HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6441  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2018, 8:11 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Reads more like "FU Doug, you don't tell us what to do" rather than any specific denial of more transit dollars.

Skytrain all the way to Langley will just be a part of the Phase 3 mayor's plan, which Trudeau could easily commit to as a part of his re-election campaign. I'm not sure how many Federal Liberal runnings are viable in that area. Same for Horgan on his next election in 2021.
The province is saying Doug needs to cough up more money if he wants the province to cough more money up too.

If he does that, the premise of 'balancing the budget' is going to go out the window without tax increases. Let's see which one of his promises is more important to him...
     
     
  #6442  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2018, 8:13 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
The province is saying Doug needs to cough up more money if he wants the province to cough more money up too.

If he does that, the premise of 'balancing the budget' is going to go out the window without tax increases. Let's see which one of his promises is more important to him...
He's already made expensive promises. Doesn't want to build an ice rink but wants to buy a bunch of street sweepers ($$) and replace the RCMP ($$$$$).

He's an idiot.
     
     
  #6443  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2018, 9:56 PM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 383
So the Mayor's Council was oh so juicy today.

Once TransLink's presentation was finished and the various Mayor's had their 5min intro speals the main motion was introduced with some protest from Linda Buchanan that other motions couldn't be introduced before the staff motions. Cote shot that down based not on rules but based on historical precedent with the argument being that for new motions to be considered it would be appropriate to defeat the staff recommended motion and then to introduce the new motions.

Here was the original motion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Motion
That the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation:

1. Endorse the work plan in this report that will have TransLink:

a) proceed immediately with planning and project development work for a SkyTrain on Fraser Highway project. and,

b) concurrently, initiate a planning process to refresh the South of Fraser rapid transit strategy, consistent with the 10-Year Vision of building 27 km of rapid transit on the three corridors.

2. Endorse the cancellation of the Fraser Highway B-Line in the Phase One Plan, and instead direct the planned resources to improving the 96 B-Line and existing services on Fraser Highway.3. Receive this report.
Mike Little then introduced an amendment motion that read:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amendment No.1 Mike Little (Deemed Inadmissible)
As a replacement to 1 a and b:

That the Mayor's Council of Regional Transportation:

1.a) direct Translink to identify all alternate sources of revenue other than the regional taxation to address the difference in cost of approximately $1 billion dollars between the previously supported LRT-SNG phase 1 project and the proposed SkyTrain route along the Fraser Highway to Langley and the approximately $56 million dollars spent on planning the previous LRT phase 1 which was initiated in good faith with the City of Surrey's support and subsequently canceled at Surrey's request, and,

1.b) report back to the Mayor's Council prior to commencing a planning project on the expansion of SkyTrain south of the Fraser.
This amendment was not allowed to be processed further by Cote because he believed that the amendment was a marked departure from the original motion and that the original motion should be defeated and then his amendment could be introduced as a new motion. Linda was still very sour.

The discussion then continued from Richmond's Malcom Brodie about having Surrey pay somehow for the $56 million sunk costs. A lot of finagling about with language occurred until the final amendment that would go before item 1 read:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amendment No.2 Malcom Brodie (Passed 23-0)
That Mayor's Council of Regional Transportation, subject to the City of Surrey's specific agreement to compensate, no later than upon signing the Memorandum of Understanding, all work plan costs unnecessarily expended to date:
This amendment was then passed unanimously (including Surrey).

Mike Little, then wanted to do a referral motion to take the main amended motion and do something along the same lines of his previous amendment. This was again stopped by Cote, for the same reason he had before. (At this point Cote has his hand on the side of his face and seemed like he had a twang of impatience for having to do that a second time haha)

Mayor Frose, commented that within the 10 year vision there is phase 3, and that this project stays within the funding envelope for phase 3. He went through the point that they went into the 10 year plan without any funding at all. He recommended that Mike add instead:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amendment No.3 Jack Frose (Not Introduced)
3. Work continue on securing funding for completing the Mayors' vision.
Mike or Frose didn't end up introducing that sadly (it would have been a good amendment in my own opinion.)

Cote again re-iterated that the problem with Mike's amendment was that it suggested the main motion needed to wait until after his amendment in order to continue and for this reason that he could not allow it without the main amendment first being defeated. However, he did say that the work that Mayor Little suggests be done prior, is still happening, but just concurrently to the main motion (it's already embedded in the main motion).

Discussion went thereafter to talk about Phase 3 funding and how it will work with Phase 2 funding and how Translink will produce a phased project that may go half way to begin and then all the way eventually or right away depending on the timing of Phase 3 funding.

