of Expectations should be written, in conjunction

with local governments, specifically to the needs and situation of each local government rather than the

use of a standard and generic letter. It is critical that this recommendation is implemented with high

priority to demonstrate the accountability it seeks to establish.

Response: the Central Okanagan communities conditionally support Recommendation 1.

2 Recommendation sub-titles were added for purposes of this response report and not included in the original

Report by the BC Transit Independent Review Panel.




Increase Board of Directors Membership

“The provincial government should increase the membership of the Board of Directors from seven to

nine. While this recommendation requires legislative change, the following recommendation

(Recommendation 3) can be implemented with either a seven or nine person Board.”

4.2.1 Discussion

As per Recommendation 3, an increase to a nine person Board may benefit the Central Okanagan

Valley’s representation on the Board.

4.2.2 Response

While an increase in the number of Board members is seen as beneficial to the Central Okanagan, this

recommendation is seen as a minor improvement if the changes at the Board-level do not result in the

resolution of the various issues identified by the Central Okanagan.

Response: the Central Okanagan communities support Recommendation 2.


Improve Skill and Local Representation of the BC Transit Board

“Recognize the partnership for the delivery of public transit at the BC Transit Board. Specifically:

i) The Board of BC Transit should provide local governments with a Board skills matrix to guide the selection of

nominees to the Board.

ii) The provincial government should revise the appointment process for the Board of Directors to allow local

government to directly appoint representatives to the Board. Prior to legislative change Cabinet should accept

nominations from local governments for appointment to the Board. A revised appointment process that

would be consistent with existing legislation (current Board size) and an expanded Board under

Recommendation 2 is outlined in the following table:

Under Existing Legislation With recommended legislative changes

Provincial government Appoints three members including Chair. Appoints four members including Chair.

Local government Nominates two members from the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and two other elected local government representatives.

Appoints two members from the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and three other local government appointees.

iii) It is common practice that elected officials do not sit on the boards of Crown agencies since their

responsibilities as a Director may conflict with their accountabilities as an elected official. The Panel

considered two options for the appointment of the local government representatives and did not reach a

conclusion on a preferred approach. The pros and cons of each approach are identified in the following table:



Under Existing Legislation With recommended legislative changes

Option 1: Local government appointments may include sitting elected officials.

• Consistent with current practice. • Knowledge of current needs/interests of

local government.

• Potential for high turnover due to local government election cycles.

• Risk of conflict in balancing local interests with BC Transit interests.

Option 2: Local government appointments would exclude sitting elected officials.

• Provides continuity as appointments would not be tied to election cycle.

• Director would not be tied to single community.

• Easier to make appointments based on the skills matrix.

• May not adequately represent local government interests.

iv) Provincial government and local government Board appointments should be made on the basis of staggered

terms to allow for Board continuity.

v) The provincial government and local government should negotiate appointment guidelines to be consistent

with standard board practices regarding appointments and terms. In order to implement these

recommendations local governments would need to determine the appropriate body to coordinate the

appointment process.”

4.3.1 Discussion

The identification of the link between equity and accountability is positive and allows for the

acknowledgement of local government’s appropriate role in decision making. An expanded Board

appointed based on a required matrix of skills also is positive in that more professional and appropriate

appointments should support the improvements and changes sought.

Although legislative change would be required, in the interim, the Cabinet is recommended to accept

nominations from local governments for appointment to the Board. This is a positive recommendation

towards local participation in the decision making process.

4.3.2 Response

Although this recommendation is a positive one, it is a minor improvement if the changes at the Board-

level do not result in the resolution of the various issues identified by the Central Okanagan. Option 1 is

desired given the objective to ensure the appropriate person (skill) is appointed, should not necessarily

preclude elected officials.

Response: the Central Okanagan communities support Recommendation 3 with Option 1 (may

include appointment of elected officials).




Allow for Complete Local Representation of Transit Commissions

“The provincial government should amend the BC Transit Act to allow local government to appoint all

members of a transit commission and allow the transit commission to hire its own clerical and technical

staff. In the interim, Cabinet should accept nominations from local governments for appointment to

transit commissions and BC Transit will continue to provide clerical and technical staff to transit

commissions.”

