Quote:
Originally Posted by Zassk
The mayors have insisted for years that a line to Tri-Cities was the top regional priority. But it has been 10 years since that was first written down. I wonder if they would make the same decision now, or if Surrey would be considered higher priority? I wonder if Evergreen was listed as top priority in the latest 10-year plan just because it was unfulfilled from the previous 10-year plan, or if it is really the top priority for the region?
It seems obvious that the province disagrees with the mayors on the importance of Evergreen.
|
I think if you were to rationally look at it, from a perspective of need putting all politics aside, then Broadway, to at least Arbutus would be the priority. The corridor already sees around 100,000 boardings per day, and buses are at the physical limit of their capability.
Broadway is also a major regional destination. There are probably many people out there who live close to Skytrain or frequent buses but don't use it because Skytrain doesn't take them to work. Adding Broadway wouldn't just take care of the thousands of people who take the 99B line, but also encourage thousands of others to switch to transit. I think I'm a pretty normal guy, but I would much rather go Home -> bus -> Skytrain -> work, than Home->Skytrain->Bus->Work, and I'm sure there are many who are the same.
But politicians and bureaucrats can never look at things that plainly, so when you throw in politics and promises, then Evergreen does come first. There has been lots of planning already done for Evergreen, and Coquitlam has already built up the area around future stations (to a much larger degree than anything done in Surrey outside Whalley).
But if the regional mayors can't get their act together and finance this thing, I would rather see the Province strong arm in the Broadway line than Evergreen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff's two cents
One major aspect of this impasse which doesn't receive enough attention is that many mayors support strategic (i.e. time-of-day/volume/traffic-type differentiated) tolling on major freeways and bridges. I'm frankly surprised that Translink and the province aren't giving this greater consideration in their search for new revenue sources. Free market ideologues could view it positively as a user-pay system; lefties could spin it as forcing the wealthiest members of society to pay for infrastructure that would benefit all. The precedent is already set for the Golden Ears bridge, and would only require tweaking to get certain major interest groups on board.
Given that agreement and disagreement on tolling cuts across traditional party loyalties, I'd be interested in seeing which party puts it on their platform. Given that it doesn't polarize along traditional party lines (remember the NDP's "axe the tax" campaign?), my hunch is that the Green party will be the only one to give it serious attention. This may even garner them a seat or two this time around. We'll have to wait and see.
|
I don't think you can spin tolls as socialist, unless cars were so unfordable and unobtainable that only the bourgeoisie could afford them. But I don't think that in Vancouver you can say that driving is for the rich and Skytrain is for the poor. During peak hours leaving downtown, there are as many "suits" on the Skytrain as there are others. On the roads, there are more beat up clunkers and working pickup trucks than there are luxury sedans and SUVs. Driving in North America transcends class.
The downside of road pricing is that it is not socialist. It punishes those with low incomes who depend on roads, while the rich barely notice. It's akin to instating user fees at Hospitals. If your reasoning for road fees is that then those who use it pay for it, why don't we do that for health care? I don't have cancer, why should I pay for people's chemo? I've never broken my arm or been in an accident, why should I pay to maintain emergency rooms? If I had just put the money that I pay that goes towards MSP and Provincial payments to the Health Authorities, I would probably have a large enough savings to cover any future health problems I might have.
But that's not how a compassionate society works. Not everyone could afford to save money to pay for 100% of their health care costs, so I gladly pay my taxes so everyone can be as healthy as possible, and no one, including me, needs to worry about what will happen if I get hurt or sick. There are also society benefits to the individual when society is taken care of. I'm sure, even if I have never used health care, that I know (and that I have benefited personally from) someone who has.
The same can be said for roads. We all benefit from their existence. Our society and economy is based on their availability. They are not a luxury for the upper class, but a means for us all to generate wealth. Even if I never drive, my life is immeasurably impacted by other people using roads. My job or schooling depends on others being able to get around. The wealthier in society pay more taxes and pay more than their share for the roads that bring them their wealth, so the lower paid can use them at bellow cost (because they then in turn generate the wealth that the rich have). I gladly pay my share for social health care, just I gladly pay my share for social roads and transit.
If road and vehicle fees are put in place, I could end up paying well over an extra $100 a month, whereas if it were property taxes, I would probably be paying far less than half that. Under user fees, the person at the end of the road with a 7 series BMW and a Mansion would end up paying the same increase as me (maybe less, because hey, they're the boss, they can show up at work after peak hour fees are lowered). But under property tax increases, he pays his fair share for what he benefits from my travel.
I'm not saying that road tolling is wrong or bad, but thinking it's some kind of magic bullet that will bring about balanced budgets and level the playing field for the classes isn't logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeezied
Unfortunately, I can confirm that the Evergreen Line won't be starting construction until late 2011. In my transportation course at UBC today we had a guest speaker from translink by the name of Sany Zein who introduced himself as the VP of Translink (though a quick google search on him says he's translink's director of roads). Anyway the following points are what I noted from my conversation with him:
-contractor has not been selected
-have to wait until March 31 to determine whether funding has been realized or not.
-thus no construction can start before March 31; it would have to be 6 months of paperwork or finalizing or whatnot after that date before they start construction.
-ultimately it's up to the province on how important they deem this project. They do have the power to impose whatever will they have to make this a go.
So if funding has been realized, the earliest we can see the project break ground is the start of October.
|
Well it makes sense. A lot of companies aren't in the business of spending their own money on contract proposals and placing bids if there isn't even a guarantee that the job will actually happen. That is just too much risk for most companies proceed on. Being 1 of 5 bidders on a job has better odds making money that being 1 of 1 bidders on a job that doesn't happen. Until Translink can guarantee work and payment, there probably won't be any accurate bids.
Prev
Linear Mode
