Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Bureaucromancer]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The government's budget is no different than your own. It is finite. You cannot spend according to whatever your heart desires.

Overly simplistic.

I can't just decide I deserve a raise if I want a new house, we CAN decide to raise taxes and build a subway. Government resources are finite, but only in so far as we are unwilling to raise taxes.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

Overly simplistic.

I can't just decide I deserve a raise if I want a new house, we CAN decide to raise taxes and build a subway. Government resources are finite, but only in so far as we are unwilling to raise taxes.

Yes, taxes can be raised, but that also has limitations.

I am not saying that we shouldn't build a subway.

I am referring to people's "why don't we have it all now" attitude.

[Bureaucromancer]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Yes, taxes can be raised, but that also has limitations.

I am not saying that we shouldn't build a subway.

I am referring to people's "why don't we have it all now" attitude.

True there are limits, but we are nowhere near the point that we economically couldn't survive just about any project proposed here (at least on it's own - some of the grand plans people discuss are freaking HUGE).

In any case I don't really have a problem with what you said, sorry if I came off snarky. I'm just thoroughly fed up with hearing all the reasons we supposedly can't afford nice things when my position is, yes, lets build it (in reference to any number of infrastructure projects), then charge the taxes it will take pay for it - something that almost never gets discussed, and admittedly doesn't work in this country without multi level funding commitments.

[squeezied]

Question: What's the point of Translink doing this study when it can't afford to implement any of the alternatives? The canada line has already left Translink cash-strapped for the evergreen line. And the evergreen line is going to leave Translink even more cash-strapped for the UBC line. It it even realistic to have the UBC line completed by 2020?

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

In any case I don't really have a problem with what you said, sorry if I came off snarky. I'm just thoroughly fed up with hearing all the reasons we supposedly can't afford nice things when my position is, yes, lets build it (in reference to any number of infrastructure projects), then charge the taxes it will take pay for it - something that almost never gets discussed, and admittedly doesn't work in this country without multi level funding commitments.

But we DO get nice things! In the last few years alone we got a new subway, convention centre, a pile of new community centres, highway upgrades,new trains and buses and probably a lot more I can't think of. We're getting a flashy new retractable roof, and, most likely, a skytrain extension to the burbs. We're planning for another extension after that. And we just hosted the biggest, most lavish party in the history of the city (country?).

The point is that we can't get everything we want, right now. You can't say that the answer is just "raise taxes", when there are so many competing priorities for tax dollars.

[Bureaucromancer]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Question: What's the point of Translink doing this study when it can't afford to implement any of the alternatives? The canada line has already left Translink cash-strapped for the evergreen line. And the evergreen line is going to leave Translink even more cash-strapped for the UBC line. It it even realistic to have the UBC line completed by 2020?

A: Funds already allocated for the study, which doesn't become invalid in any real sense just because we don't do anything right away.

B: Outside funds are always possible, nothing gets done without provincial money, and the Federal lottery is always worth playing. IE you really can't say there's no money just because the city and Translink itself are having trouble with their funding at the moment.

C: It gets a lot easier to ask for money when a project is close to construction. Lets remember that there was no money for the first several years of the RAV studies.

Toronto has gone through period of "no money so don't even talk about expansion" and then been too far behind to get anything started when funds turn up enough times that Vancouver should be able to avoid the trap. Is 2020 realistic? I would guess no, but 2025 might be. It mostly depends on Evergreen's timing and when kind of provincial government is in office (fed funding matters, but seems less connected with ideology and more with seeing chances to get their name attached to a project thats already going ahead).

[trofirhen]

Semi-jokingly, I think we should hit on the Feds for a chunk of money. Dammit, they built that enormous white elephant Mirabel at however much $$$$$$, now now it stands almost unused, and even rich Ontario gets slices of the government pie. Too bad there isn't some way of arm-twisting Ottawa into a couple of hundred million$$. Take a look at what BC pays in equalization payments, and how much it gets back. It's the lowest paid,
in that ratio of all the provinces. Oh, and who funded the massive rebuilding of Toronto Airport? I'd be curious about that, too. I bet they got
a slice frm Ottawa. Trouble is, they have more people, thus more voters, thus more arm-twisting power.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

A: Funds already allocated for the study, which doesn't become invalid in any real sense just because we don't do anything right away.

Didn't they already do a study a while back? Now they're doing another one because things have changed. I'm afraid that once this study is completed, nothing can be done and may become obsolete a few years down the road.

B: Outside funds are always possible, nothing gets done without provincial money, and the Federal lottery is always worth playing. IE you really can't say there's no money just because the city and Translink itself are having trouble with their funding at the moment.

I understand outside money from the province and the fed is available, but isn't translink required to cough out money as well?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Didn't they already do a study a while back? Now they're doing another one because things have changed. I'm afraid that once this study is completed, nothing can be done and may become obsolete a few years down the road.

The issue is that the 1999 technical study is done a while back and it doesn't seem to considers all the options available. I know there are a bunch of options that shouldn't be considered in the first place, but those can be used as baselines for the study.

The 1999 study is also a little outdated now. Costs have risen dramatically and ridership projections are also quite different. This study and consultation period allows TransLink to better improve relations with all stakeholders and area residents and business owners.

Every project must begin with a study and takes a few studies to actually become a reality. So I really treat this one as another stepping stone for the bigger project.

