Quote:
Originally Posted by Franky
What's the structure of those responsible for planning in Calgary? Do politicians make the decisions? It seems to work better whatever it is.
|
Lets say someone was an Aldermen, and wanted a new line built. There is a specific process that would be the most likely to be followed (of course, council could just approve it on the first motion, but is very unlikely to happen).
Notice of motion: Request administration to prepare a report on building a streetcar system to tie in the subject communities of the Centre City Plan, reporting to X committee (could be either Transportation Infrastructure, Planning or really just about any committee that is marginally close).
Report to Committee: at this stage, the report could be
- Referred back to admin with requested changes in scope, in case they went off completely differently than you intended
- Referred to the appropriate committee (such as if you asked for the study on the social impacts of the project, once you received that, you could send it to another committee with the recommendation they take it up further
- Referred to admin for public consultation, basically requesting a report on the consultation
- Circulated to other committees in case they want to make reports on the impact to them of the project
- Sent to full council
All the processes above end eventually with a report to council. Once in front of council, council can do the following things, amongst other more obscure ones:
- Refer back to committee with recommendations
- Request a consultants report be prepared, allocate money to do so, and direct where the report comes back to
- Pass a report that includes a budget, timeline and recommend administration undertake the actions in the report (budgets must include where the money is coming from)
- Pass a report that doesn't include a budget or timeline and recommend administration return with the appropriate plan for approval
- Pass a report and direct administration to undertake a project from within existing budgets, and let budgets set the timeline (this also needs a direction on where it should be placed on the TIIP [Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Program] list)
- Pass a report saying that in the future it will be recommended for the TIIP list at the standard TIIP sessions at budget time
- Pass a report saying that the plan could go forward if covered by an alternative source of funding
- Pass a report and direct admin to undertake it assuming all the relevant legal changes in other planning documents are undertaken
- Pass a report and direct admin to return to council with all the legal changes required by the report for final approval
- Reject the report
In Calgary, the process can get pretty weird, since at times we have approved budgets before we even knew what route we wanted to take, directed admin to expropriate property before the full budget is approved, ordered LRT cars for routes before the route is funded, changed routes after the budget and timeline was passed, approved changes in the route if money was found from non-governmental sources to pay for it.
It is pretty adhoc, what really helps is that the entire LRT system was laid out in the 1970s, and as the plans for that system evolves (lets say, capacity limits necessitate a change) admin reports back to council on different options. council approves changes years, even decades before anything is built. The initial studies for the west line examined upwards of 20 different alignments. The update examined 6 different options for areas that needed changes due to changes since the first report. The 2nd update examined 4 options. The third examined 3. The awesome thing about all of this, is that after the first report, stations didn't move (only the line routing between stations). There was even a fourth update that examined whether it was more proper to service a completely different geographic catchment
area, and what route options we could use if we were to service that area.
The SE LRT line used to be a spur of the south line, but now it is its own dedicated line with its own subway downtown. The deep SW spur became BRT feeding an LRT station. The North Central LRT didn't even have a plan to connect it into downtown (the last 8 kilometers as it gets closer to downtown) until the last 5 years, and will likely change again (the report back was accepted as 'this is the cheapest way to do it, but before anything more happens one should look at it again').
Calgary is currently in the middle of a study update for the downtown subways, with a huge budget ($8 million) that includes full surveys of utilities, and plans for where stations should be, how the different lines should interact and connect.
All of these processes work, since there is a general political consensus that the system should be built out over time, and that previous councils made good decisions for the most part. It works since when half of council wants to reroute a line, they don't do it, they request a report on the consequences of doing it, and then decide later.
It reality, the one who controls the consultants and the report writers have most the power under the system, and that is the CEO and President of the City. The CEO and President have a huge incentive to have as much spare cash available as possible, and therefor have a big incentive for long term planning (the 2005 transportation plan went to 2024 with budgeted amounts for projects, while the 2007 transit plan went to mid century) to help keep operational and planning costs to a minimum. The corridors for the next 5 billion dollars worth of LRT projects are already protected by statute, so whenever any land use comes up that might raise the future cost of a project, it is taken into account before a decision is made.
I could best describe the administration process as technocratic, with council rarely defying their predecessor's decisions which were guided by the original Sykes council. The politicians make all the decisions, but there is a strong incentive to follow past plans. (Our LRT Mayor was defeated while the project was under construction, but the anti LRT people split the vote so much that an even more pro-LRT, environmentalist, fiscally conservative Mayor was elected, Ralph Klein)
Prev
Linear Mode
