Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[red-paladin]

The thread is going off the rails again...

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Please, so I can better understand this:
1: Are federal infrastructure $$$ for, ok, the broadway line, or such as examples, repeat: are the feds funds given directly to the provincial government with the funded project stipulated,
or does the Provincial government have the discretion to alter the spending of such money? If the latter is so, Clark is very much in a position of power broker.

2: What are some of Clark's 'pet highway projects'? / Thanks

1: From what I understand, the Province has to OK the use of Federal funds in the PPP 1/3+1/3+1/3 process, so the one capable of Veto'ing any project is the Province. If we get the Broadway subway built to Arbutus, or to it's full length to UBC is dependant on what is funded. If the Federal Liberals reneg on their funding commitments, then nothing gets built (or it gets built anyway, but "cost savings" get forced on all projects that results in no trains being purchased and Surrey's light rail project being dumped since there would be no operational budget.)

2: Is probably the non-Translink bridges.

Originally Posted by Jebby

It seems like every time the federal Liberals are in power for an extended period of time the economy crashes.

It's a cyclical thing that depends as much on global markets. A sweeping generalization can be made that "The Liberals were in power every time" but you can also look at who was in power in the US make the same statement. Markets are far more integrated than they were in the past, news travels fast, and the direct consequences of is that failures affect more than just the place they start in. Deregulation or lack-of-regulation always leads up to a market crash.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Kisai

It's a cyclical thing that depends as much on global markets. A sweeping generalization can be made that "The Liberals were in power every time" but you can also look at who was in power in the US make the same statement. Markets are far more integrated than they were in the past, news travels fast, and the direct consequences of is that failures affect more than just the place they start in.

I know, I was countering SFU's comment blaming the Conservative Party.

Originally Posted by Kisai

Deregulation or lack-of-regulation always leads up to a market crash.

Well that part isn't true, at least in how you mean it. Markets will always crash, that's actually a good thing as a market crash eliminates the effects of malinvestment. The part about deregulation causing market crashes is incorrect.The cause of virtually every modern day financial crisis has been malinvestment caused by government regulations and monetary policy (for example, housing boom and bust in the US caused by low interest rates, Freddie Mac and Fannie May guarantee nearly half of the mortgages in the U.S, the Community Reinvestment Act obligating banks to lend to people with no or bad credit, etc)

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

But only one government has proven themselves to be simply masterful at it...

Exactly although lets hope a passing fad as the feds (cons) and provinces (libs) and Vancouver (vision) all seemed to embrace a similar path of a narrow, under built and volatile market sector (oil sands, natural gas and a realistic real estate market) Aaaaand back to trains! I can hardly wait to ride another new train line

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Well that part isn't true, at least in how you mean it. Markets will always crash, that's actually a good thing as a market crash eliminates the effects of malinvestment. The part about deregulation causing market crashes is incorrect.The cause of virtually every modern day financial crisis has been malinvestment caused by government regulations and monetary policy (for example, housing boom and bust in the US caused by low interest rates, Freddie Mac and Fannie May guarantee nearly half of the mortgages in the U.S, the Community Reinvestment Act obligating banks to lend to people with no or bad credit, etc)

I know, however nobody can point to "exactly one thing" that caused a crash. The deregulation comment was how banks and investment banks were not keeping their customers money separate and in fact gambling with their customers money.

Anyway this has gone off topic far enough.

The Media is (again) going after Translink for stupid things:
http://www.cknw.com/2016/03/03/drex-rant-translink/

Once again, Documents that have been provided through a Freedom of Information request that shows trouble at TransLink – this time, how much the authority has spent on repairing and maintaining escalators and elevators.

And to be honest, while the dollar figure is nothing to be shocked about, there is one shocking thing, and we’ll get to that soon.


The FOI reveals that back in 2015, TransLink spent $6.4-million to maintain the 78 escalators and 59 elevators on the Expo and Millennium Lines.

In 2014, the same work cost $5.6 -million.

...

To which I wonder how often the people who work at the Media even use the transit system when they make FOI requests and it doesn't show any evidence of wrong-doing.

