Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I wonder if a PPP deal would work for the gondola since it seemed to have such a good business case? If a company is willing to finance the construction I could see it happening.

I thought the findings from the original feasibility study determined that there was going to be a net financial loss from building it at the specifications that they came up with (three-wire heavy-duty gondola system with towers spaced far apart). But who knows... The one-wire Sea to Sky Gondola experiences much more interesting terrain and weather conditions IMO and yet has had barely any incidents at all (the only one being the cab crashing down during operator testing and training before opening). Now I wouldn't trust a single wire for the loads of people that go up SFU, but it's still possible that - if they go for a cheaper two-wire solution - it might just break even.

EDIT: Just reading the alternatives analysis again, another reason cited for the S3 / three-wire gondola system was that, at the time, it was thought that they'd need to use shorter towers with close spacing in between, thus severely interrupting the community below. But then only 8 months after they dismissed the idea of using anything less, London came along with their mono-cable Emirates Air Line, which uses only three really tall and spread out towers to carry it across the Thames. If they are to re-do the analysis, I really hope they split up the technologies this time rather than lumping them together.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

I thought the findings from the original feasibility study determined that there was going to be a net financial loss from building it at the specifications that they came up with (three-wire heavy-duty gondola system with towers spaced far apart). But who knows... The one-wire Sea to Sky Gondola experiences much more interesting terrain and weather conditions IMO and yet has had barely any incidents at all (the only one being the cab crashing down during operator testing and training before opening). Now I wouldn't trust a single wire for the loads of people that go up SFU, but it's still possible that - if they go for a cheaper two-wire solution - it might just break even.

EDIT: Just reading the alternatives analysis again, another reason cited for the S3 / three-wire gondola system was that, at the time, it was thought that they'd need to use shorter towers with close spacing in between, thus severely interrupting the community below. But then only 8 months after they dismissed the idea of using anything less, London came along with their mono-cable Emirates Air Line, which uses only three really tall and spread out towers to carry it across the Thames. If they are to re-do the analysis, I really hope they split up the technologies this time rather than lumping them together.

Sorry, I meant to say that I agree that it's seeming the capital costs are too expensive, but the operating costs would be good.

[ClaytonA]

Sigh...

#ST3 will bring new transit services every 3-7 years for the next 25 years, on top of ST2 plans in progress.

https://www.facebook.com/SoundTransit/videos/10154736821873979/

[ClaytonA]

...[N]o other city in the country will be able to build transit infrastructure as quickly as Los Angeles, at least for the next few decades. “This is the boldest, most comprehensive transportation initiative in North America,” said Washington at the conference yesterday. “We are ready to build. We are ready to build right now.”

http://la.curbed.com/2016/11/10/13586578/metro-measure-m-passed-projects-first-build

...$860 million in estimated revenue each year will be earmarked for mass-transit projects. ....

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-measure-m-lv-20161109-story.html

[ClaytonA]

What if our Mayor's Council dithers too long after the next provincial election and this happens:

... The state offered $155 million to help pay for the proposed $243 million light-rail extension from Norfolk to Town Center in Virginia Beach, but that money will now return to a statewide pot for transportation projects with a December vote from the state transportation board.

"These monies have been tied up for over two years while the City Council debated action on this project," Layne wrote. "There are many other pressing transportation needs in the Commonwealth that can immediately move forward with these funds. A further delay in reprogramming these monies is not justified."

He directed the Department of Rail and Public Transportation to "cease all activities and curtail all expenses related to the Virginia Beach light rail extension grant."
...

http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/12278...ork-on-virginia-beach-light-rail-project

How flexible is the federal money? The provincial money? Lots of discussion about how to mitigate the congestion from the Mackenzie Interchange project in Victoria right now. What if the provincial government shifted funding to a revived Victoria LRT project? They're doing studies on a second bridge in Kelowna; what if the money went to a dedicated right-of-way BRT system to mitigate congestion across Lake Okanagan?

Given the province's and GVRD's frictions, I could see something like this and could support it. Maybe GVRD residents need that kind of a message-there's other places this money can be spent on transit?

