Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[DKaz]

Correction, $622 million shortfall if Translink can't contribute their $450 mil.

[Gordon]

The 450 milllion funding plan is to fund all of Translink's operations for this 10year service plan of which part will be for the Evergreen Line.

[BCPhil]

After reading the comments by Mayor Joe Trasolini, especially WRT high rises only in the Newport area, I'm once again having second thoughts about sending the evergreen line through Port Moody. If PoMo isn't serious about major densification near ALL the stations in their city, why should we spend the money to build it there when they already have WCE. They definitely don't need an extra station like they were asking for.

[mr.x]

^ well, we could apply similar logic to the City of Vancouver...

[deasine]

Well there's no other route. In this scenario, we have two routes, the northeast and southeast option and we went with the northeast.

[DKaz]

Newport Village and surrounding neighbourhoods is about a 5 to 10 minute walk away from the proposed Ioco Station, and there's land around Ioco Station vacant and ripe for development.

Metrotown's about the same, other than the mall, three office towers and a few low-rise apartments being at its doorsteps, most of the highrises are about a 5 to 10 minute walk from the station. It's hard to redevelop communities, otherwise there would be a few more high rises south of Metrotown Station by now. Same as Port Moody.

[officedweller]

And remember that the southeast route would require an amendment to the Livable Region Strategic Plan - requiring unanimous consent by all Metro Vancouver Municipalities.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by officedweller

And remember that the southeast route would require an amendment to the Livable Region Strategic Plan - requiring unanimous consent by all Metro Vancouver Municipalities.

If that is the case, then why was the SE route even under consideration? That would be like having people run against Saddam Hussein in an election, what's the point of considering other options if it's all set in stone back in 1996?

The difference between Vancouver and Port Moody is ridership. Even if there was zero redevelopment from now on in any of Vancouver, ridership on a Skytrain line down Broadway would vastly outstrip ridership on the Evergreen line through an undeveloped Port Moody.

If the purpose of the Evergreen line is to spur growth through the LRSP, then what is the point if Port Moody doesn't want any more growth besides what's already happened around IOCO?

Don't get me wrong, I want to see the Evergreen line built, but I also want to see Port Moody grow from a city of less than 40,000 people. It is ideally positioned geographically, to be a mini Richmond. It is beautiful, has waterfront and parks, isn't that far from Downtown, and has hectares of land that is underused and virtually near abandoned. I've driven through Port Moody dozens of times, but only stopped once, to go to the park and the Boathouse restaurant. I was going to stop somewhere else once, but it was out of business.

Coquitlam seems quite eager to redevelop the land around the length of the Lougheed Highway. If they want to build high rises and high density mixed use properties along the river, and Port Moody doesn't, shouldn't the Evergreen Line go through there? Surrey is moving ahead with plans to redevelop the Newton town center, which is very similar to Port Moody real estate wise (low level run down and abandoned buildings). It would make more sense to expand Skytrain to there, or build LRT connecting Surrey City Center, Newton, and Langley or South Surrey. The rate of growth in Cloverdale, Langley, and South Surrey/White Rock is far greater than Port Moody (is or wants).

Going through the NW and Port Moody makes the most sense, but only if Port Moody wants to redevelop the city. Keeping their backwater isolated feel AND having 3 Skytrain stations (like they are asking for) doesn't mix.

[Gordon]

The Mayor of Langley was on CKNW this afternoon saying that Translink is receiving interfreence from senior levels of government. Apparently Translink's senior staff had chosen light rail as the technology for the line and had Skytrain imposed on them by Victoria

It sounds like the Mayors are not in favor of a vehicle Levy..

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Gordon

The Mayor of Langley was on CKNW this afternoon saying that Translink is receiving interfreence from senior levels of government. Apparently Translink's senior staff had chosen light rail as the technology for the line and had Skytrain imposed on them by Victoria.

That's obvious. They too control of the project, changing it to LRT originally, but them the Provincial Government made a smart upgrade to SkyTrain.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by deasine

That's obvious. They too control of the project, changing it to LRT originally, but them the Provincial Government made a smart upgrade to SkyTrain.

All the Northwest options require a tunnel. That hill is so steep that even an empty bus can't go up it faster than 20km/h. There are only 2 portions of the route that would naturally be at grade with traffic, and that would be North Road and Pinetree Way.