4.4.1 Discussion

The transit commission model may work well in smaller areas, however in larger or more complex and

modally-complete regions, it may limit proper planning. In the contents of the Report, it was reminded

that regional commissions are able to request that the Province introduce a fuel tax to support transit,

indicating the potential to establish use-based funding sources. However, the use of a fuel tax to

support transit has its limits and contradictions, as demonstrated in the TransLink model.

A key observation will be the outcome of the Victoria Regional Transit Commission’s review and if its

governance structure continues as a commission or is changed.

4.4.2 Response

The recommendation for a regional commission to be able to appoint all its members, as well as staff, is

positive. However, within the framework of a multi-modal governance model (i.e. STPCO), the

commission model may duplicate governance efforts. Furthermore, with the ability for local

governments to appoint all of their members and technical and clerical staff, there is a need to clarify if

this will shift the scope and capacity of clerical and technical staff from BC Transit, or if there will be

duplicity. Furthermore, would the administration budget be correspondingly shifted from BC Transit to

the local government? Although the Central Okanagan, does not necessarily support the creation of a

transit commission in the Region, it does support the ability for local governments across the Province to

create local commissions with the ability to appoint all the members and hire its own technical and

clerical staff only if the corresponding capacity and funding is shifted to the local government.





Ensure Appropriate Consultation and Decision Making that Reflects Accountability

“Local government and BC Transit decision making authority should rest with the partner that bears the

consequences or benefits of any decision. Where a decision of one partner will have an impact on the

other partner, consultation should occur:

i) The BC Transit Board should ensure that BC Transit decision making explicitly considers the impact on local

governments and should ideally include a mechanism for local government sign off. For example, the BC

Transit Board told the Panel that all decisions of the BC Transit Board that have capital cost implications for an

individual transit system must have local government approval. BC Transit should ensure that all local

governments are aware of this policy.

ii) The BC Transit Board should ensure that any system wide capital spending decisions made by the BC Transit

Board has input from an advisory panel consisting of local government representatives.

iii) Local governments should provide sufficient notice to BC Transit on service adjustments so that the financial

consequences of that decision are appropriately shared between the partners.

iv) The Province should consult with local governments on provincial public transit policy.

v) BC Transit should ensure that it engages with and considers the input of local governments and transit

operating companies in route planning and scheduling activities.

To be clear, no changes in decision making authority are proposed but improvements in process are

required.”

4.5.1 Discussion

The identification of responsibilities in the provision of Public Transit relative to MoTI, BC Transit, and

Local Governments is useful. However, the issue is the disconnect between defined roles and actual

roles, leading to the question of “value for money.” Recommendation for greater control of marketing

and promotion at the local level is positive, as well as the recommendations for BC Transit to consult

with local governments on system-wide capital spending and route planning and scheduling.

Regardless, the lack of identification of a multi-modal framework is an important omission.

Statement iii) is the reverse, at least in the Central Okanagan, where BC Transit has not provided

sufficient notice to changes of plans, nor have been timely in providing critical financial information.

The final statement “To be clear, no changes in decision making authority are proposed but

improvements in process are required.” implies no changes to authority are proposed, only

improvements to the process. However, this is contradictory to the initial statement “Local government

and BC Transit decision making authority should rest with the partner that bears the consequences or

benefits of any decision.” The local governments bear the consequences or benefits of decisions, and if

accountability should rest with the partner that bears the consequences and benefits, then the decision

or control should also rest with that partner as noted in the first statement.



4.5.2 Response

At the very least, local governments should be responsible for any planning and decision making related

to routes, schedules, infrastructure capital. If there is a lack of local expertise and capacity regarding

these matters, local governments should have the option to seek this expertise from BC Transit.

It should be acknowledged that Statement iii) does not describe all transit systems and is the reverse in

the case of the Central Okanagan.

The last statement “To be clear, no changes in decision making authority are proposed but

improvements in process are required.” is not supported and contradictory to the opening statement of

this Recommendation. A change in decision making authority should be proposed in the regions that

are sizable and can demonstrate a more holistic and appropriate decision making/governance model

and process that supports the common local, provincial, and national goals of sustainable

transportation.



Greater Involvement of BC Transit in the Local Planning Process

“Local government should involve BC Transit in key planning issues and invite BC Transit to participate in

official community planning processes. Local governments should provide BC Transit with information

regarding decisions that may impact public transit including:

Long term municipal transit budgets;

Land use planning; and,

Transportation planning and zoning decisions that will result in developments that will require

transit services, or impact the ability to deliver public transit.