Then there is this (which is in the main transit thread)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/brit...astructure-at-one-third/article29027345/

...

If the federal government came up with 50 per cent of transit-project costs, a number that has been circulated, and the province won’t increase its share, that would means local cities would have to provide the remaining 17 per cent.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson and other mayors have been pushing to have city contributions limited to 10 per cent.

...

The Mayors need to make up their mind if they want all or none of the responsibility for Translink. If they want all the responsibility, then they will find their 1/3rd. If they want to continue with the status quo, then they are not entitled to have any say in Translink if they aren't committing a proportionate funding mechanism. If they want to only commit to 10%, fine, drop 30% of the Mayor's influence in Translink.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The Mayors need to make up their mind if they want all or none of the responsibility for Translink. If they want all the responsibility, then they will find their 1/3rd. If they want to continue with the status quo, then they are not entitled to have any say in Translink if they aren't committing a proportionate funding mechanism. If they want to only commit to 10%, fine, drop 30% of the Mayor's influence in Translink.

You make it sound like the mayors could walk away and suddenly not have to fund any transit. It doesn't work that way. They hardly have any say in what happens, it's a joke. Anything of importance that Translink wants to do has to go through the province.

Maybe the BC Liberals should stop telling Translink what to do and how to run when they are only providing 33% of the funding.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You make it sound like the mayors could walk away and suddenly not have to fund any transit. It doesn't work that way. They hardly have any say in what happens, it's a joke. Anything of importance that Translink wants to do has to go through the province.

Maybe the BC Liberals should stop telling Translink what to do and how to run when they are only providing 33% of the funding.

Translink doesn't even have 10%, do they? Any funding source has to come from the province, who fights them tooth and nail on every decision.

The province has downloaded the blame & responsibility but kept the power. Good deal for them.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Translink doesn't even have 10%, do they? Any funding source has to come from the province, who fights them tooth and nail on every decision.

The province has downloaded the blame & responsibility but kept the power. Good deal for them.

Translink has to fund 33%. Any "new funding mechanism" needs a referendum according to the BC Liberals.

Translink can raise gas taxes, property taxes and fares. If they wanted a new source like partial PST, well, you saw what happened there.

What is unclear to me is that there are still restrictions on how much they can raise property and gas taxes. I believe the increase per year and the total tax level would still be a limiting factor.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I know, however nobody can point to "exactly one thing" that caused a crash. The deregulation comment was how banks and investment banks were not keeping their customers money separate and in fact gambling with their customers money.

You've got the argument completely backwards.

They whole argument blaming Glass-Steagle's repeal is that banks shouldn't be engaging in proprietary trading, meaning using their own money to buy and sell stocks, bonds, and other securities. They're supposed to be only using their client's money.

Of course it's a stupid argument, as banks outside the US have never been subject to those restrictions.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You make it sound like the mayors could walk away and suddenly not have to fund any transit. It doesn't work that way. They hardly have any say in what happens, it's a joke. Anything of importance that Translink wants to do has to go through the province.

Maybe the BC Liberals should stop telling Translink what to do and how to run when they are only providing 33% of the funding.

Considering that the (capital) funding is 1/3 fed + 1/3rd province and THEN the city (via Translink) is considered, I'd argue that the reason the Province has all the power here is that the federal government doesn't care what is built (and if they wanted to bail out Bombardier, they would require that Bombardier build the trains for the UBC subway and also the LRT cars, building and operating of the Surrey LRT.) The Province has no incentive to choose Bombardier or anyone else, and only sticks with Bombardier for the Skytrain cars because presumably nobody else can present a business case not to. That's how we wound up with the Canada Line cutting corners, it will surely come back to bite us in 25 years. The Province knows that not extending the Skytrain is going to result in a expensive patchwork metro system with no redundancy.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Translink has to fund 33%. Any "new funding mechanism" needs a referendum according to the BC Liberals.

Translink can raise gas taxes, property taxes and fares. If they wanted a new source like partial PST, well, you saw what happened there.

What is unclear to me is that there are still restrictions on how much they can raise property and gas taxes. I believe the increase per year and the total tax level would still be a limiting factor.

