Frances Bula header image 2

TransLink pressures, cancellations shred unity among regional mayors

April 19th, 2012 · 69 Comments

Divorces rise when the economy is bad. I’d suggest the same dynamic is at play among the region’s 21 mayors, who find themselves being squeezed by demand for more transit from residents, resistance to new taxes and fees from taxpayers, and a province that keeps hacking off more body parts in each go-round to find a solution.

As my Globe story highlighted this week, Langley mayors are deeply unhappy about the announcement from TransLink CEO Ian Jarvis that all the improvements not yet started from the agency’s three-year Moving Forward plan are now on hold.

Although that decision also affects North Vancouver, which now won’t get 15-minute SeaBus service for evenings and weekends, it largely impacts the communities south of the Fraser.

That has Township of Langley Mayor Jack Froese even talking about pulling out of Metro Vancouver and joining up with Abbotsford — a move that likely won’t go anywhere for a long time, since Abbotsford’s efforts to leave the Fraser Valley Regional District have been shut down by the province.

The sad part of all of this is that people in Metro Vancouver largely support the idea of having more transit. (That’s in some contrast to where I am at the moment, Los Angeles, where I heard radio-show commentators yesterday slagging the mayor for his efforts to push transit. LA, they said, operates on the car and no one takes transit except for criminals, so why spend all the money?)

But, since the beginning, the agency has consistently found itself stymied in efforts to find funding models beyond ye olde property and gas taxes. Every time a new tax is suggested, the province, freaked out at the thought of a tax revolt, says no. In theory, everyone agrees there needs to be a new model. In practice, no one wants to take the chance.

Perhaps the NDP, if elected, can use up some political capital early by just putting in a substantively different system.

In the meantime, the pressure is causing mayors to splinter off into different groups — some leading the charge against the evil province, saying if only mayors were in charge, things would be better; some saying mayors should stop trying to do something they have no power to achieve; some unhappy about their region getting shafted; a few still hanging in, trying to keep the herd of cats together and headed toward a brighter future.

All such a shame, because any rational person knows that the cities that thrive and prosper in the coming century will be those that figure out how to build healthy city “bodies,” where people and goods can flow where they need to in the region.

That happens through good planning that facilitates people living in areas with easy access to work and the things they need to get to. Inevitably, it means good transit systems, which are like the veins and arteries of the metropolitan body. Building for cars only is like asking for cholesterol build-up.

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Silly Season

    As I have asked before: who here thinks that having the Mayors soley in charge of TransLink would improve the situation?

    Oh, those ‘Board is unelected!’ ‘Transparency’! issues don’t mean anything unless you can get people to actually agree on a course of action, then show they have the economic smarts and wherewithal to get it done.

    Er…these were the same people who forgot that they had been briefed about the cosots of new RCMP contract, right?

    So: TL board composed of some mayors, some biz types, some provincial people. Then we can see how all these representatives work and hang together, in the light of day! They can all be responsible, at the same time for any taxes, tolling, road pricing, technology choices, etc.

    Or, they can hang alone. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

  • keith♠

    A way to pay for transit is with a one per cent sales tax for the Vancouver region. Revenue would be about $350 million annually.
    Next year would be a good opportunity to introduce this tax, when BC returns to the PST.
    At the same time, the transit property tax could be eliminated entirely, making property owners happy.
    Population growth and inflation would ensure increasing revenue for the future.

  • Guest

    Yup, just look at the TTC (where there’ no Provincial guidance from MetroLinx). Ugh.

    I think it’s virtually a municipal conflict of interest that’s getting in the way of finding “new” funding.

    Municipal politicians are used to the municipal system of budgeting. They calculate how much money they need for their wishlist of projects, then they adjust the mill rate to generate enough property tax revenue to cover their budget. i.e. a backwards budgeting process. By refusing to allow increases in property tax, they are reserving their property tax ceiling exclusively for their own municipal wishlists, not the regional transit agenda.