Mayor Stewart then introduced a amendment to the language of "project development" in 1. a), with the help of Translink staff so that 1. a read:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amendment No.4 Richard Stewart (Defeated 67-67)
a) proceed immediately with planning and design work for a SkyTrain on Fraser Highway project. and,
McCallum argued that this was a delay tactic and narrowed the scope of work that Translink staff would be proceeding with breaking it down into too small portions. He called for a weighted vote. Frose disagreed with McCallum and thought it didn't change the intent and said he would support the amendment which was a big break in ranks.

West Van Councillor Craig Cameron argued that building it halfway is a no brainier bad project. Cote countered that those arguments are premature (which is true - it hasn't been studied, but would be as part of the main motion they are debating).

Cote then called the vote on Stewarts amendment saying he would vote in favour.

The weighted vote was so tight it was a dead tie and defeated 67 to 67 with Surrey (26), Vancouver (32), Delta (6) Langley City (2) Tsawwassen (1) voting against.

They then went back to the main motion with McCallum calling for a Recorded Weighted Vote on the motion. Mike Little then went on a frustrated tirade about ALR land echoing Craig Cameron saying that "you are going to have to drop stations down in the middle of Farmer Bob's fields" hahaha. Cote then reiterated, vote against the motion, and if its defeated then we can talk about what to do instead and then finally called the vote on the final motion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Motion + Amendment No.2 (Passed)
That the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation, subject to the City of Surrey's specific agreement to compensate, no later than upon signing the Memorandum of Understanding, all work plan costs unnecessarily expended to date:

1. Endorse the work plan in this report that will have TransLink:

a) proceed immediately with planning and project development work for a SkyTrain on Fraser Highway project. and,

b) concurrently, initiate a planning process to refresh the South of Fraser rapid transit strategy, consistent with the 10-Year Vision of building 27 km of rapid transit on the three corridors.

2. Endorse the cancellation of the Fraser Highway B-Line in the Phase One Plan, and instead direct the planned resources to improving the 96 B-Line and existing services on Fraser Highway.3. Receive this report.
These items were voted on separately all by weighted vote and all passed with more than 70 votes (from what I could tell - I had trouble identifying all the votes from the live feed)

To see all the votes check out this spreadsheet here where I have been keeping track: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjWWltw_HSwzh9QnZg0FaDAIIIR6yw

Last edited by waves; Dec 14, 2018 at 1:14 AM.
     
     
  #6444  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2018, 11:57 PM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
So the Mayor's Council was oh so juicy today.

Once TransLink's presentation was finished and the various Mayor's had their 5min intro speals the main motion was introduced with some protest from Linda Buchanan that other motions couldn't be introduced before the staff motions. Cote shot that down based not on rules but based on historical precedent with the argument being that for new motions to be considered it would be appropriate to defeat the staff recommended motion and then to introduce the new motions.

Here was the original motion:



Mike Little then introduced an amendment motion that read:



This amendment was not allowed to be processed further by Cote because he believed that the amendment was a marked departure from the original motion and that the original motion should be defeated and then his amendment could be introduced as a new motion. Linda was still very sour.

The discussion then continued from Richmond's Malcom Brodie about having Surrey pay somehow for the $56 million sunk costs. A lot of finagling about with language occurred until the final amendment that would go before item 1 read:



This amendment was then passed unanimously (including Surrey).

Mike Little, then wanted to do a referral motion to take the main amended motion and do something along the same lines of his previous amendment. This was again stopped by Cote, for the same reason he had before. (At this point Cote has his hand on the side of his face and seemed like he had a twang of impatience for having to do that a second time haha)

Mayor Frose, commented that within the 10 year vision there is phase 3, and that this project stays within the funding envelope for phase 3. He went through the point that they went into the 10 year plan without any funding at all. He recommended that Mike add instead:



Mike or Frose didn't end up introducing that sadly (it would have been a good amendment in my own opinion.)

Cote again re-iterated that the problem with Mike's amendment was that it suggested the main motion needed to wait until after his amendment in order to continue and for this reason that he could not allow it without the main amendment first being defeated. However, he did say that the work that Mayor Little suggests be done prior, is still happening, but just concurrently to the main motion (it's already embedded in the main motion).

Discussion went thereafter to talk about Phase 3 funding and how it will work with Phase 2 funding and how Translink will produce a phased project that may go half way to begin and then all the way eventually or right away depending on the timing of Phase 3 funding.

Mayor Stewart then introduced a amendment to the language of "project development" in 1. a), with the help of Translink staff so that 1. a read:



McCallum argued that this was a delay tactic and narrowed the scope of work that Translink staff would be proceeding with breaking it down into too small portions. He called for a weighted vote. Frose disagreed with McCallum and thought it didn't change the intent and said he would support the amendment which was a big break in ranks.

