Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Even with $1.24 billion of new money, TransLink plan won’t match population growth by 2020

October 5th, 2011 · 77 Comments

Martin Crilly’s report analyzing TransLink’s plan — being voted on this Friday — for what to add to the system and how to pay for it is fascinating reading. Better than the average airport novel, if you ask me.

Mr. Crilly, for those who don’t know, is the regional transportation commissioner who weighs in with an anlysis of plans by BC Ferries and TransLink before they are officially adopted.

His report is a masterpiece of brevity (in the world of government reports) and helps lay out exactly what the new plan, aka The Supplement or “Moving Forward,  will achieve and won’t. (He also makes an interesting comment on TransLink’s base plan, the one already adopted by the board for the base budget to keep the current system going.)

You can read it yourself here, with a handy little chart that explains exactly where the $1.24 billion is going to come from (about one third from the gas tax; one third from increased fares; one third from whatever new mechanism the province and TransLink come up with).

Or, for the attention-challenged, here’s my story in the Globe.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Rico

    @ Brilliant 47

    People have needed methods of transporting goods and themselves since prehistoric times. So even in Medieval towns there are roads, the difference is since the auto the amount of space dedicated to roads/parking has increased drastically and that space is often (not always) hostile to people not in cars. Think of it this way, ignoring roads, what do you think the land used just for parking lots in Vancouver is worth or could be used for? What about the parking along the roads or some of the road lanes? I am not actually proposing anything as we still need our car infrastucture but it is important to know what the full cost of something is.

  • spartikus

    Boohoo, MB, et al

    DNFTT

    (Though love #44)

  • Everyman

    @Tessa 42 That was a different funding model though, wasn’t it? P3, or is Evergreen a P3 as well?

    I’m sure others are more expert in transit matters but from what I have read, Translink’s structure seems doomed to fail, with the province calling the shots, but the mayors having to come up with the funding mechanism.

  • MB

    “Eco-fascist…” That’s brilliant, brilliant. It’s even more than one syllable.

    But you haven’t addressed the issues, I’ve said my piece, and I’m not engaging further.

  • Baran

    @ MB,

    Good points.

    For some of us, the hardest thing to do is to consider a logical argument, which is why they flip and resort to terms like “eco-fascist” and “auto hater”.

  • Dan Cooper

    @Rico // Oct 7, 2011 at 9:04 am:

    Thank you for the ideas. If this is what M. Crilly meant (that there will be not enough people using the trains and too many using the buses) then it seems one solution would be to get more buses and less trains…except that increased buses might cost more in the long run, thus increasing the shortfall…unless of course even more money was raised through taxes (unpopular) or fare increases (which depress ridership). Seems there are no easy answers, unsurprisingly.

  • IanS

    @MB #44,

    I don’t necessarily disagree with all of your points, but I would like to take on this point, for the sake of discussion if nothing else.

    You write:

    “If Vancouver could set a long-term goal to reclaim a modest 10% of the land area currently devoted to cars/roads, it would have about 3 1/2 square km (850 acres) of land freed up without demolishing any structures or filling in the ocean.

    That’s equivalent to about 9,400 additional single-family homes on standard lots, or about $9.4 billion in current residential market value averaged at $1 million a lot. It’s many, many times more in value considering multi-family. And if devoted to new park land, it’s equivalent to 85% of the size of Stanley Park.”

    That strikes me as the kind of argument which works well on paper, but not so well in real life, as the location and configuration of roads does not necessarily lend itself to the kind of development you’re describing.

    I assume you’re not literally about removing 10% of every road (what could be built on that?), but rather, 10% of capacity, through removal of certain roads. However, even with that, you’d still likely be unable to build anything like the kind of development you describe. You can’t take all of the “reclaimed” road space and join it together into lots large enough for such development.

    Even if you could rejig density limitations and such, you’d still have to provide some way for people to get to the new residential structures.

    In the result, while your math may work out in the abstract, I really don’t see it working out in real life.

  • spartikus

    Maybe not roads, but perhaps lanes. Laneway housing is already getting a big push. What if you fully removed the lane and replaced it with housing and footpaths.

  • mezzanine

    Bravo, mayor’s council.

    And wait, what is the latest word from Derek Corrigan? The NDP-affiliated, socialist Derek Corrrigan?

    But there’s a lot of people in my community and people around the Lower Mainland saying ‘I cannot take more taxes for TransLink.’ And you find people like that get out and vote.”
     [1]

    wait, I though you were a tax-loving socialist. You sound like a member of the tea-party.

