Here is the actual text of the memorandum of agreement between the province and mayors, which many are hoping will end the food fight that was going on between the two sides last year.
But it’s a little hard to figure out, just from looking at these words, what it all actually means. I’ll have a story in the Globe later on that, but you can peruse the agreement in the meantime.
BACKGROUNDER
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BEWEEN THE PROVINCE AND
THE MAYORS’ COUNCIL ON REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
A. The Province of British Columbia and municipal governments in the Metro Vancouver area are committed to developing a long term strategy for promoting “Livable Cities” in the region that are designed for sustainable growth and British Columbians’ needs in the 21st Century;
And
B. “Livable Cities” will require new and innovative policies that integrate a wide variety of federal, provincial, regional and local initiatives and policies that ensure the achievement of this overall goal;
And
C. Efficient, affordable, carbon smart transportation infrastructure and services are an integral part of a “livable city” strategy that aspires to help plan for as well as shape population growth in new ways that create cleaner, safer, healthier communities and the efficient movement of people, goods and services;
And
D. The combined resources of senior governments together with that of Metro Vancouver’s 21 municipalities are required to sustain and support the development of a transportation system that efficiently integrates the movement of people and goods across the entire region. This will be done at the lowest cost possible for taxpayers within a comprehensive network that will:
- Support environmentally sustainable cities with healthy populations and growing economies.
- Provide a gateway for international commerce for Canada.
- Foster lower carbon emissions, better air quality, reduced traffic congestion, and more convenient travel options.
- Encourage relatively lower housing costs, more affordable housing, and new municipal infrastructure and services;
And
E. The Province, the Mayors’ Council, and TransLink wish to work together to achieve the following goals represented in the transportation plans of the Province and TransLink, and the goals of the proposed Metro Vancouver “Livable Region Strategy” all of which have been broadly embraced by the public, stakeholders, and governments:
- Provide efficient, reliable, carbon reduced transit that contributes to the majority of trips made by public transit, walking, and biking; all allowing and encouraging people to reduce dependence on their vehicles, especially single occupancy trips, and offering healthy lifestyle choices.
- Aggressively reduce GHG emissions and air contaminants from transportation to assist the province and municipalities in meeting their GHG and clean air targets.
- Support population and employment density near transit hubs and along transit corridors, so the majority of jobs and housing are located along a frequent transit network, a network that needs to expand to accommodate existing needs/priorities and to shape sustainable future growth.
- Promote vibrant neighbourhoods and communities that are more responsive to modern needs, including new demands for affordable housing, appropriate health services, as well as “green” residential and commercial development.
- Provide safe, secure, accessible and affordable travel for the region’s population;
- Facilitate economic growth, productivity gains, and international trade through the efficient and effective management of the transportation network.
- Ensure that operating costs will be controlled by making use of existing administration and/or infrastructure systems in support of new revenue sources whenever possible rather than developing new ones;
And
F. TransLink requires access to sufficient and stable long-term funding, for both capital and operating requirements, to help achieve these goals and change behaviours which will help shape transportation choices in the future.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties set out in this memorandum agree:
1. To work together in a cooperative and collaborative way to address the goals of “Livable Cities”, including the development of a long term, sustainable funding strategy that maximizes TransLink’s available revenue sources and invites open and ongoing dialogue between the parties on potential new funding solutions.
2. That transportation planning is a key component of successful livable cities and should include principles as listed below:
a. Investments in transit should be appropriate to support higher population densities that are designed to best utilize land at the lowest cost possible for taxpayers and the environment.
b. Transportation planning should be an integral component of community planning.
c. Communities should be developed to encourage alternatives to vehicle traffic, with direct emphasis on pedestrian, cycling and transit.
d. Transit investments must be justified through a comprehensive business case which considers all factors including; ridership, expenses and revenue sources to name a few.
e. Transportation Demand Management principles should be developed that will assist in the achievement of the overall transportation goals.
f. Transit and road and bridge improvements need to be coordinated and implemented in a timely and expedited fashion to support the success of TransLink’s 2040, the Provincial Transit Pacific Gateway and other Provincial plans that will help stimulate growth and job creation.