    Is that a conflict – voting “no” to property tax increases for their own municipalities’ self interest?
    And how far removed is that from municipalities ganging up and denying one area rapid transit as was almost done with the Canada Line?

    As for a vehicle levy, what’s the problem with that? Seattle has had “car tabs” for years now. Again, that’s a political issue – and people want to put more power in the hands of politicians rather than planners?

  • Guest

    I should have referneces the Province wrt the vehicle levy, as its provincial politics factoring in in that case.

  • Richard

    LA certainly seems to have its act together much more than we do regarding long-term funding for transit. Voters there approved a .5% sales tax amounting to $40 billion over 30 years for transit and other transportation improvements. Even better, there are plans to borrow the money through an infrastructure bank to complete the projects in 10 years instead of 30.

    Measure R was approved by 67.22% of votes proving there is a lot of public support for transit improvements. It is too bad certain provincial politicians only seem to listen to a small vocal anti-tax minority.

    Given the economic, environmental and social benefits of transit, it is a bit surprising that the province is not more supportive of transit. The province really should give the region the authority for more diverse funding measures with a requirement for inclusive public consultation.

  • Max

    Provincial and municpal government need to start realizing that the ‘citizens’ – the ‘tax payers’ are not an endless black pit of money.

    Translink: Turn stiles should have been implemented right from the get go – there is no honor amoung thieves (or some NDP politicians) And for them to turn around and play the ‘black mail card’ about reduced /postponed services is BS.

    I think myself like countless others were GOB SMACKED to learn that fare evasion tickets weren’t being collected. I mean truly WTF??? What are the tranit police for then – a mke work project?

    There is no bloody way that Translink uppr management should be getting paid bonuses. Bonuses are for those that are running a company swirling the financial toilet bowl.

    The Translink Board should not be comprised of just Mayors who fall into a self interest group – there should be a mix of proven business people, community leaders and the general transit taking population. Get Jimmy Pattison to help straighten them out. The man is shrewd and knows how to run a business.

  • Richard

    @Max

    At least in Canada, police, transit or otherwise don’t collect the fines from tickets, they issue only issue tickets. If you have been paying “fines” to police, might want to report that.

    So far, it has been the provincial government that has refused to collect the tickets and give the money to TransLink.

  • sv

    The Translink Board isn’t made up of mayors-it’s made up of lawyers and business people.

  • Bill McCreery

    Good ideas Max. I wonder what Jimmy would do.

    Perhaps, since the region and province have been constipated on this for years, and it appears this will not likely change because the context hasn’t, there are three ways to solve the problem:

    1) this becomes an election issue and the Libs, Conservs and NDP all must articulate a clear, binding solution that voters will vote on. The limitation for this is that there are other issues that are going to affect the peoples choices in the voting booth, consequently this might not produce a satisfactory solution;

    2) take Frances’ solution and give the NDP a mandate, providing of course they come up with an acceptable solution. This option has some drawbacks as well. 58% of voters will not have a say for starters;

    3) I’m no fan of referenda, but at important junctures they do have a role to play. Why not put, say, three funding options to voters after getting technical, staff, public and political input as to what these options are. Since this option is a ‘direct democracy’ method it is more likely that the preferred option will be acceptable to voters/taxpayers. If there are more than 2 options and there was none with a clear majority in the 1st round, it may be necessary to have a second ballot so that the final choice would be a clear majority.

  • MB

    Richard 4:

    Given the economic, environmental and social benefits of transit, it is a bit surprising that the province is not more supportive of transit. The province really should give the region the authority for more diverse funding measures with a requirement for inclusive public consultation.

    Excellent comment.

    I would add that transit is an investment with an excellent indirect return in the form of development and tax revenue. The $1 billion cost of the Expo Line has stimulated perhaps $8 billion in construction and real estate in four cities to date — and counting.

    There is no reason to believe that LRT or BRT on suburban arterials or simply improving the bus service won’t do the same, albeit with less intensity.

    I would promote transit to the province as a job-creation and economic stimulus policy along with the environmental, energy and making-cities-more-resilient benefits.