    “You cannot go on being treated like sheep,” he told other Metro mayors. “We have to have our own Boston tea party.”
     [2]

    Thank you, mayor corrigan. i didn’t realise how improving transit is impinging our freedom. truly, you are the next gandhi.

  • MB

    @ Ian S 55, thanks for an intelligent rebuttal.

    My illustration was to point to the waste of land of such a vast road system. It’s not necessarily overall road capacity/traffic, but land area I was referring to, keeping in mind that most residential road allowances are 20m (66 ft) wide, yet the actual road (curb-to-curb) is less than that.

    Some work was done already by Vancouver Planning on allowing one additional residential lot to be placed at the end of a block, therein the road at the end will have a narrow one-way lane, perhaps with street parking only on one side, rather than a wider two-way street.

    Incrementally taking a small slice off the total land area devoted to roads (2% per annum?) for housing, transit, bike lanes, pocket parks, etc., won’t hardly be felt, but the aggregate spread city-wide could become a significant acreage over time (e.g. 10%, or 850 acres over a decade).

    My other point was just the awesome value of that land, and the poor, inefficient use it currently has if it’s left as dead space for car storage. Its real value is not currently accounted for. It’s literally tens of billions. It could be considered as a land bank.

  • mezzanine

    1] http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/aldergrovestar/news/131072098.html#0_undefined,0_

    2]
    http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/cloverdalereporter/news/131346338.html#0_undefined,0_

  • Ron

    Of course the other option is to close roads (presumably north-south roads that are side frontage) and build houses there – or better yet – consolidate thoseareas with adjacent lots, demolish the single family houses and build higher density multi-family housing so more people can live closer to downtown and don’t need to commute long distances.
    But of course that’ll upset the NIMBYs.

  • brilliant

    @sparty 50
    Yeah thats the standard fallback, you dont agree with me, so you’re a troll. Oh yeah, and to those who innocently exclaimed “we’re not car haters” you must have missed BobbieBees “4 wheeled succubus” classic a few threads back. But you’re not car haters…

  • Bobbie Bees

    Brilliant, brilliant.
    I don’t hate cars. But i am more then mature enough to realize that automobiles have quite a few externalities that the car driving public likes to ignore.
    I equate car driving with cigarette smoking. Just as when i used to drive, when i used to smoked i refused to admit the damage that i was doing.

    I’ve driven since i got my first car when i was 15. Didn’t even have my driver’s license but i bought a used 1977 vw rabbit so i could get a membership at the base autoclub on CFB Downsview. This was so i could learn automotive mechanics. Changed out the engine in that car from a 1.1 litre to a 1.6 litre fuel injected. Got rid of the 3speed auto and slipped in a four speed. Put disc brakes on the rear. Learnt how to do tin bashing and brazing. Even before i turned 16 i was making cash doing brakes and clutches.
    So no, in a word, i don’t hate cars, what i do hate is car culture. The idea that driving a 4000 lbs car 4 blocks to pick up ding-dongs from the local 7-11 is normal is what i really hate about car culture. But hey, that’s just me.

  • boohoo

    Oh so brilliant you take one person’s response and assume they are thinking/speaking on behalf of everyone else? I see. That makes a lot of sense. Keep up the good work.

  • Everyman

    Looking at the Evergeen Line site, it seems it isn’t a P3, so I still feel comparing Canada Line construction to the Evegreen Line isn’t apples to apples, and that Brodie’s concern is justified.

    And without being unkind to those in PoMo and PoCo, there’s really no demand driver to get ridership counter to rush hour flows, whereas the Canada Line has the airport extension to do that. Some would also argue that Richmond’s “Chinatown” along the line is a destination in itself, whereas there is no such lure in the Tri-cities.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Bobbie Bees 5:

    I don’t live downtown and I primarily drive to work…

    Bobbie Bees 62:

    Just as when i used to drive…

    Typo? What to believe…

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Everyman, 64:

    Some would also argue that Richmond’s “Chinatown” along the line is a destination in itself, whereas there is no such lure in the Tri-cities.

    Blasphemy, bite your tongue. I will sometimes make the trek from Van to Rehanah’s Roti in Port Moody since, unbelievably, that is the closest place one can get to enjoy an authentic Trinidadian roti.

    No problem finding them in downtown Toronto, or Ethiopian here on Broadway. But a mystery why real roti can’t be found till miles outside Vancouver.

  • Bobbie Bees

    TOAB?!?!!?
    Did you misplace your spectacles ?
    Post #5 is from ‘boohoo’ not from me

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Whoops, sorry Bobbie Bees / boohoo. Not enough time and reading much too fast.