These requirements should be outlined in operating agreements between BC Transit and local

governments.”

4.6.1 Discussion

This recommendation may be a moot point for regions such as the Central Okanagan as it has been

documented that the lack of responsiveness and timeliness by BC Transit demonstrates the reverse is

actually the case: that BC Transit should consult with local governments, use information provided, and

respond to the needs of the local planning process, which considers a larger and holistic scope.

4.6.2 Response

Response: the Central Okanagan communities support Recommendation 6 in principle.




Greater Involvement of the Province and Local Partners in BC Transit’s Communications Plan

“BC Transit should develop a strategic communications plan that includes provincial government, BC

Transit and local government strategic goals for transit and share the plan with local governments. The

plan should outline key dates and timelines for provincial government, BC Transit and local government

decision making processes.”

4.7.1 Discussion

The contents of the Report for relating to Recommendation 7 notes that local governments do not

always include BC Transit in community planning initiatives. This is almost the opposite in the Central

Okanagan where BC Transit staff have been invited to numerous meetings or asked for input in which

they were unavailable or unresponsive.

The survey results (Figure 4 and Appendix F of the Report) may be considered biased as most of the

respondents may have been smaller systems. If the survey inputs were weighted by population or

transit system operating budgets the results could be substantially different.

4.7.2 Response

Communication has been a central theme in the issues identified by the Central Okanagan.

Improvements to the communications process are, and have been, supported.

Response: the Central Okanagan communities support Recommendation 7, with amendments to the

Report to provide survey results based an appropriate weighting scheme.


More Clarity in BC Transit’s Role in the Provincial Transit Plan

“The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure should provide BC Transit with clear direction on its

role in implementing the Provincial Transit Plan.”

4.8.1 Discussion

The Central Okanagan Communities support a review of the Provincial Transit Plan to ensure multi-

modal goals of both local governments and the Province are considered.

4.8.2 Response





Enhance Accountabilities in Operating Agreements

“BC Transit and local governments should enhance accountability in operating agreements. While some

roles and responsibilities are contained in existing Master Operating Agreements and Annual Operating

Agreements, accountabilities could be strengthened by:

• Establishing information sharing requirements appropriate for all partners in operating agreements, including

timelines and dates, performance measures (see recommendation 13) and local government planning (see

recommendation 6);

• Establishing local government financial accountability for service decisions that result in costs that must be

covered by BC Transit (see recommendation 5);

• Improving transparency by including the provincial share of debt servicing costs; and,

• Committing BC Transit to provide financial information to local governments based on the calendar year.”

4.9.1 Discussion

Specific language in the Agreements regarding timelines, dates, and measures, and more transparency

in financial information is positive.

4.9.2 Response

This recommendation essentially describes the expected standard practices in any professional industry

and the need for this recommendation may point to management issues, which should be the first

consideration before this recommendation is implemented.



Allow for Multi-Year Operating Agreements

“The provincial government should amend the BC Transit Act and Regulation to enable multi-year

operating agreements.”

4.10.1 Discussion

This recommendation is positive, however challenges may lie in implementing expansion within BC

Transit’s existing fiscal cycle.

4.10.2 Response





Require Only a Single Set of Operating Agreements for each Transit Service Area

“The provincial government should amend the BC Transit Act and Regulation to require only one

agreement between local governments and BC Transit and one operating agreement between BC

Transit and a transit operating company for each transit service area.”

4.11.1 Discussion

The existence of separate AOAs in the Central Okanagan is primarily due to inefficiencies at BC Transit

and lack of a coordinating governance model.

4.11.2 Response

Under the STPCO a single set of Agreements is ideal. Otherwise, separate AOAs provide more

effectiveness in gaining the attention and services required for the Central Okanagan.



Establish Service Standards with Local Governments and Provide System Performance Data

“BC Transit should work with local governments to set appropriate service standards for each transit

system and provide annual data on system and route performance.”