West Van Councillor Craig Cameron argued that building it halfway is a no brainier bad project. Cote countered that those arguments are premature (which is true - it hasn't been studied, but would be as part of the main motion they are debating).

Cote then called the vote on Stewarts amendment saying he would vote in favour.

The weighted vote was so tight it was a dead tie and defeated 67 to 67 with Surrey (26), Vancouver (32), Delta (6) Langley City (2) Tsawwassen (1) voting against.

They then went back to the main motion with McCallum calling for a Recorded Weighted Vote on the motion. Mike Little then went on a frustrated tirade about ALR land echoing Craig Cameron saying that "you are going to have to drop stations down in the middle of Farmer Bob's fields" hahaha. Cote then reiterated, vote against the motion, and if its defeated then we can talk about what to do instead and then finally called the vote on the final motion:



These items were voted on separately all by weighted vote and all passed with more than 70 votes (from what I could tell - I had trouble identifying all the votes from the live feed)

To see all the votes check out this spreadsheet here where I have been keeping track: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjWWltw_HSwzh9QnZg0FaDAIIIR6yw
Thank you for the detailed write-up, as I missed the chance to see the meeting.

I'm left confused now though - so where exactly do we stand with the next steps on this project then?
     
     
  #6445  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 1:13 AM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassCity View Post
Thank you for the detailed write-up, as I missed the chance to see the meeting.

I'm left confused now though - so where exactly do we stand with the next steps on this project then?
So the next steps are essential as described in the final motion that they passed. To summarize maybe in different words:

I. When the project is approved down the road, Surrey and Translink will sign an agreement (as is typical) with some form of contribution from Surrey to the project as a funding partner (they will do the same with the province and the federal government). The top part of the motion (Amendment No. 2) just emphasizes that part of that contribution should compensate (via in-kind or cash) the sunk costs ($56 million-ish, or whatever they may be at that time).

II. They will start the design work and development of a full business case for the line all the way to Langley and also for however far they can go with the Phase 2 funding. This also involves pushing senior government for Phase 3 funding.

III. They canceled the Fraser Highway B-Line so that it's allocated resources could go towards the 96 B-Line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Motion + Amendment No.2 (Passed)
That the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation, subject to the City of Surrey's specific agreement to compensate, no later than upon signing the Memorandum of Understanding, all work plan costs unnecessarily expended to date:

1. Endorse the work plan in this report that will have TransLink:

a) proceed immediately with planning and project development work for a SkyTrain on Fraser Highway project. and,

b) concurrently, initiate a planning process to refresh the South of Fraser rapid transit strategy, consistent with the 10-Year Vision of building 27 km of rapid transit on the three corridors.

2. Endorse the cancellation of the Fraser Highway B-Line in the Phase One Plan, and instead direct the planned resources to improving the 96 B-Line and existing services on Fraser Highway.3. Receive this report.

So basically next steps is Translink will produce full designs and business cases, then go back to the Mayor's Council for approval to move the project to public consultation while seeking final funding commitments from different government levels.
     
     
  #6446  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 1:16 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 41,824
Thanks for the coverage!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kisai View Post
IMO, considering how thing of margin the NDP/Green has, this really would be a way for Liberals to win votes, but not if they P3 it like they did with the Canada Line.
They wouldn't be able to do an "operate" P3 like Canada Line due to it being an extension of the Expo Line.
It would be more like the Evergreen Extension.
     
     
  #6447  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 1:48 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 18,038
Thanks for the coverage!

Yeah, people need to cool their heads.

It is obvious that design / planning will be done for the entire line to Langley but the first phase of construction will use the funds available.

Completion of the entire line in 2025 is still possible given that 2025 will be year 7 (8?) of the 10 year plan meaning phase 3 funding has no reason to not be in place a decent chunk of time before that, especially for this line. (Especially since the 10 year plan is really two phases, phase one was more of an prologue).

If all goes well even the Millenium Line all the way to UBC can be competed only a few years after that in 2028.
     
     
  #6448  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 2:51 AM
nname nname is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
The weighted vote was so tight it was a dead tie and defeated 67 to 67 with Surrey (26), Vancouver (32), Delta (6) Langley City (2) Tsawwassen (1) voting against.
Of all places... nice to see Tsawwassen is on board
     
     
  #6449  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 3:36 AM
Sheba Sheba is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 4,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
I'm listening back to some of what I missed now (is it only me or is the volume really low?).

I think the suspended railway is interesting but I can't see it taking over Skytrain lines - it looks to be more of the level of LRT.

Oh great someone else who wants an alternative to Skytrain. If this keeps up I'm going to fast forward to the mayors being cranky with each other.
     