Yes, I mean... I don't think translink has 10% say in what gets built. I'd put that 80% provincial, 10% federal, 10% translink. Yet, translink get 80% of the responsibility/blame/etc.

It's the 80/20 rule and Tom Prendergast pretty much figured that out when he was CEO way back... anyone remember the little media spat that was pinning the responsibility on the Province a few years back... and then he was offered the job of running New York's transit system.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

It's the 80/20 rule and Tom Prendergast pretty much figured that out when he was CEO way back... anyone remember the little media spat that was pinning the responsibility on the Province a few years back... and then he was offered the job of running New York's transit system.

Yep. I wonder what the new guy will do. He seems smart enough, so I'm sure he knows the situation here.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Translink has to fund 33%. Any "new funding mechanism" needs a referendum according to the BC Liberals.

Translink can raise gas taxes, property taxes and fares. If they wanted a new source like partial PST, well, you saw what happened there.

What is unclear to me is that there are still restrictions on how much they can raise property and gas taxes. I believe the increase per year and the total tax level would still be a limiting factor.

The way I see it, is that the 1/3 of the project funding from the feds is a given. If we had gotten our ducks in a row and won the plebiscite, the federal funding would have been unlocked by now.

What I'm thinking they could do, is cover Translink's 1/3. That's the extra spending, above and beyond what they have (the conservatives anyway) already said they would do.

Then you have the feds contributing their original 1/3, the province its 1/3, and then the feds under the new infrastructure investment plan contribute another 1/3.

It's just my hunch, but it has so many benefits and so few drawbacks.

It gets the ball rolling on a huge, nationally visible project that would actually benefit BC's and Vancouver's economy (and Justin's second favorite place) and makes the federal government look like they are solving problems that were at impasse under the Conservatives, while not completely shattering our 3x1/3 cost sharing model for other (smaller) projects. And construction won't significantly start this year, so they are costs that can be mostly deferred to later budgets.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The way I see it, is that the 1/3 of the project funding from the feds is a given. If we had gotten our ducks in a row and won the plebiscite, the federal funding would have been unlocked by now.

What I'm thinking they could do, is cover Translink's 1/3. That's the extra spending, above and beyond what they have (the conservatives anyway) already said they would do.

Then you have the feds contributing their original 1/3, the province its 1/3, and then the feds under the new infrastructure investment plan contribute another 1/3.

That's probably what'll happen, assuming Trudeau keeps his promise.

Somehow though, I just know that Christy'll find a way to butt in (provinces' rights or something) and f-ck this up for us...

[WarrenC12]

Fassbender put his foot in his mouth again today around transit funding:

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/371116161.html

Peter Fassbender has retracted earlier comments today that Metro Vancouver mayors can impose a vehicle levy to fund regional transit expansion without holding a new referendum.

His statements in a Black Press interview – repeatedly insisting a vehicle levy would not trigger a referendum because it’s already enabled in TransLink’s legislation – surprised Metro Vancouver mayors, some of whom said they wouldn’t have forced a referendum on a regional sales tax had they been told that in 2014.

“I misspoke when it came to the vehicle levy, and I do apologize for that,” Fassbender said, adding that in addition to the need for the province to enable ICBC to collect an annual vehicle registration fee, “it is also a new tax, therefore it would be subject to a plebiscite or a referendum with the public.”

[urbancanadian]

Hey guys,

There's a new thread for discussing political matters. Here's the link:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=221347

Please keep unrelated political discussions over there. Thank you!!

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The way I see it, is that the 1/3 of the project funding from the feds is a given. If we had gotten our ducks in a row and won the plebiscite, the federal funding would have been unlocked by now.

What I'm thinking they could do, is cover Translink's 1/3. That's the extra spending, above and beyond what they have (the conservatives anyway) already said they would do.

Then you have the feds contributing their original 1/3, the province its 1/3, and then the feds under the new infrastructure investment plan contribute another 1/3.

It's just my hunch, but it has so many benefits and so few drawbacks.