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

How flexible is the federal money? The provincial money? Lots of discussion about how to mitigate the congestion from the Mackenzie Interchange project in Victoria right now. What if the provincial government shifted funding to a revived Victoria LRT project? They're doing studies on a second bridge in Kelowna; what if the money went to a dedicated right-of-way BRT system to mitigate congestion across Lake Okanagan?

Given the province's and GVRD's frictions, I could see something like this and could support it. Maybe GVRD residents need that kind of a message-there's other places this money can be spent on transit?

I think part of the Province's narrative to the public is "Look, we the province and the federal government have our portions of the Broadway and Surrey extensions ready to go. Translink has the projects in planning. It's your mayors that can't get it together to fund their remaining portion."

So the province or feddies won't want to seem to be dithering on their portion.

Of course, this belies the fact that the province forced a referendum on the agreed methods for the mayors to pay for their portion, even though there have hypocritically been no referendums on any other transportation or taxation issue. This way the province can blame the mayors for not raising enough money while still telling the electorate that they are protecting them, and won't let the mayors gouge them.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think part of the Province's narrative to the public is "Look, we the province and the federal government have our portions of the Broadway and Surrey extensions ready to go. Translink has the projects in planning. It's your mayors that can't get it together to fund their remaining portion."

So the province or feddies won't want to seem to be dithering on their portion.

Of course, this belies the fact that the province forced a referendum on the agreed methods for the mayors to pay for their portion, even though there have hypocritically been no referendums on any other transportation or taxation issue. This way the province can blame the mayors for not raising enough money while still telling the electorate that they are protecting them, and won't let the mayors gouge them.

The Province just doesn't want ownership of bad projects. The Skytrain may have been selected by the Socreds in the early 80's, but it was embraced by the NDP. Expanding it into NDP areas is de-prioritized because those are the exact same areas that voted NDP. Surrey-Newton, Surrey Green Timbers, Surrey-Walley, and most of Vancouver/Burnaby are all NDP. So I'm pretty sure the BC Liberals would have made the Broadway subway a priority project had all of Vancouver went Liberal. I'm also sure we'd have just seen the Skytrain pushed into Surrey had it went all Liberal.

The Mayors want taxation methods that they don't have any right to (eg the carbon tax) and were previously shot down. The referendum was a foolish idea, but it was a way to drop the blame on the Mayors for it failing. Which rightfully should be blamed.

[AMTDGT]

Originally Posted by Kisai

.....

The Mayors want taxation methods that they don't have any right to (eg the carbon tax) and were previously shot down. The referendum was a foolish idea, but it was a way to drop the blame on the Mayors for it failing. Which rightfully should be blamed.

It's a pretty a basic issue in my mind. The Fed's put up a 3rd (so people all across the country contribute), the Prov's put up a 3rd (so everyone in BC contributes) Metro Vancouver puts up a 3rd because they get the benefit that no one in the rest of the province or Canada gets.

So IMO the issue that is stalling much need subway systems in Metro Vancouver is the petty assed personal politics of a bunch of self serving mayors that have their own political agendas that really don't support the requirements of metro Vancouver.

A point of disclosure...we just moved from Vancouver , after 50+ years, back to the interior, not in a small part to get out from under Moonbeams political agenda

[GeeCee]

The big problem that you guys are missing is that the mayors don't have the ability to pull any of the taxation levers except for property tax. The province says that the region must come up with the rest of the funding but the mayors' hands are tied.

It's very similar to the way that the BC Liberals downloaded all of the responsibility for major roads throughout the area to the cities along with a fixed amount of funding and a bunch of other things. Shirking responsibility onto the levels of government below them over and over again.

[ClaytonA]

Just watched the persicope of the board-council joint meeting:

https://www.periscope.tv/TransLink/1YqKDjLvwbvJV?#

Not much there, various public groups saying do it, support the group's area more. Generally positive. Public feedback was positive. Unanimous to receive consultation report and that draft plan gets voted on Nov 23.

What bugs me is that the mayors can't all get together and all agree to raise the property tax and just get this going. Is it worth it or not. If it is, then raise the tax to pay for it. Gordon Campbell didn't get much/any blow back from people when he raised gas taxes 3.5 cents per litre in the mid 2000's to fund the province's share of Gateway and other projects like Hwy 1 to Alberta and Cariboo Connector. It was communicated it was worthwhile, people accepted it.