4.12.1 Discussion

This recommendation should be unnecessary as it should have already been in place. Nevertheless, this

recommendation is positive. However, the example of “universality of access” in the Report body using

the criteria of a 400 meter buffer as the maximum distance from public transit services may be

misleading. As boardings and alightings can only be made at bus stops (except in rare cases), this

criteria should only apply to bus stop locations and not along the length of the route. This example

demonstrates the need for local expertise and insight to ensure best practices are adopted and

implemented.

4.12.2 Response





Provide Frequent Updates to Local Governments on System Performance Measures

“BC Transit should provide reports to Councils and Regional District Boards at least twice a year on:

system ridership; cost per capita; passengers per capita; service hours per capita; cost per hour; cost per

rider; and, revenue cost ratio. BC Transit should also provide each local Council and Board comparisons

with peers and performance over time for each of these measures.”

4.13.1 Discussion

The indicators mentioned are industry standards and so this a minor recommendation.

4.13.2 Response

Mode share is missing from this recommendation, and as the main measure of sustainable

transportation, it should be the primary indicator to evaluate the success of transit. However, it should

be measured every 3-5 years, depending on the need and changes to regional form. To omit mode

share is ironic given the primary transit target of 7% mode share by 2035 for the Central Okanagan.



Provide Jointly-Developed Performance Reporting Templates

“BC Transit should develop, in partnership with local government staff, performance reporting

templates which meet local government staff needs. (Sample templates are provided for discussion in

Appendix D in the Report).”

4.14.1 Discussion

The use of standardized templates can provide consistency and clarity in communicating reports. The

caution is to ensure such templates can evolve and change to allow for changing needs over time.

4.14.2 Response

This is a minor recommendation and Recommendations 12-14 could be aggregated to a single

recommendation related to the establishment of proper information and reporting processes.





Provide Annual Fiscal and Management Performance Evaluations

“BC Transit should report in detail annually to local government on its administration costs, its fleet

management activities and the benefits it provides from centralized purchasing in comparison to other

transit systems across Canada.”

4.15.1 Discussion

The Report discusses a range of internal efficiencies BC Transit should consider in saving costs and

increasing “value for money”. Examples provided are centralized fuel and capital purchasing, and a

comprehensive asset management plan.

4.15.2 Response

The potential and actual efficiency gains of these internal services should be described in terms of actual

dollars of savings and relative to the overall corporate budget. Furthermore, any investments made

should be supported by an appropriate business case reviewed by local government partners to ensure

positive return on investment (ROI).

The benefit of centralized purchasing and specialized expertise in BC Transit is acknowledged. However,

these improvements, although positive, could be rendered insignificant if the broader issues and

inefficiencies of transit service delivery are not taken into consideration within a complete multi-modal




Authorize BC Transit to Pursue Commercial Revenue Activities

“The provincial government should provide the Board of BC Transit with the authority to authorize

commercial revenue activities within an established framework.”

4.16.1 Discussion

Under the current arrangement, where there are appropriate commercial opportunities, such as leasing

out a maintenance facility to a private bus company, BC Transit must seek Ministerial approval.

4.16.2 Response

This recommendation is positive, however, only where BC Transit, a Crown corporation, is not entering

into commercial ventures that could result in direct competition with the private sector. If any

opportunities impact a particular local government area, the representing local government partner



should be included in the review and approval process of such commercial opportunities sought by BC

Transit.



Provide Transit Capital Funding Through the Service Plan Process

“The provincial government should provide BC Transit its capital funding through the established service

plan process with output targets.”

4.17.1 Discussion

This recommendation seeks to have the Provincial government provide BC Transit its capital funding

through the currently established Service Plan process. This would provide the Board of BC Transit with

full authority to approve projects within that funding plan, reducing the potential for confusion in

responsibility and accountability, and duplicate efforts.

4.17.2 Response

In reviewing and approving BC Transit’s capital plan through the Service Plan process, the Province

should consult with local governments to ensure capital transit plans support and align with local

government plans.



Provide Policy Framework and Mechanism to Establish Multi-Jurisdictional Intercity Routes

“The provincial government should develop a policy framework for intercity routes among multiple

jurisdictions and if required amend the BC Transit Act and Regulation to provide for a stable mechanism

to implement these routes.”

