Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by spm2013

I like the not building it option, more classy. Thank you for your feedback.

Not building it is the idiotic, near-sighted option.

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

All those options dictate the price, so they need to be settled first before funding can be provided.

Yes I know. My point is that if its decided that route options costing 800million are needed or 2billion or whatever then it's still pointless if you have no funding source.

[quobobo]

And they are correct, unless it is a progressive tax I ill be voting no.

To be clear: you wouldn't support a tax which corresponds directly to the amount of property owned (so people with more $$ in property pay more), when the proceeds fund something (transit) disproportionately used by lower income groups? That's a mighty narrow definition of progressivity.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, etc. etc.

*tolls are not progressive either

If you assume that every income group pays the toll equally, sure. They don't, because drivers as a group are higher-income than non-drivers.

Don't get me wrong, I would support additional rebates as well - but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is a more extreme example, but would you oppose a flat tax on yachts because it's not progressive?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I have a feeling there won't be anything progressive about the funding options (property taxes are semi progressive), so I almost certainly will vote no, and its good there will be a no funding option. I will never support a non progressive tax increase, regardless of what the outcome will be (no such thing as compromise for me on this issue, not falling for those publicity stunts), there have been too many of them over the years as is. (*tolls are not progressive either so I don't support them unless there are rebates at the end of the year based on ability to pay / income level / wealth level)

Would you consider a carbon tax or similar sin tax progressive enough?

An inefficient vehicle, large inefficient house or a long commute can be considered luxuries.

On the other hand, the wealthy can afford things like super efficient homes (Geothermal, etc.) , Teslas or large downtown condos.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by logan5

I presume the Bombardier proposal would have tied into the Expo Line at Waterfront. I wonder where their DT stations would have been.

Downtown stations would have been in the same places - they were established by the RFP requirements. There would have been some play though - as the bored tunnel under Little Mountain would have meant a future 33rd Ave station would be too deep to be economically feasible.

I think he RFP prohibited any synergies with the existing systems to place all bidders on an equal footing.
Also don't know if the MKII cars would have been 3.0m wide (like JFK AirTrain) or 2.65m wide like our existing MKIIs.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think he RFP prohibited any synergies with the existing systems to place all bidders on an equal footing.

I don't think synergies were prohibited, they just weren't allowed to include them as savings to bring the overall cost of the Bombardier proposal down.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I don't think synergies were prohibited, they just weren't allowed to include them as savings to bring the overall cost of the Bombardier proposal down.

^^^ ^^^

The benefits would have been in the the possibility of sharing maintenance facilities, but I would think Bombardier had to build a separate facility. It would have been very difficult to integrate it with the line downtown.

[officedweller]

Yeah, that's what I meant - shared maintenance, storage, or purchasing power on larger orders of vehicles, etc.

[Meraki]

I still think that's a dumb restriction. Any other company who has a <Vendor_System> already in place, with staff trained on that system is entirely in their right to choose the same vendor in an RFP unless some other vendor can show notable cost savings by using them instead.

It was only because of the Harper Government's requirement to funnel money into the hands of a P3 that we ended up with the half-assed underbuilt addition known as the Canada Line. "Olympic Line" changed to "Canada Line," to reflect the Federal Government's contribution to the project. Line colour changed from red to teal because there must be nothing that could be mistakenly associated with the federal Liberal party.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Meraki

"Olympic Line" changed to "Canada Line,"

i am fairly certain it was originally to be called the RAV Line. Richmond-Airport-Vancouver.

the Olympic Line was built as a LRT test track down those old tracks by Granville Island.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, InTransitBC's bid was lower, in part due to cut and cover.
However, the Bombardier bid had a permanent open trench for the tracks south of 49th Ave in the median of Cambie Street.
(probably like SkyTrain east of Nanaimo Station).

Actually I believe it also had a lot to do with the schedule risks, perhaps more-so than cost. We should all by now know that cut & cover, while creating more hassles on the part of the street, is faster and less risky to construct than bored tunnel - and the Canada Line had a very constrained timeline set by the 2010 Winter Olympics.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i am fairly certain it was originally to be called the RAV Line. Richmond-Airport-Vancouver.

the Olympic Line was built as a LRT test track down those old tracks by Granville Island.

I'm pretty sure that was just a working project name. There's no way they'd actually call it the RAV line.

[Genauso]

SkyTrain today spans two very different functions: commuter rail and urban subway. There is no fallback for the commuter portion of the system as we have seen during recent shutdowns, and the system is being squeezed for money just to keep the existing distances open nevermind extending it to Abbotsford.

TransLink needs to specialize the network to get the best value, but it's aiming for incremental change that will leave everyone unhappy for as long as they plan.