By doing nothing it just empowers the province to foist projects on Metro Van they may or may not really want. They'd also be spending the province's money too.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

The big problem that you guys are missing is that the mayors don't have the ability to pull any of the taxation levers except for property tax. The province says that the region must come up with the rest of the funding but the mayors' hands are tied.

It's very similar to the way that the BC Liberals downloaded all of the responsibility for major roads throughout the area to the cities along with a fixed amount of funding and a bunch of other things. Shirking responsibility onto the levels of government below them over and over again.

Not missing at all.

Realistically, both here and the US, you want your priorities arranged by a level of government that it belongs to. Federal or State/Provincial funding should only go into capital costs, not operational costs. But that isn't exactly how it works here or in the US either. All those light rail projects in the US are now very likely to lose their federal funding, and thus those projects that require heavy subsidies will either require their own cities to raise taxes or scale back to the point of uselessness.

The same thing goes for us here. A change in Federal or Provincial government is very likely to axe all subsidies, out of pure pettiness. That is why you want to get the lowest-cost to operate infrastructure, because if subsidy goes away, the funding for it has to be found somewhere else.

Which goes back to why we have Translink at all. It's a way to push that responsibility off the province, but not directly onto the cities since the transportation crosses multiple municipal borders. All the mayors have to agree to raise taxes if they want their projects to to keep operating and if they want new things a good business case must exist, and must not have negative-NPV.

Certain things make sense for "Translink" to run, like the transit. But pushing the roads and bridges to them is kinda like, no, that should not be Translink's mandate, that should be another entity (eg the Metro Vancouver Regional District.) If Translink was part of the Regional District itself, that would likely solve some of the problems we have with it's governance, but create other conflict problems (like selling "unused" land for housing and not retaining it for transit projects, remember what happened when BC Transit sold off properties that Translink later had to buy back. Now the Oakridge Bus garage and the North Vancouver Transit Centre will be gone. Kiss any LRT plans in those areas goodbye.)

[ClaytonA]

So raise the property tax. It's the same taxpayer/citizen. If their taxes are less provincially, then raise them municipally. The province has even handed the mayors an excuse with this hospital levy. The mayors could go we're just going to take away this tax break you've all been getting because this is what it was supposed to fund.

Seattle and LA have long term funded multi-decade plans because mobility/accessibility is important enough. We'll lurch along trying to scrape stuff together for each project with no vision. Evergreen was put off for what, four years before, OK we'll raise some money locally to tender the project. Here we are again. Take the politics out of it.

Just do it once, index it to construction inflation, car efficiency or whatever. The mayors keep control of the money if they put in a plan funding the local portion Translink since they still have to approve the projects and could keep the money in a dedicated transportation-only escrow account until they're ready to hand the money over to Translink.

[ClaytonA]

All roads and bridges should be part of Translink. Highways, local streets, everything. The problem arises from the fact only some roads and not others are under Translink's mandate. We don't run into issues with sewers because all are operated by one entity, not only some and not others.

Provincial highway reaches municipal boundary, province is done.

Yeah, from what I understand LA and Seattle's plans are both long term enough or didn't count on federal money, so the Republicans cutting all transit funding won't affect them much. Imagine if that happened here federally?

[Geof]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Seattle and LA have long term funded multi-decade plans because mobility/accessibility is important enough.

No, they have funding available because they have much greater ability to raise money. Both cities get a portion of the sales tax. American cities have the power to levy their own sales taxes. Canadian cities don't.

If our cities were able to raise sales taxes on their own, they would have been able to implement the transit tax without a referendum - or, even if there was a requirement for a referendum (California's disastrous Proposition 13 was a state measure; I don't know whether it applies to municipal taxes), they would have had control over the question and the timing. As you may know, the Province unilaterally altered the referendum wording (making it more ambiguous and removing a reference to independent audits), and set the referendum date so that the region had very little time to prepare. Every measure they come up with, they have to beg the province. The province then says yes or no, and frames the issue to the public to achieve whatever outcome is best for Victoria.