  • rat patrol

    This will bring a tear to your eye & ROFL http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/10/05/exclusive-the-npa-campaign-on-life-support-anton-on-both-sides-of-every-issue-klassen-back-biting-running-mates-traditional-supporters-staying-home-with-their-wallets/

  • David

    Interesting idea, removing some of the roadspace. I used to live here, within the CPR land grant, sidewalks dated 1912, at the dawn of the automobile era, streets that are so narrow that there is only one lane of travel, no back alleys. If the street was to disappear (as it did at least twice during sewer line and water line replacement between ’87 and ’05) , residents parked on the adjacent N/S streets and walked.. though that pissed off some of the residents of the N/S streets… http://g.co/maps/ewjns

  • IanS

    @MB #58:

    Thanks. You too.

    You write:

    “Some work was done already by Vancouver Planning on allowing one additional residential lot to be placed at the end of a block, therein the road at the end will have a narrow one-way lane, perhaps with street parking only on one side, rather than a wider two-way street.”

    That makes sense and I think it’s something that would work for development going forward. I’ve worked with developer clients who have engaged in all sorts of wrist twisting with the local authorities, trying to squeeze an extra lot or two out of a development through reconfiguring the roads. In my experience, it’s been the authority which requires the roads and street parking capacity. If the authority is willing to let the developer add a few extra lots, I’m sure they’d be happy about it. More profit.

    So, to the extent you’re talking new development going forward, I think that would work. I’m just not so sure that reclaimed road space would have the same effect.

  • Craigs

    @Bobbie Bees

    Your ‘cars are sooo subsidized’ rant is very enlightening.. It seems that the only use for roads and highways is to allow selfish, unhealthy car drivers to go where they please. I am guessing, then, that your food is all grown where your front lawn used to be. Good luck with that.
    On the other hand, if you dont own a car and you dont want to pay for roads, then it only makes sense that you should be charged a special levy for food that is NOT grown on your front lawn’s former geography but needs to be transported over.. gasp.. roads. Car drivers, of course, since they are already being levied should be exempt. Unfortunately for you, if you need an ambulance, you will need to be charged the FULL COST of the roads you will use but have avoided paying for, unless you want to wait for a bus while your heart attack progresses. I am also in favour of your being charged for using the sidewalks and for biking on the roads that I have payed for over the last 40 years of taxation. Things dont come free ya know?

  • mezzanine

    @Craigs,

    I know you were responding to bobby bees, but I would perhaps say that the single-occupant vehicle is highly wasteful and something that should be avoided.

    I would agree with things like the GEB to improve the efficiency of goods movement, noting that tolls discourage private vehicle use.

    Driving he Hwy1, I often see ambulances using the HOV lane to good effect to bypass all the other traffic moving much more slowly.

  • keith♠

    If the Province were to allocate just one per cent of the sales tax to transit, there would be at least $300 million of revenue available, and it would increase with the future growth of Metro Vancouver’s population.
    The revenue from one per cent of the sales tax would go to all BC communities, based on their population.
    Something to consider when the Province returns to the PST.

  • Bobbie Bees

    @Craigs #74, first, nowhere in any of my posting have I said that I don’t want to pay for the roads. However, I want you car drivers to realize that you’re not the only ones paying for these roads and that they’re not for your use only. You are going to have to get used to the idea of losing some road space for other things such as dedicated bicycle lanes and transit.
    You’re also going to have to stop screaming and crying about the ‘subsidies’ that Translink receives to operate the public transit system when in actual fact a lot of the money Translink receives goes towards building and maintaining the road infrastructure used by the private automobile.
    Next, that’s a very poor and desperate argument for maintaining the status quo by trying to lump in goods distribution with the private automobile. I’d be really amazed to find any of the stores in the west end relying on the private automobile for distribution of goods. Can you imagine how silly that would look if Safeway, No Frills et al had their goods delivered by single occupant cars? No, that’s why distribution is done by semi trailer. And just imagine how much less fuel these semi-trailers would use if they weren’t stuck in traffic all day. traffic caused by single occupant vehicles.

    Craig, face it, humanity had a good run with the private automobile. But instead of being wise we went all stupid. We developed housing stratigies that made it sensible to drive 2 hours back and forth each day between home and work. Driving four blocks to go shopping is the norm now. Don’t believe me, check on Google maps and see just how many West End residents are within a four block radius of either Safeway, the No Frills, the Super valu or the IGA. Yet the parking lots on these places are full to the brim every day.

    Charging pedestrians for using the sidewalk is quite laughable, considering that the roads used to be the dominion of the pedestrian until the private automobile showed up on the scene. Then the pedestrians were pushed off the road and on to the sidewalks so that they wouldn’t interfere with the progress of the automobile.

←  Older Comments
 →