    I also believe that TransLink’s and the Metro’s autonomy must be guaranteed in future. We are a fast-growing megopolis nearing 2.5 million people and are perfectly capable of governing ourselves through the democratic process. The governance model will have to change, but this isn’t an impossible task.

    Cities are literally the economic engines, and this fact nicely counters the justified Hewers of Wood, Drawers of Water, and Pumpers of Oil insult.

    You’d think with the huge source of wealth the Metro region presents to senior governments (e.g. for every 100c the feds suck out with gas taxes they return 8c … on top of income taxes and everything else) they’d have more respect.

    The fact remains that the provincial government would be cut in half economically and politically without the Lower Mainland. Well, maybe that’s slightly exaggerated, but there obviously needs to be a fairer return especially for non-automobile transportation infrastructure.

    If this crappy treatment by the province continues, then rather having the Langley’s separate, why not create an independent “province” out of the 21 municipalities that comprise the Metro and keep a higher proportion of the taxes within the region?

  • MB

    Max 5:

    There is no bloody way that Translink uppr management should be getting paid bonuses. Bonuses are for those that are running a company swirling the financial toilet bowl.
    …The Translink Board should not be comprised of just Mayors who fall into a self interest group – there should be a mix of proven business people, community leaders and the general transit taking population. Get Jimmy Pattison to help straighten them out. The man is shrewd and knows how to run a business.

    Since when has the road system been financed and run like a business? Or government, for that matter? Business and government are two separate entities, and their interests should be balanced.

    I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the average benefits and bonuses paid by the private sector in equivalent private management structures were more, and that’s on top of payments in preferred shares for those who trade publicly.

    Pattison, BTW, is sole proprietor of his companies, so his hired directors and managers are probably salaried and bonused to their yin yangs … though the figures are likely kept under several layers of secrecy.

    I heard a rumour that Glen Clark was paid a big one for shaving off his socialist moustache, and he was allowed to ride in the big yacht ’cause he now looks like a Christain choir boy.

  • Bill Lee

    Meanwhile in the ‘Other Vancouver’, they are fighting light rail extensions

    …”A group of Vancouver residents submitted 9,039 signatures on a petition calling for a vote to create an ordinance that would prohibit any city resources from being used to extend TriMet’s MAX line from Portland to Vancouver.

    After examining the signatures line by line, the auditor’s office found that 6,048 were invalid, leaving just 3,165 valid signatures, Vancouver City Attorney Ted Gathe said. The petitioners must submit 5,472 valid signatures to make the ballot.”
    http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/apr/18/anti-light-rail-petitioners-fall-short-of-signatur/

  • Dan Cooper

    It would be helpful if at some point the Provincial Government – whoever that might be – just laid down a consistent set of rules and then stuck with them so that people could plan. IMO, it is the constant, “Well, yes we gave you the power to do X under certain circumstances but now that you’ve actually decided to do it we are going to ram through a new bill changing the rules,” stuff that is especially deadly.

    (See also the teacher’s strike situation: The Gubmint, bless their little hearts, passed a law that teachers can only strike if they go before a board and get permission. The Gubmint appointed the board members. Then, when the union followed the law, went to the board, and it gave them permission…the Gubmint changed the law! I grew up in a US state where teacher strikes were perfectly legal, and yet I never saw one in twenty years. It wasn’t that the teachers were any better paid, either. Here, as I understand it, teacher strikes are illegal – or made illegal retroactively – but yet they happen almost every contract.)

  • spartikus

    I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the average benefits and bonuses paid by the private sector in equivalent private management structures were more, and that’s on top of payments in preferred shares for those who trade publicly.

    By the statistics, this is true. (Yes that’s from the UK, but the same phenomena is true here in Canada, the U.S., etc…)

    In fact I got quite a laugh from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation proposal for a “Compensation Equity Act”. They used Translink executives as an example, but under their plan to tie public sector wages to the private sector our Translink executives would see a significant pay raise.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Since when has the road system been financed and run like a business?