4.18.1 Discussion

Due to increased demand for travel between regions to access centralized health, education, and social

services, this recommendation seeks to formalize the development of multi-jurisdictional intercity

routes. It should be noted that the operation of intercity transit routes across multiple jurisdictions

currently exists. There are no significant issues with the current ability for the establishment of intercity

transit routes and so we question the need for this recommendation.



4.18.2 Response

This recommendation may go against the principle of local input and ownership and therefore

significant local government input should be required. Overall, if this recommendation is implemented,

a sound process should be identified to ensure the business case and optimal development of such

routes can be made.







5.0 Summary of Analysis

Although the Central Okanagan communities have jointly responded to the 18 recommendations

submitted to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure by the BC Transit Independent Review

Panel, the most significant issues and omissions of the Report are discussed below. The Central

Okanagan communities ask that the Minister consider these strategic issues in order to ensure the

various governance, management, and process issues identified through this Review are appropriately

addressed.

5.1 Lack of Multi-Modal Scope

In general, the recommendations presented by the BC Transit Independent Review Panel are positive for

the Central Okanagan and addresses a number of issues presented by the Joint Submission. However,

the most significant issue is the omission of a broader transportation perspective in the scope of the

review. This issue is a matter for which the Minister should be asked to direct his attention to as any

improvements made through the adoption of some or all of the 18 recommendations may be nullified if

a broad multi-modal context is not considered.

The emphasis of a multi-modal governance model may be viewed as leading towards a TransLink-type

model. This is not necessarily the aim, nor does TransLink have a “monopoly” on multi-modal

governance as multi-modalism is a universal concept fundamentally focused on sustainability, which

requires a holistic approach. The fact that the TransLink model is multi-modal in nature only indicates

that progressive transportation governance models are and should have a multi-modal scope. This

approach is similar to the accounting of all possible impacts, which is a fundamental concept of

sustainability (i.e. sustainability is a complete and holistic system and therefore the more a system is

sustainable, the more it considers impacts to external systems—by doing so, it respects and joins with

these external systems into more complete and effective system).

5.2 Significance of the STPCO to Improve Transit’s Potential

The Sustainable Transportation Partnership of the Central Okanagan (STPCO) was designed with the

objective to increase the uptake of sustainable modes, of which transit is a key mode. The current silo-

approach in transit planning and service provision is considered by most experts to be a major cause of

the ineffectiveness of transit to gain market share. Therefore, the STPCO was developed to consider the

modernization of not just transit, but the whole transportation system—how it is governed, funded,

planned, operated, and monitored.

The adoption of all of the recommendations should not have a significant impact to the recent

developments of the STPCO, and if at all, be a positive step towards the goals of the STPCO. A regional

transit commission model may be considered an improvement if a region does not have an overall



transportation governance model. However, in light of a multi-modal transportation governance model

based on local government partnerships and agreements, a transit commission may not be necessary,

and furthermore, could cause conflicts or inefficiencies/redundancies in the overall decision making

process. Conversely, a transit commission could benefit the STPCO if progress towards a shift in the

desired transit responsibilities and arrangement is not implemented under the current setup. As such, it

will be imperative that the Minister understands the benefits of the STPCO and how it is a positive

evolution towards sustainable transportation.

5.3 Appropriate Shifting of Functions

The establishment of STPCO allows for a more functional, effective, and efficient environment in which

planning, scheduling, marketing, customer service, safety/security, monitoring, operations (e.g. service

delivery management) can all be done synergistically at the appropriate local level. This would also

establish local accountability, which is appropriate given the transit system serves the local communities

and should be integrated more seamlessly into the overall transportation system and network of roads,

sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and regional gateways.

Therefore, the recommended action is to shift some aspects of transit service to local/regional

governments. These elements would include:

short and long range planning;

route planning and service scheduling;

monitoring and data collection;

project business casing, management, coordination, and integration;

financial analysis and budgeting;

marketing, branding, community relations, and customer support;

new fare products; and

some parts of new technology.

These areas of service delivery are currently integrated into the Local Government’s many roles and

responsibilities, and commonly within the scope of the local community of similarly-sized regions

around the world.

BC Transit’s scope covers 81 transit systems in collaboration with 58 local government funding partners

that provides services to over 130 communities across B.C. We believe the wide scale and varied nature

of providing management services to a diverse group throughout the Province is a key contributor of the

numerous issues identified in this submission regarding BC Transit’s record of management services

performance.