[racc]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Question: What's the point of Translink doing this study when it can't afford to implement any of the alternatives? The canada line has already left Translink cash-strapped for the evergreen line. And the evergreen line is going to leave Translink even more cash-strapped for the UBC line. It it even realistic to have the UBC line completed by 2020?

It is all up to the provincial government to give TransLink the money or the authority to raise the money. Note that there is a large construction industry and they want (need) big projects to work on. Once the Evergreen Line is finished, there needs to be a big project. The UBC Line fits the bill perfectly.

On these big infrastructure projects, both the provincial and federal governments get a lot of the money they invest back in increased income and sales taxes.

We spend over $10 billion a year on transportation in the region and most of that money goes out of the region and province for cars and gas. If people don't have to drive, they have more money to spend on things that are more likely to help the local economy.

Finally, $200 million a year to finance a new transit line is really not that much in the scheme of things.

[mattropolis]

I like the combination option. It will be cheaper in the short term and in the long term the SkyTrain can be extended to UBC. The idea of the streetcar/tram going along the false creek line will be a bonus, if it is done right. perhaps a tunnel from the granville island station to avoid 4th ave and burrard. The transfer station at Arbutus/Broadway would have to be well designed to allow easy cross-platform transfers with no stairs but not preclude eventual extension of SkyTrain westward.

I wonder if the the same people that voted for option 4 also will be signing the anti-HST petition?? The province is broke and doesn't have 3 billion for an all-tunnel SkyTrain to UBC. I doubt we'll even see any of the 6 options built in the next 15 years.

[twoNeurons]

I support a combo option for one reason... it will allow a staged approach. I say RRT to Arbutus and then we'll see what is needed to UBC.

[squeezied]

I sorta see it the opposite for the combo. I think the combo will eliminate any possiblilty of a staged approach in the forseeable future because both RRT and LRT are pretty perminant. When they invest all that money on LRT from Arbutus to UBC and realize it's not sufficient, they aren't going abandon it and spend a bucketload on extending the RRT. Other communities need the funds for transit such as surrey.

Get it right the first time, cuz if you don't, chances are there won't be a second time.

[paradigm4]

A handful of Vancouver media and political types that I've spoken to seem vehemently believe that SkyTrain would never get built past Arbutus - the rich Point Greyers would stop it in its tracks and if Gordo pushed it through, he'd definitely lose his seat. From the perspective of a Surreyite, I see the regional benefit of having it all the way to UBC, but I do wonder how much of an influence West siders are going to have on this decision.

Maybe it's simply more politically tenable to build it to Arbutus for now, and continue a B-Line service to UBC... It would certainly free up money for the rest of the region...

[squeezied]

If they do end up only extending skytrain to Arbutus, I rather them have the B-line rather than LRT from Arbutus to UBC. At least this way the B-line could be easily removed without much financial commitment when there needs to be a step up from the B-line, be it LRT or RRT.

[vangirl3]

Originally Posted by squeezied

If they do end up only extending skytrain to Arbutus, I rather them have the B-line rather than LRT from Arbutus to UBC. At least this way the B-line could be easily removed without much financial commitment when there needs to be a step up from the B-line, be it LRT or RRT.

I think that would be a smart thing to do if indeed we can't do skytrain the whole route. Also, if the Libs commit to building skytrain to Arbutus before the next election, that would give the NDP (who I'm sure will get in unless Campbell pulls a couple major rabbits out of his hat) the opportunity to build skytrain west of Arbutus. I'm sure they don't care who they p'off on the west side.

[officedweller]

That's what has already been approved by the City of Vancouver for the segment (dating back to the M-Line Phase 2 days) - so it is a very comfortable /supportable position.

[nname]

Originally Posted by mattropolis

I like the combination option. It will be cheaper in the short term and in the long term the SkyTrain can be extended to UBC. The idea of the streetcar/tram going along the false creek line will be a bonus, if it is done right. perhaps a tunnel from the granville island station to avoid 4th ave and burrard. The transfer station at Arbutus/Broadway would have to be well designed to allow easy cross-platform transfers with no stairs but not preclude eventual extension of SkyTrain westward.

I wonder if the the same people that voted for option 4 also will be signing the anti-HST petition?? The province is broke and doesn't have 3 billion for an all-tunnel SkyTrain to UBC. I doubt we'll even see any of the 6 options built in the next 15 years.

Once the track is laid west of Arbutus, there is probably no chance of seeing any skytrain extension. For staged approach, I think they'll have to keep the B-Line instead of any type of rail solution.

And I doubt the combination option is much cheaper especially if its tunneled at Granville Island (which is probably the only logical choice). Comparision to RRT all the way to UBC:
- 4.5km less tunnel (assume RRT UBC station is underground)
- 9.2km more at-grade (assume RRT Univ Blvd is at-grade)
- 3 less underground stations
- approx. 12 more at-grade stations
- approx. 50% more rolling stock
- 1 extra OMC

So even if there are saving, it would probably be less than 400 millions.. but add in the extra operating cost, we're actually paying more after about 30 years...

[squeezied]

Also, an LRT rail can't make 90 degree turns at Alma going from Broadway to 10th Ave. Buildings adjacent to Alma would have to be demolished in order to make for a gentler turn and for a station location. That's going to be a big commitment financially and for the urban fabric. The government isn't going to say "ah screw that, let's go for RRT now"

[officedweller]

The suggested route from Broadway to 10th Ave. would have been to cross the Chevron Station site.