    Assuming you’re speaking locally, not universally, nonetheless actually there is a stretch of highway in southern Ontario that is run as a business: http://www.407etr.com

  • Silly Season

    @TOAB

    Wow!! They make it seem easy to register, helpful (oh, here come the ha8ers!), while offering inducements and benefits to pre-pay, too. Easy to navigate, dynamic layout of info. Easy, easy, easy to understand. Very good marketing piece.

    As opposed to what’s on offer re: Golden Ears bridge at the TransLink site: http://www.goldenearsbridge.ca/

  • spartikus

    there is a stretch of highway in southern Ontario that is run as a business…

    …complete with a non-compete clause in the lease that prevents Ontario from building any road that might potentially “compete” with the 407. For 99 years.

    Great business acumen…for the consortium. Doesn’t like good public policy though.

  • Frank Ducote

    Richard@6 – valid point: the province, through ICBC, simply has no interest in collecting fines and returning the $ to TransLink, despite the fact that they (TL) sorely need every dollar they can get. Certainy could use it to pay the rising costs of transit police salaries.

  • mezzanine

    …complete with a non-compete clause in the lease that prevents Ontario from building any road that might potentially “compete” with the 407. For 99 years.

    Great business acumen…for the consortium. Doesn’t like good public policy though.

    Actually, even worse public policy IMO is to build an untolled parallel freeway completely at taxpayer expense. 😉

    P3 projects are hit and miss, but no guarantee of a bad outcome. Public or private, the project is as good as the contract you make.

    Indiana leased a publicly owned toll road to a private consortium at great profit to the state. (1) Edinburgh’s LRT project is mired in lawsuits over-runs and delays, and it is a public project.

    1) http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/04/02/if-you-dont-like-privatization-youll-have-to-do-better-than-this/

    ——–

    hopefully, this funding impasse will be solved over the next few weeks. OTOH, if we do get a new administration in victoria, we will get new views on funding/ car tabs /road pricing, etc.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    …complete with a non-compete clause in the lease that prevents Ontario from building any road that might potentially “compete” with the 407. For 99 years.

    Great business acumen…for the consortium. Doesn’t like good public policy though.

    Not really sure. I remember first hearing about that without knowing the full context, and being curious about the rationale for how they came to agree on that deal point.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    I just noticed on the 407’s website that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is 40% owner – which I guess widens the consideration out a bit further as to whether it’s good public policy.

    The 407 parallels the 401 just north of Toronto and is also a de facto spillover highway for those that would rather avoid the 401’s rush hour traffic. As such, I can’t see a scenario for creating a “competing” highway.

    Visiting at Christmas, I could see that there were more drivers using the 407 compared to its first few years, but rush hour traffic still moved freely compared to the crawl we are familiar with on local public highways (or in southern Ontario).

  • voony

    “…complete with a non-compete clause in the lease that prevents Ontario from building any road that might potentially “compete” with the 407. For 99 years.?

    Don’t know the details, but usually in those kind of contract, the government preserve the right to build roads able to compete with the one of the original contract (in this case the 407). The only thing is that the contractor of the original contract has priority to operate the new road.
    Whether it is not interested, then, and only then, others can bid on it. That is considered fair policy if you want to transfer the risk to the operator.

    I don’t know the detail, of the 407 concession, but from the surface, I believe it is a much better P3 scheme than the ones we have in BC…
    especially as compared to the Port Mann bridge, where the toll, will not be able to pay much more than the $1B on the $3B than cost the project, and where obviously all the risk is bound to the taxpayer, making the P3 scheme only an ideological, and not a rational economic tool.

  • mezzanine

    @Voony, IIRC, the PMB/Hwy1 project is not a P3, but completely public, after the P3 talks collapsed

    The $3 B cost accounts for the highway and bridge improvements. If we had the political courage, I’d toll the whole route.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/27/bc-falcon-ralston-port-mann.html

  • Max

    @Richard #6:

    My point about transit police was not about paying the fines to them – but why bother having them if what they do is a moot point.