As communities grow and increase in urbanization, they start to “come of age” and have need for more

independence and ownership of their own destinies. This process is evident both locally within this

province, but also world-wide. As the transportation system and needs of a community increase in size



and complexity, there is a tendency for more localized capacity and less dependence of the capacity

from senior governments for local services. This change in control can be demonstrated by the

devolution of BC Transit in the Greater Vancouver region through the creation of TransLink at the far

end of the spectrum, as per the diagram below. Mid-sized systems would be positioned in the middle of

this spectrum.

As the size of the transit and transportation system grows, the need for locally-based expertise and

capacity (green area) grows proportionally. Conversely, the need for senior-level expertise and relative

capacity (red area) shrinks in kind. The total scope of expertise and capacity remains approximately the

same (per unit system size or route-intensity), however the portion of expertise and capacity scope

required at the local level increases as the system increases. Based on these relationships, it is apparent

that the Tier 1 systems fit within the middle of this spectrum—to the left of independent systems such

as TransLink—yet to the right of smaller systems.

Therefore, it is suggested that a tiered management services approach be provided by BC Transit to

allow more appropriate senior-level support to regional systems relative to their size, and therefore,

their needs. This approach would be a more efficient, effective, and equitable solution than the current

“one-size fits all” approach.

Within the Central Okanagan, it is proposed that BC Transit’s role be streamlined to provide centralized

and high-level services in terms of procurement, supply services, funding (esp. from Federal

government), partnerships development, standards and regulatory oversight, sharing of best practices

and inventory of KPIs, and corporate services (e.g. job descriptions, compensation, insurance, etc.). With



the establishment of STPCO, we believe BC Transit’s role to be more focused as a corporate service

rather than the owner of transit in the Okanagan, so that delivery is consistent with the local

accountability.

5.4 Thinking “Outside the Bus”

Due to the narrow mandate of BC Transit, a fundamental issue is the structure of BC Transit as a single-

mode agency in light of modern multi-modal agencies more aligned to sustainability principles. An

alternative and more functional structure could be based on a sustainable transportation scope, which

could include alternative sustainable modes such as cycling and walking. Such a structure would ensure

agency goals are more comprehensive and closer aligned to the goals and policies of local governments,

and in fact, the Province of B.C. as a whole.

The creation of a “Sustainable Transportation BC” agency could be mandated to ensure planning is done

holistically and the monitoring of progress made in concert, and not in conflict, with individual modes. It

is suggested that such an agency’s mandate is to:

1. Empower local governments and regions to plan sustainable transportation into overall OCPs

and RGSs;

2. Provide corporate-level services such as asset and supply chain management, procurement, and

regulatory support, as well as guidance in best practices design principles, and operating levels

of service and quality relative to each community;

3. Provide a source of funding for transit, cycling and pedestrian facilities identified by local plans;

and

4. Identify, advocate, and partner with Federal governments and other Provincial government

agencies to provide funding and grants in support of sustainable transportation.



6.0 Considerations for Decision and Action

6.1 Joint Response of the Independent Review Panel’s Report

The Central Okanagan communities, consisting of the District of Lake Country, City of Kelowna, District

of West Kelowna, Westbank First Nation, District of Peachland, and the Regional District of Central

Okanagan, have jointly reviewed the Report of the BC Transit Independent Review Panel. The response

by the Central Okanagan communities are that of general support with all of the 18 Recommendation

identified in the Report, with many being a conditional support relative to suggested changes or

improvements to the Recommendations:

BC Transit Independent Review Panel Recommendation

Support by the Central Okanagan Communities

Condition

1: Establish Letter of Expectations

Conditional support The Letter of Expectations should be written, in conjunction with local governments, specifically to the needs and situation of each local government rather than the use of a standard and generic letter. It is critical that this recommendation is implemented with high priority to demonstrate the accountability it seeks to establish.

2: Increase Board of Directors Membership

Support

3: Improve Skill and Local Representation of the BC Transit Board

Support; Option 1 preferred

4: Allow for Complete Local Representation of Transit Commissions

Conditional support Within the framework of a multi-modal governance model (i.e. STPCO), the commission model may duplicate governance efforts. Furthermore, with the ability for local governments to appoint all of their members and technical and clerical staff, there is a need to clarify if this will shift the scope and capacity of clerical and technical staff from BC Transit, or if there will be duplicity. Furthermore, would the administration budget be correspondingly shifted from BC Transit to the local government?