I think the suggestion that the fault lies with the mayors is absurd. The province controls nearly all the money, it controls Translink, and (under both NDP and Liberal governments) has been playing games for 20 years. The root problem is the status of cities under Confederation: basically, they have no status. This is the result.

[ClaytonA]

Except it's not the province's portion that missing.
What money can the mayor's control? Raise the property tax, or other locally controlled taxes, and enable some control over timing and other outcomes. Try and figure out ways to raise taxes via ways they don't control and we get political games/machinations because they have no control-they need someone else to do something. Maintain control over the local funding by keeping it in a transportation-dedicated account, and have it at the table to empower ourselves.

We don't get the same level of politics over other infrastructure. We just raise the revenue.

...These few projects that I outlined total about $2.5 billion, and are only a sample of the many projects that the Metro Vancouver regional district is working on. While the provincial and federal governments do provide some capital funding for these project, the remainder is funded via property tax.

Water and sewer infrastructure is critical to our region’s livability, and will require a significant amount of investment over the next decade to ensure it can meet the needs of our growing region.

http://sfb.nathanpachal.com/2016/11/metro-vancouvers-massive-investment-in.html


Some places have high value added taxes, others income tax, others utility fees, other gas taxes, others sales tax. Some are better than others (equity, progressive/regressive), but with proper design does it really matter what type of revenue source it is?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Geof

No, they have funding available because they have much greater ability to raise money. Both cities get a portion of the sales tax. American cities have the power to levy their own sales taxes. Canadian cities don't.

If our cities were able to raise sales taxes on their own, they would have been able to implement the transit tax without a referendum - or, even if there was a requirement for a referendum (California's disastrous Proposition 13 was a state measure; I don't know whether it applies to municipal taxes), they would have had control over the question and the timing. As you may know, the Province unilaterally altered the referendum wording (making it more ambiguous and removing a reference to independent audits), and set the referendum date so that the region had very little time to prepare. Every measure they come up with, they have to beg the province. The province then says yes or no, and frames the issue to the public to achieve whatever outcome is best for Victoria.

I think the suggestion that the fault lies with the mayors is absurd. The province controls nearly all the money, it controls Translink, and (under both NDP and Liberal governments) has been playing games for 20 years. The root problem is the status of cities under Confederation: basically, they have no status. This is the result.

Yeah, but an American city can't just create a tax, it has to pass a referendum.

We had the exact same opportunity. Did we want to create a local sales tax to fund transit? We voted no, resoundingly.

Vancouver is a very rich city, and the region is very prosperous, there is no reason that we can't come up with 1/3 of the money (now down to 17% and we still can't contribute). Transit is a very special concern for our region, one that most other regions in the province don't have. There is no reason the rest of the province should be overly burdened to pay for our local special needs.

We, as local taxpayers, have the money, we are either just too greedy to want to part with it to pay for stuff that directly benefits us, or we are too stupid to realize how much better off we are than the rest of the province and even country.

[ClaytonA]

The rest of BC is not subsidizing the GVRD; if anything it's the opposite right now.

-translink cannot levy taxes-only the province, feds, individual municipalities can
-to raise property taxes, all of the mayors need to individually raise them
-Burnaby, Delta, West Vancouver, and Maple Ridge wouldn't in 2014
-the province refuses to change Translink governance, so it can levy taxes
-the province plays the mayors off against each other, by allowing only a property tax increase or a referendum
-the mayors refuse to let some municipalities freeload, and don't individually raise property taxes
-referendum alternative fails

-My point is raise the taxes individually,
-put the money in a transportation dedicated fund-spread out the revenue increases to make them politically easier,
-out the freeloaders-so it's clear who the hostage takers are to voters,
-continue trying (and likely failing) to get Translink governance changed
-keep nibbling away at things like sidewalks, cycling, transit-supportive land use zoning, and getting "your" big projects ready for tender to opportunistically take advantage of the political dysfunction vote buying

Instead we need a 7 months to separate out an inadequate plan-just phase 1, 3 weeks of consultation (that was positive), a unanimous vote to receive the draft report and prepare a final report, 2 weeks to prepare the final report, a presumably required unanimous vote to fund all but the development charge, 8 months for service increases. Repeat each year for the next two years facilitating opponents throwing spanners into the work. Don't get anything done, don't raise revenue. Finally after two election cycles of wrangling, enact bigger increase in one shot, or further delay projects by spacing out implementation. This is a mess.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Yeah, but an American city can't just create a tax, it has to pass a referendum. We had the exact same opportunity. Did we want to create a local sales tax to fund transit? We voted no, resoundingly. . . . There is no reason the rest of the province should be overly burdened to pay for our local special needs.