    Why bother have them issue tickets if the monies aren’t being collected.

  • Max

    @MB #10

    I’ve been on that yacht… and it was a lovely fireworks night.
    Both Mr. Pattison and his wife were charming hosts.
    As for Glen Clark- funny how none of his union buds offered him a job once he was no longer Premier. Pattison was the only one and yes, he is making a crap load more money working in the private sector than the public. But then again, Pattison’s companies don’t under perform.

  • subverta

    It would be fantastic if translink could figure out a way to take the incredible property values increases associated with transportation improvements and use them to finance the improvements. The property value increases are a direct result of having better access to transportation infrastructure and therefore should be used for creating this much needed infrastructure that is in the public/cities interest to provide.

  • MB

    Think 20:

    I just noticed on the 407′s website that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is 40% owner – which I guess widens the consideration out a bit further as to whether it’s good public policy.

    Smart. The pension investment board recognized the value of car dependency.

    But that’s only to the day after the first missile soars over the Persian Gulf. Central and Eastern Canada’s fuels supplies come from the volatile Middle East and from Europe, the latter mostly in the form of pre-refined gasoline and deisel.

  • MB

    Max 24

    Glen Clark was promoted to the western regional manager of the JPG. He must have learned a lot, and Pattison does not promote fools.

  • Max

    @MB 26

    Agreed.

    As for Glen Clark – he has earned his place within the Pattison organization and from what I hear from insiders, Pattison looks at Clark like a son. He ‘gets away’ with things other ‘managers’ don’t…

  • Guest

    If I recall correctly, the 407 Concession Agreement is a notoriously bad agreement – as it gives the operator free reign on toll increases (unlike, say, the Canda Line agreement where TransLink sets the fares).

    ********

    I agree with the general sentiments that a “busienss approach” or even “highest and best use” are not necessarily suitable for public projects.

    i.e. Transit systems (in North America) lose money and need subsidy. End of story. Why do you think the private streetcar lines all went out of business and the transit system taken over by the government?

    BTW – the vehicle levy was an integral part of long term fgunding when TransLink was created – but the then NDP goverment killed it – as has the Liberal goverment. In the case of US systems, their reliance on sales taxes isn’t as reliable as you may think, since tax revenue drops significantly in times of recession.

    *************

    As for Proof of Payment systems – all LRT systems use Proof of Payment – you don’t see people lining up at the farebox boarding a streetcar or LRT in Portland or Calgary, do you? Docklands Light Railway (also an automated intermediate capacity system) is also Proof of Payment. Until recently, the Los Angles Red Line subway was Proof of Payment. The cost effectiveness of installing and operating faregates becomes viable when there’s greater ridership. SkyTrain is in the middle somewhere – ultimately, it was a political decision to install them.

  • Richard

    Well, from the results of the by-elections, it looks as if rejecting funding measures for transit is of no benefit politically and judging by the Conservatives 3rd place finish, actively lobbying against them is not a winning political strategy either. It is time all parties show leadership and support funding for transit. It actually might help them.

  • Joe Just Joe

    I seriously hope you’re not naive enough to think people in Chiliwack voted out the Liberals due to their transit funding…

  • Frank Ducote

    JJJ – maybe not in Chiliwack but perhaps in Port Moody, where former mayor Trasolini was an outspoken advocate for the Evergreen Line, and if I remember correctly, also threatened a development moratorium there until there was a provincial commitment to the line. And guess what, there was. (Of sorts.)

    Makes me wonder what role he will play in the shadow cabinet. Transportation, perhaps?

    In historical terms, the NDP from Barrett onwards has always sought to bring rail transit to the tri-cities area, and the right parties (Socreds and Liberals) always want to cross the Fraser River. The NDP has never stayed in power long enough to see this vision through, and there is no way a right-of-centre party would build their adversaries’ dreams for them.