5: Ensure Appropriate Consultation and Decision Making that Reflects Accountability

Conditional support At the very least, local governments should be responsible for any planning and decision making related to routes, schedules, infrastructure capital. If there is a lack of local expertise and capacity regarding these matters, local governments should have the option to seek this expertise from BC Transit.

It should be acknowledged that Statement iii) does not describe all transit systems and is the reverse in the case of the Central Okanagan.

The last statement “To be clear, no changes in decision making authority are proposed but improvements in process are required.” is not supported and contradictory to the opening statement of this Recommendation. A change in decision making authority should be proposed in the regions that are sizable and can demonstrate a more holistic and appropriate decision making/governance model and process that supports the common local, provincial, and national goals of sustainable transportation.





Condition

6: Greater Involvement of BC Transit in the Local Planning Process

Support in principle Regarding the statement “Local government should involve BC Transit in key planning issues and invite BC Transit to participate in official community planning processes.”, the reverse is the case in this Region and this Recommendation is therefore not applicable to this Region

7: Greater Involvement of the Province and Local Partners in BC Transit’s Communications Plan

Support, with amendments

The survey results (Figure 4 and Appendix F of the Report) may be considered biased as most of the respondents may have been smaller systems. If the survey inputs were weighted by population or transit system operating budgets the results could be substantially different.

8: More Clarity in BC Transit’s Role in the Provincial Transit Plan

Support

9: Enhance Accountabilities in Operating Agreements

Conditional support This recommendation essentially describes the expected standard practices in any professional industry and the need for this recommendation may point to management issues, which should be the first consideration before this recommendation is implemented.

10: Allow for Multi-Year Operating Agreements

Support

11: Require Only a Single Set of Operating Agreements for each Transit Service Area

Conditional support Under the STPCO a single set of Agreements is ideal. Otherwise, separate AOAs provide more effectiveness in gaining the attention and services required for the Central Okanagan.

12: Establish Service Standards with Local Governments and Provide System Perform. Data

Support

13: Provide Frequent Updates to Local Governments on System Performance Measures

Conditional support Mode share is missing from this recommendation, and as the main measure of sustainable transportation, it should be the primary indicator to evaluate the success of transit.

14: Provide Jointly-Developed Performance Reporting Templates

Support

15: Provide Annual Fiscal and Management Performance Evaluations

Conditional support The potential and actual efficiency gains of these internal services should be described in terms of actual dollars of savings and relative to the overall corporate budget. Furthermore, any investments made should be supported by an appropriate business case reviewed by local government partners to ensure positive ROI.

The benefit of centralized purchasing and specialized expertise in BC Transit is acknowledged. However, these improvements, although positive, could be rendered insignificant if the broader issues and inefficiencies of transit service delivery are not taken into consideration within a complete multi-modal transportation system.

16: Authorize BC Transit to Pursue Commercial Revenue Activities

Conditional support This recommendation is positive, however, only where BC Transit, a Crown corporation, is not entering into commercial ventures that could result in direct competition with the private sector. If any opportunities impact a particular local government area, the representing local government partner should be included in the review and approval process of such commercial opportunities sought by BC Transit.





Condition

17: Provide Transit Capital Funding Through the Service Plan Process

Conditional support In reviewing and approving BC Transit’s capital plan through the Service Plan process, the Province should consult with local governments to ensure capital transit plans support and align with local government plans.

18: Provide Policy Framework and Mechanism to Establish Multi-Jurisdictional Intercity Routes

Conditional support A sound process should be identified to ensure the business case and optimal development of such routes can be made.

6.2 Additional Considerations

The communities of the Central Okanagan respectfully ask that the Minster consider the following

recommendations in his decision to accept the Report of the BC Transit Independent Review Panel and

work towards the functional modernization of the local government partnerships with BC Transit.

The assessment of the merits of potential transit arrangements requires a set of criteria based on

requirements and desired outcomes. The following 12 criteria are proposed to be used to assess the

potential for an improved transit arrangement in the Central Okanagan:

1. Local Ownership and Accountability: how does the arrangement provide the local ownership

and accountability required to effectively respond to local needs?