3. To recognize that any strategy for livable cities with a viable long-term transportation plan will anticipate open dialogue on transportation funding sources that may include, but not be limited to, the items listed below:
a. Funding sources included in current and future legislative authority.
b. Reallocation of existing revenue sources.
c. Potential new and innovative revenue sources that will shape transportation choices in favour of transit, cycling and walking, as well as greenhouse gas emission reductions.
d. A means of capturing some of the increase in land value created by the provision of rapid transit along the region’s strategic corridors.
e. Other revenue generating activities that take advantage of the market created by transit users.
f. Efficient and effective use of “Smart Card” technology to increase ridership beyond peak periods, improve efficiencies (reduce operating costs and increase the productivity of the transit fleets), reduce fare evasion and in general, generate greater fare revenue (user pay).
4. To recognize that BC has a significant comparative advantage in generating clean and green renewable electricity that could be used to reduce the carbon footprint of the transportation sector in the region.
5. To continue to engage the Federal Government in ongoing discussions on funding support, including future capital contributions for new transit and transportation infrastructure and/or the potential reallocation of existing funding (i.e. federal fuel tax).
6. To review existing regulatory and policy frameworks to enhance the achievement of provincial, regional or local transportation goals as listed below:
a. Joint review of planning and engineering of municipal and provincial arterial roads to ensure safety and efficiency in operations.
b. Review of procurement practices related to transit and road and bridge projects to ensure transparency, value and appropriate structure.
c. Review of contracting process to ensure innovation in contracting methods including components of financing, design and standardized contract language.
d. Efficient methods of obtaining appropriate zoning on publicly owned holdings to maximize benefits and minimize taxpayer or user costs.
7. To review best practices from other jurisdictions and seek expert advice to help develop a “Made in BC” solution.
8. To leverage existing processes including the Steering Committee, Joint Technical Committee and any other appropriate new mechanisms to ensure follow-up to this MOU.
9. To consult with a wide and diverse list of public and private stakeholders in order to ensure maximum acceptance of the outcome of the deliberations undertaken by the parties under this MOU.
For more information on government services or to subscribe to the Province’s news feeds using RSS, visit the Province’s website at www.gov.bc.ca.
46 responses so far ↓
1 Adam // Sep 23, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Alrighty, so they plan on working together. Got it.
2 Richard // Sep 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm
If they had implemented a tax on Evergreen Line announcements, it would have been paid for years ago.
But seriously, it is great that all options seem to be on the table and they will have a solution for at least the Evergreen Line by December.
3 voony // Sep 23, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus
After a much touted meeting, we were honestly expecting something else than a vague MOU,
so it is like “the mountain brought forth a mouse”
4 mezzanine // Sep 23, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Well, a little underwhelmed, most of the MOU is motherhood stuff. But it is interesting ‘zoning on publicly owned holdings’ and smartcards are explicitly mentioned.
The closest to tolling is this:
“Potential new and innovative revenue sources that will shape transportation choices in favour of transit, cycling and walking, as well as greenhouse gas emission reductions.”
5 mezzanine // Sep 23, 2010 at 9:56 pm
PS, nice to see cycling mentioned prominently in the MOU…
6 Lewis N. Villegas // Sep 23, 2010 at 10:57 pm
The announcement was on the radio when I was cleaning out my car tonight. I can drive a truck through that language.
Where is the Provincial Planning Act? Where is the Victoria Bureau of Transit Oriented Development? Where are the 25-cent-dollars for local governments electing to use TOD in their Official Community Plans?
I can use the language in this MOU and build Berlin, London or Paris of the 1850’s (yeah, we’re a bit behind the 8-ball on urbanism).
In the case of Berlin, the “barracks housing” blocks provided density and livable communities—or so it was said until they were built, and the whole mess became plain and obvious.
In the British capital, landlords were raking it in at a breath taking pace. This in the days that Mr. Krapper’s innovations (coupled with those of others) were driving the metropolis straight into a stinking mess that would extract a deadly toll from every class of society. Not even the Queen’s husband was spared. It would take London about another 50 years to finally build the sewers and, well… find a way coordinate the flows in a sustainable manner.