    Now that the Fraser has been crossed with rail in two places, with extensions of some sort (LRT? BRT?) yet to come, it is time for the provincial government to finish the Evergreen Line once and for all. Or give TransLink the secured financial tools to do it and get out of the way.

  • Richard

    @JJJ

    That is not what I said or meant. Read my last post again.

  • Joe Just Joe

    Sorry I must have misunderstood, what where you implying ? I seemed to get that the Conservatives weren’t voted in due to their stance on transit, does that mean that the NDP was voted in due to theirs?

  • Roger Kemble

    According to the Vancouver Rapid Transit 2050 map Evergreen (theoretically) and Millenium replicate service between UBC and Lougheed after which Evergreen (theoretically) connects to West Coast Express at Port Moody terminating at Douglas College.

    Evergreen, after Lougheed, moves through very sparsely populated sprawl of the Tri-cities. One has to assume no matter the destination passengers, after alighting, will need an auto to arrive at their final destination: so much for Skytrain greening the suburbs. None of the Tri-cities or their two villages has an urban focus that could play host to a viable station amenity! This concern then riposts that Vancouver is growing so rapidly the gaps will soon be filled: and that may be so but it will still be sprawl

    Los Angeles developed by establishing TX lines first then filling the gaps with, as it turned out, sprawl: I hope this is not the preferred future model here!

    There is another approach that puts the cart before the horse: i.e. develop the Tri-cities first, with amenities, jobs in situ, then apply the moving amenities. The ideal urban model remains, jobs/living/amenities within reasonable walking distance.

    So far Metro is badly planned and one has to wonder what its behemoth planning establishments have been up to: the same can be said for Vancouver city!

    So . . .

    Now is not the time to be bandying very expensive shiny trinkets when there are alternatives. Canadians are the most indebted in the world. The governor of the Bank of Canada worked fifteen years for Goldman Sachs prior and is mooted to be the next governor of the Bank of England. None of his experience bodes well for an awareness of the true nature of our finances. Vancouver is an unsustainable FIRE economy with what few well paying jobs there are churning money.

    Under such circumstances Evergreen should not be a priority!

  • Frances Bula

    @Max. Just to point out a historical fact — it was the Social Credit government that built the first SkyTrain line and their decision not to put in turnstiles.

  • gman

    Roger Kemble #36, LA has a very interesting history concerning their rail systems.They were originally built by developers who made buckets of money and then they were destroyed by General Motors and Firestone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal
    Its a pretty interesting look at history and makes one wonder what happened to our own streetcar service and why.

  • Max

    Hi Frances #37

    Regardless of who, it was s a huge and costly mistake. Not just the loss of revenue due to ‘fare evasion’ over the years, but having to now spend (waste) millions installing them.

    When the Millenium line was put in and the Canada Line, they should have been installed at time of building those lines rather than waiting to have all stations come on-line at the same time.

    For TransLink to state that two of the stations will not get the upgrades because they ‘can’t afford’ them is ridiculous – they will lose more $$ . Collect the monies owed by transit skivers – I don’t care how they do it, but get it done.

    And then TransLink, get your financial house in order.

  • spartikus

    Originally posted by me at RossK’s:

    It will cost $100 million to install the gates.

    It will, according to Translink spokesman Ken Hardie, cost $7 million to operate the new gates.

    The high end estimate of the cost of fare evasion is….$7 million/yr.

    You would need to reduce fare evasion to 0% just to pay operating costs. Perfection. With the possible exception of the Pyongyang Metro something no other transit system, gated or no, has ever achieved.

  • Tri Cities resident

    Roger, almost all of the future Evergreen Stations in the Tri-Cities are going through aggressive primarily residential and retail redevelopment, or there are development plans in progress. Coquitlam Centre is denser than much of non-downtown Vancouver and Burquitlam and Inlet Centre is following. Jobs are another matter.