2. Local Knowledge and Consultation: how does the arrangement utilize the local knowledge and

expertise, and relationships with local stakeholders to the full extent?

3. Responsiveness: how timely can the arrangement provide for responses to critical needs such

as budget information and ridership?

4. Multi-Modal Scope: how compatible is the arrangement to a multi-modal scope, and how

effective can it monitor and assess the success of transit investments?

5. Effectiveness & Integration: how effective is the arrangement in integrating to the current

transportation system and services?

6. Cost Efficiency / Value for Money: how does the arrangement reduce costs of providing

services while maintaining or increasing the value of such services?

7. Coordination with Local Programs, Services, and Plans: how does the arrangement best align

with local programs, services and plans (i.e. OCPs and RGSs) to best serve the local community?

8. Marketing and Awareness: how effective is the arrangement’s ability to market and make

aware the benefits of transit, as well as integrating with the marketing and awareness of other

sustainable modes and TDM initiatives outside of transit?

9. Procurement and Asset Management: how does the arrangement best purchase and manage

assets in an efficient and effective manner?



10. Best Practices, Standards, and Research: what arrangement is best suited to produce

compilations of best practices, standards and transit-related research?

11. Oversee Regulatory Requirements: what arrangement is best suited to oversee regulatory

requirements of transit?

12. Financial Services: how does the arrangement provide financial services needed to fund and

administer transit services and assets?

6.3 Conclusion

In summary, we continue to experience numerous issues regarding the timeliness and quality of

management services provided by BC Transit. Furthermore, there is a larger issue of the scope of BC

Transit as a single-mode entity. Although, there is an acknowledgement of integrating to other modes

such as active transportation, the transit planning process does not allow for effective planning within

the larger goals of sustainable transportation. As such, the transit planning process is required to be

subservient to a larger multi-modal transportation planning process which is more in-line with local

OCPs, regional growth management strategies, and the larger interests of the province in terms of

efficient transportation and the reduction of related emissions.

The current framework for the planning and delivery of transit service in the Central Okanagan Region

requires major reform/change and a more progressive approach to achieve Local Government and

Provincial strategic goals. A key question is whether the targeted 7% transit mode share for commuting

trips by 2035, as defined by BC Transit’s Transit Future Plan for the Central Okanagan is adequate to

support the achievement of sustainable transportation within the region. However, the more important

question is: what role can and should transit play in the achievement of sustainable transportation in

the Central Okanagan? And without a strategic view and scope that includes other sustainable modes of

travel, transit targets planned in isolation of other modes are too narrow to be able to answer the

question of success when it comes to the much broader definition of sustainable transportation.

Within a region consisting of multiple jurisdictions, sustainable transportation is not a goal each

jurisdiction can achieve in isolation. With a shared economic, environmental, and social area, the

jurisdictions within a common region share a common destiny in which success can only be achieved

together. In order to achieve the sustainable transportation goals defined in the individual plans and

policies of the local governments of the Central Okanagan, it is imperative that these government

agencies work together to effectively and efficiently plan, coordinate, manage, and monitor the region’s


Therefore, a strategy to enhance the existing local transportation governance structure, plans, and

programs within the region has been developed based on a multi-jurisdictional partnership founded on

a common ground of issues, policies, and investments towards a common goal of sustainable

transportation. This enhanced governance strategy seeks to shift the region from a state of individual

agencies working independently with only periodic and informal coordination, to a more formalized



partnership with regular and structured coordination of policies, plans, resources, programs, and

projects.

Within this new transportation governance structure in the Central Okanagan, issues and challenges

raised regarding the current transit arrangement and subsequent performance can be met in a more

constructive manner. The establishment of STPCO allows for a more functional, effective, and efficient

environment in which planning, scheduling, marketing, customer service, safety/security, monitoring,

operations (e.g. service delivery management) can all be done synergistically at the appropriate local

level. This would also establish local accountability, which is appropriate given the transit system serves

the local communities and should be integrated more seamlessly into the overall transportation system

and network of roads, sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and regional gateways.

~

The local governments of the Central Okanagan are open to continued discussion on the issues and

ideas outlined in this report and are at the service of Minister Polak to provide further support or

information as needed.




Date post:	12-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

Communities - CivicInfo

Documents