We should be explicitly copying some cities until we reach a point where we are the pioneers. Copenhagen comes to mind.

TransLink is about one decade old at this point and doesn't feel like easiest option to get things done. Sell the bridges and Skytrain lines back to the local cities, and individual mayors will go crazy issuing bonds to fund new projects, except for Surrey, Coquitlam, and Burnaby which will probably want to pay down past projects and encourage higher capacity utilization to do so.

No way is not building the Broadway subway before 2040 a vision for the future (if cost is the major concern, multiplying the cost by building two stations at a time and waiting decades for the area to be built up even more is a bureaucrat way of saying No but allowing Mayor Robertson to save face. Especially when they also consider building a Ferris wheel in Surrey just because it has views, will attract riders, and is pleasant)

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm pretty sure that was just a working project name. There's no way they'd actually call it the RAV line.

True that. RAV was purely a codename. Richmond-Vancouver line isn't bad (reminiscent of subway lines in Osaka), Canada line still sounds kind of dumb to me. Olympic Line would have been wholly appropriate, but politically challenging because of:

• The insistence that this was NOT an Olympic project
• The anti-Olympic contingent (barely passed the plebicite)

Note, they wouldn't have to worry about the IOC, as they only have say over "The Olympics" and the 5 rings. Not sure whey they went with teal. Red seems such a natural fit and teal is too close to "expo blue". I wonder who made that decision. Too bad we don't get a lot of Translink employees on this forum who would have access to that kind of info."

As for who insisted on a P3, I believe that was a Provincial gov't requirement, not a federal one. The Province was trying to advocate for the benefits of P3 partnerships. This was the biggest one.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Genauso

TransLink is about one decade old at this point and doesn't feel like easiest option to get things done. Sell the bridges and Skytrain lines back to the local cities, and individual mayors will go crazy issuing bonds to fund new projects, except for Surrey, Coquitlam, and Burnaby which will probably want to pay down past projects and encourage higher capacity utilization to do so.

Horrible idea. The bridges should be taken over by the Provincial MoT and Translink should focus on being solely a transit agency.

Passing it on to the local cities is a horrible idea, same with cities issuing massive amounts of bonds.

[Jimbo604]

Three words: Broadway Connector AddFare

[officedweller]

The reason that the Province (through BC Transit) and then TransLink (a regional entity) run transit, is because the municipalities would never be able to agree. That's also why there's a transit police force - because the line runs through different jurisdictions.

Politicization is something that you don't want.
Transit should really be like watermains and sewers, an infrastructure service designed by qualified engineering staff (not politicians) to work well. Unfortunately, transit is "sexy" and politicians can get a lot of mileage from it - just like roads and highways (not so much water mains and sewers).

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Three words: Broadway Connector AddFare

How about a new Zone 3 boundary?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by quobobo

To be clear: you wouldn't support a tax which corresponds directly to the amount of property owned (so people with more $$ in property pay more), when the proceeds fund something (transit) disproportionately used by lower income groups? That's a mighty narrow definition of progressivity.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, etc. etc.



If you assume that every income group pays the toll equally, sure. They don't, because drivers as a group are higher-income than non-drivers.

Don't get me wrong, I would support additional rebates as well - but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is a more extreme example, but would you oppose a flat tax on yachts because it's not progressive?

I would support property taxes, I just said they are not perfect and as I understand it raising them is off the table.

It sounds like we pretty much agree. I support building more infrastructure but not at the expense of fueling inequality further. And I say this as someone who would not necessarily benefit from this but it is what I have always advocated and will always advocate regardless of my personal situation. Greater good.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Would you consider a carbon tax or similar sin tax progressive enough?

An inefficient vehicle, large inefficient house or a long commute can be considered luxuries.

On the other hand, the wealthy can afford things like super efficient homes (Geothermal, etc.) , Teslas or large downtown condos.

Oh the taxes are fine but they are not progressive. They would be progressive if more of the revenue from these taxes went back to the bottom half then the top half. If you are trying to put x amount of pressure on people to convert then that x amount of pressure will be x to the power of 10 for the poor while it will be just x for the wealthy. Progressive is just evening it out more and actually making the tax more efficient at the same time.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

True that. RAV was purely a codename.

I remember hearing it called RAV and then Canada Line. I don't think I ever heard anyone call it the "Olympic Line".

[Meraki]

[QUOTE=twoNeurons;6752890]Not sure whey they went with teal. Red seems such a natural fit and teal is too close to "expo blue". I wonder who made that decision./QUOTE]

The Canada Line was red in plans and maps until it got caught up in Stephen Harper's larger directive to eliminate Liberal Red wherever possible and replace with Conservative Blue.

It changed around the same websites for federal services were recoloured predominately blue.