  • West End Gal

    spartikus $40
    Hear, hear! 0% perfection can only be found in Christy’s and Gregor’s cabinets!
    That’s why thing s are going so great for the Province and for Vancouver.
    “With the possible exception of the Pyongyang Metro something no other transit system, gated or no, has ever achieved.”
    Exactly! 🙂

  • Richard

    @Roger Kemble

    Looks like you may have not been to the Tri-cities lately. There is already a lot of high-density development near many of the planned stations in Port Moody and Coquitlam and much more planned. I expect the Evergreen Line will be quite successful.

  • Roger Kemble

    gman @ #38

    Yeah, my, now deceased American wife came from Griffith Park. Not her idea of neighbourhood. Nor mine!

    Richard @ #42

    I was in Le quartier français Easter weekend. Huh!

  • Declan

    @Roger Kemble (36)

    Your comments on the tri-cities just show you haven’t been there in a long time. I recommend visiting before commenting again.

    The only problems with the Evergreen line is it needs two more stops (West Port Moody and Lincoln) and it should have continued into Port Coquitlam from Coquitlam Centre.

    Also, Canada is one of the least indebted developed countries in the world (aggregating houshold, private and government debt).

    Penultimately, the cart is not supposed to be in front of the horse.

    Finally, you did make one valid point, which is that Vancouver has an unsustainable FIRE economy (based mostly on real estate), but that is all the more reason to build something concrete (literally) instead, like a transit line.

    (FYI – transit lines are not shiny trinkets – shiny trinkets are retractable roofs and empty slogans about gravy trains and tax cuts that pay for themselves ).

  • Roger Kemble

    Declan @ #44

    For heaven’s sake, Le quartier français is the heart off the Tri-Cites and to get there we had to drive thru all the sprawl . . .

  • Roger Kemble

    Sorry Declan you’re playing with moonbeams again . . .

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/banks-not-just-consumers-bear-responsibility-for-high-debt-levels/article2271494/

  • Declan

    @Guest 30

    “If I recall correctly, the 407 Concession Agreement is a notoriously bad agreement”

    Guest is right, the 407 agreement stands as one of the costliest, stupidest, most short-sighted decisions any government in Canada has ever made (up there with Newfoundland’s deal for the Churchill Falls – but at least they had no other options – the Harris government had no need to sell its commuters into poverty for 99 years – still 86 years to go on that contract – for a quick hit of cash).

    The only lesson to learn from the 407 is that putting public infrastructure in private hands can be a disaster if it is handled incompetently and/or corruptly.

    The anti-social efforts of the owner of the Ambassador Bridge (Matty Moroun) to prevent construction of another crossing from Ontario to Michigan is another object lesson in the risks of privatizing infrastructure.

  • Declan

    “Le quartier français is the heart off the Tri-Cites”

    I honestly can’t tell if you’re being serious or not. If you are, I reiterate my suggestion for you to visit the tri-cities, ideally part of it that is within 5km of the proposed Evergreen route (from that close you should be able to see all the towers).

    As for debt, try this:

    (and no, the picture hasn’t changed since 2009 – google: “Debt and deleveraging: Uneven progress on the path to growth” for updated stats that show the same picture.)

    I guess you must be playing with sunbeams or something (?)

  • Frank Ducote

    Roger, please clarify. Are you talking about Maillardville? If so, it is nowhere near the centre of anything except perhaps itself. Even so, the City of Coquitlam and the residents and businesses in that community are planning for increased development capacity as well at this time.

    Too bad c. 1998 the decision was made by then BC Transit to not have a Millennium Line station there, as originally planned.

    The core areas of Coquitam, Port Moody and Poco for sure have been significantly densifying over the last 2 decades or so, with many developments reaching up to 4+fsr, all in anticipation of some form of rail rapid transit. Mainly residential and mixed- use for the most part, since it is notoriously difficult to attract office jobs to regional town centers rather than auto- oriented suburban business parks, and it certainly won’t get any easier without mass transit.

    So, IMO your dream of building complete communities in the absence of a transit network is nothing short of a fantasy. Towns and cities in this region started on transportation lines, ports and stations from day one and will continue to do so, if we can only get the bloody system built.