     
  #6450  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 4:21 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 10,188
Yeah, had to crank my speakers up to 90 just to make everything comprehensible. I don't think City Hall's used to livestreaming yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheba View Post
I think the suspended railway is interesting but I can't see it taking over Skytrain lines - it looks to be more of the level of LRT.

Oh great someone else who wants an alternative to Skytrain. If this keeps up I'm going to fast forward to the mayors being cranky with each other.
So they want something with the same price and function as SkyTrain... but isn't SkyTrain? Surrey's light rail plan was garbage, but at least "two for the price of one" was an actual selling point.
     
     
  #6451  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 5:32 AM
GlassCity's Avatar
GlassCity GlassCity is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,270
Makes sense to me! Thanks again for your detailed posts waves.
     
     
  #6452  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 4:42 PM
NewfBC NewfBC is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post


And public transit is entirely funded by TransLink and higher levels of government; if either rinks or schools are cut, it's Surrey's internal budget-balancing, not SkyTrain costs.
Oh yeah?

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/metro-mayors-tell-surrey-to-pay-for-cost-of-abandoned-lrt

Ron.
     
     
  #6453  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 6:41 PM
BirchTrain BirchTrain is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheba View Post
Oh great someone else who wants an alternative to Skytrain. If this keeps up I'm going to fast forward to the mayors being cranky with each other.
I propose monorail! Bombardier Innovia Monorail is fully automated, and can be part of the SkyTrain network. SkyTrain guideways are too much of a negative visual impact? Slender beams that look amazing should be just fine for you.
     
     
  #6454  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 7:58 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 10,188
Oh yeah. It's not like Dianne Watts ever demanded that Coquitlam repay TransLink after the last-minute switch from light rail to SkyTrain. And why should she have, when money spent on studies comes from all over the GVRD, stays in TransLink's pocket regardless, and doesn't even cover increased bus service? There's no need for Stewart, Cote, Brodie et al to demand that Surrey repay, save for again being spiteful cheap-asses.

But it's been evident over the past few months that you're a feeling-type personality rather than a "thinking-type, so feel free to continue your grudge match against all things not-LRT.
     
     
  #6455  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 7:59 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchTrain View Post
I propose monorail! Bombardier Innovia Monorail is fully automated, and can be part of the SkyTrain network. SkyTrain guideways are too much of a negative visual impact? Slender beams that look amazing should be just fine for you.
Is there a chance the track could bend?
     
     
  #6456  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 8:02 PM
ilikeredheads ilikeredheads is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Is there a chance the track could bend?
not in your life, my skyscraper friend.
What about us, brain dead slobs?
     
     
  #6457  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 8:07 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeredheads View Post
not in your life, my skyscraper friend.
What about us, brain dead slobs?
You'll be given cushy jobs!

Was he sent here by the devil?
     
     
  #6458  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 8:57 PM
Xrayal's Avatar
Xrayal Xrayal is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 174
Doug McCallum was on CKNW today discussing SkyTrain https://omny.fm/shows/the-simi-sara-show/doug-mccallum-discusses-his-first-55-days-as-mayor

He’s keeping to his previously stated themes such as building it at grade through green timbers and the ALR and allowing 24 hours/7 days a week construction to save money. He also added that the fraser highway ROW is quite wide so they don’t have to spend any money on land accquisition. He is now adding reduced stations and project scope to save cost. At the end he finally capitulates and agrees he might not be able to get the whole line done to Langley and blames inflation and increased steel costs. He also brings up the possibility of the Hong Kong’s MRT model of development fees around the stations to help pay for the line.
     
     
  #6459  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 9:04 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 24,741
24/7 construction to "save money". WTF is he smoking?
     
     
  #6460  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2018, 11:47 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xrayal View Post
Doug McCallum was on CKNW today discussing SkyTrain https://omny.fm/shows/the-simi-sara-show/doug-mccallum-discusses-his-first-55-days-as-mayor

He’s keeping to his previously stated themes such as building it at grade through green timbers and the ALR and allowing 24 hours/7 days a week construction to save money. He also added that the fraser highway ROW is quite wide so they don’t have to spend any money on land accquisition. He is now adding reduced stations and project scope to save cost. At the end he finally capitulates and agrees he might not be able to get the whole line done to Langley and blames inflation and increased steel costs. He also brings up the possibility of the Hong Kong’s MRT model of development fees around the stations to help pay for the line.
I didn't realize steel costs have gone up so much since October.

Edit: Also, cutting the number of stations makes this line less useful. Half-assing the project sounds like a great idea.

Edit 2: He also says "Surrey hasn't had a major infrastructure project built for 30 years". I guess maybe the Port Mann and Highway One improvements weren't major infrastructure? Doug McCallum is terrible.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:40 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.