It gets the ball rolling on a huge, nationally visible project that would actually benefit BC's and Vancouver's economy (and Justin's second favorite place) and makes the federal government look like they are solving problems that were at impasse under the Conservatives, while not completely shattering our 3x1/3 cost sharing model for other (smaller) projects. And construction won't significantly start this year, so they are costs that can be mostly deferred to later budgets.

Would love for this to happen, but i am not holding my breath for it.

While I do support the federal liberals (and were my choice during the election) they are still politicians.

They will simply re-announce the 1/3 funding that was already in place.

If any new funding is given, it will be more money for other projects covering the federal governments 1/3 commitment.

So instead of just having one project with 1/3 the money in place, we will have 2 or more!

Giving us several projects that will never happen in our current situation.

Seriously, I really wish the BC liberals would just bite the bullet and give our transit projects the extra cash. Would make so much sense if they want to win the next election.

I don't want to have to choose between increased spending on transit or road / bridge upgrades. I want both! Pisses me off that there is no party that seems to live in the real world where investing in both is a net positive for Metro-Van and the Province.

[urbancanadian]

Okay, now some related political ranting...

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yes, I mean... I don't think translink has 10% say in what gets built. I'd put that 80% provincial, 10% federal, 10% translink. Yet, translink get 80% of the responsibility/blame/etc.

It's the 80/20 rule and Tom Prendergast pretty much figured that out when he was CEO way back... anyone remember the little media spat that was pinning the responsibility on the Province a few years back... and then he was offered the job of running New York's transit system.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Somehow though, I just know that Christy'll find a way to butt in (provinces' rights or something) and f-ck this up for us...

The Federal government has already suggested a 45/45/10 split in funding, which I think actually makes a ton of sense since local governments only collect around 8-11% of taxes, but are required to fund a third somehow.

Christy Clark already shot that down, saying the province would never pay more than a third. Somewhat galling, IMO, since the province is asking for that same pot of federal money to pay for the Massey Bridge using a formula where they would pay at least 50%.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Fassbender put his foot in his mouth again today around transit funding:

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/371116161.html

Shows how strictly all decisions are made from the Premier's office. It's kind of sad actually, and makes Peter Fassbender looks weak. Don't say how you really feel - and if you do, you better get in line... Sorry I'm a little frustrated right now. Gonna go watch some House of Cards!

[ClaytonA]

Just a reminder:

Broadway subway to UBC forecast 250,000 trips/day on its first day of operation.

10 lane GMT without tolls in 2045 forecast 115,000 trips/day.

Port Mann Bridge

BC Liberals got elected by promising referendums/plebiscites on Translink funding. GVRD municipalities will not raise property taxes. Therefore, only functional planning will happen until after the next provincial election. The 2015 plebiscite failing pushed everything Translink back, including the Patullo Bridge.

We get what we pay for. Other countries are willing to have higher taxes to have better provision of public goods. They trust politicians more, their neighbours more, the contractors doing the work, etc. We, as society, seem to have changing values towards a more small-minded mindset of people are free-loading/screwing me/what angle can I use to contribute less/etc. Meanwhile Canada's taxes are 30.6% of GDP, lower than they've been since at least 1980, lower than any time in the last 35 years. You wouldn't know it from the rhetoric in the media or talking to your colleagues/neighbours...

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/tax-revenue-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/consumption/revenue-statistics-and-consumption-tax-trends-2014-canada.pdf

[ClaytonA]

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/4/translink-tight-lipped-new-estimates-big-ticket-ra/

... “to make sure the costing is accurate and the technology is correct” have been delayed by a full quarter to June 30.

“When we did the original study, we did it up to 50% accuracy; now we’re trying to get it up to 85% accuracy,” McLay told reporters at the meeting. “When we first did those studies, our dollar was at parity [with the U.S. dollar]; it is not there today. Those have a dramatic impact on what the cost is going to be. We know that those studies require us to acquire land. The land value is not anywhere close to what it was back then. ...

This sounds like a Class 3/C estimate which generally involves design of 10-40% (e.g. conceptual design project drawings).

This implies we'll have a technology (LRT, BRT, RRT) chosen, preliminary station locations, outline specifications, results of all site investigations/installations.

June 30 could be interesting.