I am in favour of the tax. I think it is completely reasonable, so I'm not going to get into an argument over regional fairness.

I am convinced that a referendum was winnable. It was lost because it was run badly, and it was run badly because of how the province set it up. If our cities, like those in the U.S., had the power to proceed on their own without having the province mucking things up, they might have succeeded (of course it's a counterfactual; there are no guarantees). There are very clear reasons why it failed.

The referendum was not lost because (as you suggest) people are too greedy or too stupid. Greed is the easiest to dispose of. Early polls had the Yes side winning: collectively, we are willing to pay for improved transit. As to stupidity, no referendum is ever won or lost on the basis of a careful public deliberation over its merits. That is simply not how politics has ever or will ever (or even should) work.

This is hardly the first transit referendum. There is a history of these things going back at least to the 1920s in the U.S. We know how they are won, and the techniques are pretty much the same as for any marketing campaign. Votes are won or lost based primarily on two things: framing and identity. Roughly, what is it about, and where do I fit in. In short, what does it mean.

Oversimplifying somewhat, the Yes side answer was: this is about avoiding traffic apocalypse when a million newcomers arrive, and we are the experts (the "biggest coalition in B.C. history") who are telling you what to do about it. The No side answer was: this is about an out-of-control Translink run by elites, and you are the working stiff whose pocket they want to pick. The resignation of the Translink CEO cemented the No campaign frame: agreeing that it was all about Translink and confirming the No critique. A more disastrous PR move is hard to imagine. The nail was in the coffin.

Regardless, the Yes campaign never offered a positive argument that respected the voters, explaining to them what the mayor's plan meant to them. It was all a snow-job of facts and figures: 1 million people, 30 years, so many new buses, routes, and service hours... Imagine if you asked a lawyer for advice and all he did was recite the relevant statutes. The level of the Yes campaign was hardly better than that. Without real reasons that meant something in their everyday lives, voters had no good reason to say Yes.

Which is all very nice, but why was the campaign so bad? Because making meaningful arguments takes time. You need to listen to the voters, you need to understand them, and you need to take the time to explain what it is you plan to do and what it will mean for them. But that didn't happen, because the province set the conditions and the timetable. The Yes side simply didn't have the time to organize a consistent strategy and leadership, let alone communicate effectively with the public.

If the region could have planned and run the campaign on their own, on their own timetable, knowing in advance that they had the power to set the question and conduct it as they saw fit, they would have had the chance to be competent. They never had that chance. Of course they (we) lost.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

The rest of BC is not subsidizing the GVRD; if anything it's the opposite right now.

As it should be.

You have to ask yourself, who benefits the most for the relationship between Vancouver and the rest of the province.

Does funneling a majority of the tax money into the city improve the lives of rural residents and economy of the entire province? Not really. Does subsidizing the rest of the province do anything for Vancouver? Absolutely.

Does building a Skytrain line improve the lives of residents of Prince George? Not really. Does subsidizing highway expansion so a dam can be built do anything for Vancouver? Absolutely (we get electricities).

Even though 58% of the provincial GDP is generated in Metro Vancouver, the role the rest of the province plays in supporting the city's economy is immense. Vancouver wouldn't even exist if it did not get it's start by being the port through which the goods to and from the rest of the province and country traveled. Without provincial demand for products, the port would be pointless. As Vancouver grew, it became the focal point for offices managing the resource economy of the province. Without the government supporting expansion in the province, the backbone of Vancouver's economy wouldn't have existed.

Vancouver isn't the great city it is because of some self made manifest destiny. Vancouver is a great city because BC is a great province. And we can't upset that balance by robbing the hills to dress the rich. We have become richer and better off than the province, we can afford to tax ourselves more to pay for the things we need.

[queetz@home]

^^

Amen to that brotha! BCPhil you are very wise.