Across the channel, a political leader returned from exile would do away with the democratic process, install himself as Napoleon III, and hang a room size plan of the improvements of Paris on the wall of his office. Despite the bad press, and our lack of understanding of the Hausmann oeuvre in the English language, the three Paris resseau (networks) were rational interventions on the urban tissue. Their objective was to deliver on the promises we read about in the MOU.
Decades later when it came time to build a Metro, the side lanes of the Boulevards (contre allées) made it so that it could be done cheaply. Cambie-style cut-and-fill was used without causing mayhem on the fronting homes and businesses.
We still lack what the Emperor and his Prefect du Seine had—the methods for planning and implementation. I read rosy text on the MOU document. But, I find it thin in the bones.
7 Morven // Sep 24, 2010 at 12:28 am
This is a bit like listening to an orchestra tuning up.
What’s the score?
We know that eventually they will all play from the same sheet, they are all individually skilled politicians yet we are not confident that they will all deliver a smooth production.
I am alarmed that what we are given is a set of strategic objectives but no strategic plan and certainly no evaluation. If TransLink and the Council of Mayors are poised to make decisions of great significance, we, as taxpayers are surely entitled to know that they have pulled together the multitude of previous studies and projections.
Which cart comes before which horse?
-30-
8 mezzanine // Sep 24, 2010 at 1:08 am
Jeff Nagel already has an article up…
http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/bowenislandundercurrent/news/103668059.html
“Two options that had been ruled out and are now back on the table are a future share of the carbon tax – previously blocked by the province – and higher property taxes, which mayors had called impossible.”
9 Morven // Sep 24, 2010 at 10:30 am
The hybrid organization intending to set our transport strategy should have checked their bias before releasing this MOU.
The provincial government and the Mayors Council do not seem to have learned any political and communication lessons from the HST debacle.
The last element in the MOU reads:
”To consult with a wide and diverse list of public and private stakeholders in order to ensure maximum acceptance of the outcome of the deliberations undertaken by the parties under this MOU”
In other words. The community consultation model is the DECIDE-INFORM-DEFEND model. Precisely the consultation model that got the provincial liberals into hot water over the HST.
It betrays a linear process of thinking and an inability to craft a consultation strategy that is participative not prescriptive. The consultation model, if they intend to garner public support, should have been number one or two strategic element.
Do these elected officials not understand that public attitudes are now moulded by the electronic media and not post-decision information sessions (when the public has already formed a view that may or may not be positive).
-30-
10 Richard // Sep 24, 2010 at 10:35 am
It looks like all options including carbon tax, road pricing and tolls are on the table, which is good. They are going to be consulting the public on the options over the next few months, which again is good. They are targeting December to get something approved. Hopefully this will cover Surrey rapid transit and the UBC Line and not just the Evergreen Line.
@Moven
There is the Provincial Transit Plan, Transport 2040 and TransLink’s Ten Year Plan which cover all of this. Planning is underway for Surrey Rapid Transit and the UBC Line. There are more than enough strategies and plans, what is needed is the funding.
11 mezzanine // Sep 24, 2010 at 10:45 am
@Morven,
Planning and public consultations are ongoing as we speak. You can provide input to future projects online or in person.
http://www.translink.ca/en/Get-Involved.aspx
12 Charles Gauthier // Sep 24, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I heard on a number of media reports that a vehicle levy is being considered. It could be based on distance driven and type of vehicle (more for 6 and 8-cylinder vehicles, less for a hybrid).
The levy would be a lot easier to implement than road pricing especially if ICBC collected it. No need to create another bureaucracy.
Thought I would share that the parking sales tax collected by TransLink will likely be well below its estimate and possibly as much as 20%! This reflects the estimated drop in paid parking usage downtown since January 1st when the tax increased from 7% to 21%! The fuel tax revenue must be below estimates as well.
13 Morven // Sep 24, 2010 at 12:56 pm
@ mezzanine # 11, Richard # 12
All of which is useful information. Thanks
I am dismayed that we have a legacy of TransLink projects and proposed projects that are based on uncertain assessment of the risks, benefits and realistic funding mechanisms.