Once you talk about digging long tunnels or using elevated guideways (as would be required around Lougheed and North road) you may as well go all out and make it 100% grade separated.

And once you are grade separated, going automated Skytrain is no more expensive than running regular LRT trains grade separated (look at the cost of Seattle's system).

I think there are better routes, like south of the river, where LRT is a better, more cost effective fit.

[Gordon]

I wonder if either the government or Translink has have re-costed the project
because prices have probably dropped due to the recession?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Gordon

I wonder if either the government or Translink has have re-costed the project
because prices have probably dropped due to the recession?

There really is no significant drop in costs.

[Gordon]

Thanks

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

If that is the case, then why was the SE route even under consideration? That would be like having people run against Saddam Hussein in an election, what's the point of considering other options if it's all set in stone back in 1996?

Seems like whenever a project is "restarted" you're back a square one because of all the political clamouring for consultation (by new politicians). i.e. even with the UBC line - why even mention BRT? That's my guess.

WRT the LRSP - you've hit on the biggest problem - Metro Vancouver cannot enforce the LRSP against the municipalities - a change in legistaion would be required - so you have Richmond allowing housing at Riverport (against LRSP) and Burnaby, Richmond and Surrey allowing business parks outside of their regional town centres.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by officedweller

WRT the LRSP - you've hit on the biggest problem - Metro Vancouver cannot enforce the LRSP against the municipalities - a change in legistaion would be required - so you have Richmond allowing housing at Riverport (against LRSP) and Burnaby, Richmond and Surrey allowing business parks outside of their regional town centres.

This is why I wish Metro Vancouver had a regional board, similar to the Mayor of London. But before I get into deals, can someone explain the structure of the London Assembly: the city gov't vs the regional gov't?

[mr.x]

Work to start on Evergreen Line by late 2010
Victoria plans to work with TransLink to find ways to raise its $400-million share

By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun
September 17, 2009 9:01 PM

The B.C. government has announced plans to start building the long-awaited $1.4-billion Evergreen Line by late next year even though TransLink doesn’t have the money to pay for it.

Transportation Minister Shirley Bond said Thursday the province is committed to the 11-kilometre rapid transit project and will work with TransLink to find ways to raise its $400-million share.

The provincial and federal governments have already contributed $800 million to the project, which will link Burnaby and Coquitlam via Port Moody.

“We intend to see the Evergreen Line built,” Bond said, adding the design process is underway. “Anytime you have $800 million in federal and provincial funding on the table we have to be sure we can deliver.”

The announcement comes as TransLink struggles to raise funds to maintain and expand transit services over the next 10 years.

The transportation authority argues it can’t afford to build and operate the Evergreen Line unless it can raise at least $450 million annually to maintain and expand transit services.

But that plan was criticized by regional transportation commissioner Martin Crilly as unrealistic as TransLink didn’t say where the money would come from. Crilly also warned TransLink to learn to live within its means.

TransLink, which needs the approval of both Crilly and the regional mayors’ council to increase fares by more than two per cent a year, and to set up other fundraising mechanisms, has since said it can’t afford the Evergreen Line.

But Bond insists there are efficiencies to be found, noting a review of TransLink’s finances should be completed by the end of the month.

At that time, her ministry will sit down with the mayors and TransLink to explore options, including raising property and gas taxes and transit fares. She insisted, however, the Evergreen Line would not be built “at the expense” of other B.C. regions.

“My biggest concern is that TransLink and the GVTA said in 2007 the number-one priority was the Evergreen Line,” Bond said. “The regions have to decide how they’re going to pay their share.”

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said she’s glad to hear the province is committed to building the Evergreen Line, but questions how it will come up with the cash to build and operate it.

Metro Vancouver mayors, who oppose raising property taxes, have called for a meeting with Bond to discuss TransLink’s financial crisis and ways to deal with it.

[email protected]
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Work+start+Evergreen+Line+late+2010/2005693/story.html

[deasine]

I love how the article is more about TRANSLINK FINANCES rather than the EVERGREEN LINE.

[mooks28]

And here is the project description report: http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/documents/Review/090504_Project_Description.pdf

It's definitely Skytrain!

[Gordon]

The article has some of it's facts wrong. the 450 million will allow translink to fill it's 172million shortfall & purchase 400 new buses & 130 skytrain cars. Unfortunately that option has been taken off the table by Translink due to the weak econiomy.