During the years 1995 to 2007, public-private finance (PPF) options were popular in BC as elsewhere. Many infrastructure plans and policies in the period 1995 to 2007 were based on the idea that there was ready access to capital by risk tolerant engineering conglomerates.
Since 2007, the risk universe has changed and the long term scenarios painted for the earlier projects may or may not be applicable. And this is not only in B.C.
As I understand the matter the PPF firms are now leery of long term commitments because of economic uncertainty and the financial stability of existing projects.
It is certainly arguable that the public private finance model of infrastructure provision might not now be relevant to the MOU and instead of PPF funding, Translink will have to fall back on user pay funds and property tax levies.
The champions of PPF are risk tolerant and with all due respect, Lower Mainland taxpayers collectively are risk averse, but undoubtedly some individually are risk tolerant and might invest in transit projects. So why should financially strapped property owners in the Lower Mainland be legally obliged to assume infrastructure risk when the engineering conglomerates are avoiding that risk.
So, convince me of the error of my ways and tell me that punitive property tax levies are good for the soul.
-30-
14 spartikus // Sep 24, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Via Stephen Rees a while back, I’ve always found this idea compelling. The gist…
Those who gain from a good public transport should pay something towards it. As the International Association of Public Transport (UITP) says, “employers and retailers both gain from the provision of public transport services which give them access to a wider labour market and retail market respectively”. The most important source of funding for local public transport projects in France is the versement transport (transport tax), or VT for short.
The tax, which applies only to companies with more than nine employees, takes up to 1% of their payroll. The rate may be increased if the transport authority plans to implement, or has already implemented, a service – metro, tramway or busway.
15 spartikus // Sep 24, 2010 at 1:18 pm
@morven
I concur on funding mechanisms, but I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “uncertain assessments of benefits and risks”
Translink’s 10 year plan, for example, has a section devoted to “Assumptions and Risks” on pg. 48.
Could you expand, referencing the studies?
16 Keith // Sep 24, 2010 at 1:51 pm
A driver pays $150 extra in fuel tax to Translink for every 1000 litres of gasoline purchased. That would be for a Smart car. To add a levy on top is a no go. There will be a taxpayers revolt and transit will be set back.
On the other hand, one per cent of the HST from the Metro Vancouver region will generate the funds Translink is seeking. It is a no brainer.
Support the HST in the referendum, if the government agrees to dedicating one per cent to Transit.
17 mezzanine // Sep 24, 2010 at 1:51 pm
@Spartikus, a problem with payroll taxes is that in a poor economy layoffs would produce shorfalls in transit funding, compounded by a decrease in fare reveune. I’m not sure how the transport tax in france covers this scenario, but this is causing a lot of problems in portland.
http://trimet.org/openhouse/budget.htm
“Imagine trying to balance your family’s budget when you don’t know how much income you’re going to have. Because payroll taxes make up 55% of TriMet’s income, that’s the position we’re in. Each year, we do the best we can to project what our income will be, but the recession and double-digit unemployment directly impact payroll taxes, which translates into less income for TriMet. Unemployment also affects ridership. In the past 6 months, bus ridership has declined 10 percent overall and nearly 16 percent during rush hour, which means additional lost income.”
18 spartikus // Sep 24, 2010 at 2:19 pm
@mezzanine
That’s a very good point – but the same could be said of most of the other proposals. If consumer spending drops, so does the revenue from the HST. If gas prices go up, people stop driving as much, so gas levies decline, etc.
It will probably take a basket full of different revenue sources to cushion the effects of recessions.
19 Roger Kemble // Sep 24, 2010 at 2:26 pm
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDINGBEWEEN THE PROVINCE ANDTHE MAYORS’ COUNCIL ON REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION “
And . . . errr . . . yes . . .
B. “Livable Cities” will require new and innovative policies that integrate a wide variety of federal, provincial, regional and local initiatives and policies that ensure the achievement of this overall goal . . .
Wow, Livable Cities! Now that’s thinquing outside the box.
And you bet, I agree whole-heartedly: apodictic! Livable cities . . . absolutely, of course!
But where and when have I heard all that before?
I am no expert but I am intrigued by this erudite discussion on ways to finance, taxes and modes of TX.
But I fear I am left in the cold trying to figure out if the correspondents on this thread have the power to implement or are we just gossiping.
What little I do know is if there is no money and the taxpayer is cleaned out then money, mode and technology take a back seat to concept . . .
i.e. it isn’t about cash, taxes or shiny trinkets, it is about “QUARTIERS“, the configuration of the city: people living close to work, recreation, shopping for necessities and kids safely walking to schools.
After those issues are taken care of financing and mode will take care of itself.
Thanqu for a very enlightening discussion . . .
20 Morven // Sep 24, 2010 at 2:30 pm
@ spartikus # 15
I will follow your link and comment.
But there are really two issues – one, how to fund existing services and two, how to fund proposed services. The risks are not the same
-30
21 spartikus // Sep 24, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Here’s more on the French transport tax:
Just in case, however, government contributions are designed to make up for tax shortfalls. As the chart below demonstrates, the government subsidy to Stif remained at around $1 billion Euros between 1990 and 2004, while funding from the versement transports increased from a little above $1 billion Euros in 1990 to $2.5 billion in 2004 (data from Stif). This increase was due to inflation and also because of the increase in charges on income over the years – the government has made a priority to focus revenues for transportation on salaries, rather than from general revenues. The stable increase in income generated from this tax, even during the early 1990s recession, is demonstrated below.
Though salaries in the Paris region have not hit a serious downfall since the versement transports was instituted, local governments are mandated to increase subsidies if needed. If the transit agencies in the Paris region, such as RATP, need to increase service to provide for demand but tax revenue can’t keep up, the regional body and the governments of the city of Paris and the départements are required by national law to make up the deficit.
22 Richard // Sep 24, 2010 at 3:47 pm
@ 13 Morven and others
The real risk to the people and the economy of the region is the reliance on oil based transportation. When the great recession is over, oil prices may go through the roof again. Compared to this risk, the risk to taxpayers of these transit projects is small.
The average cost of owning and operating an automobile is around $10,000 a year according to the CAA. Even the most aggressive expansion of transit will cost much less than that.
As well, money spent on transit is much more likely to stay in the local economy than money spent on owing and operating a car.
Even for the more costly systems, transit investment is also is much more cost effective than building highways. For example, the $2.8 billion UBC Line will have a capacity of 50,000 people per hour while the $3.1 billion Highway 1 / Port Mann Expansion will add additional capacity of between 4,000 to 10,000 people per hour. Not a very good deal at all.
The reality is that we really can’t afford not to invest in public transit.
23 Roger Kemble // Sep 24, 2010 at 4:38 pm
@ Richard . . .
“The reality is that we really can’t afford not to invest in public transit.”
Well, I do not see anyone arguing with that other than to query. what mode of public transportation.
IMHO the first task is to analyse the configuration of the communities then decide what mode . . . and above all set up a decision making authority that has the power and vision to do it right.
AFA I am concerned another CL isn’t going to do it . . .
24 Taxpayer // Sep 24, 2010 at 5:04 pm
@Roger Kemble
That is exactly what is happening now for Surrey rapid transit and the UBC Line. They are consulting the public and analysing different options.
25 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 24, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Was listening to talk show this afternoon and someone mentioned tolling ALL bridges, at least one way. Maybe $2 a crossing?
User pay, and perhaps fairer that a blanket $70 0r $75 per vehicle.
The usual problem/headache: how much to operate each type of sympton? Operational stuff gobbles up the cash…
26 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 24, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Oops.
That would be “system”, not sympton. Though having said that, I am feely a little flue-y…
Off to the Irish Heather , for a dram, then transit home! See how the bus drivers deal with the drunks.
27 Joe Just Joe // Sep 24, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Basic insurance is dropping 2% this year as is optional insurance, Optional insurance is now down 20% over the last 6yrs. Even if you charge $50/yr for all pass. vehicles and $100/yr for all comm. vehicles they’d still be paying less yearly then they were a few years ago. It should be easier to swallow then it was back then.
28 Roger Kemble // Sep 25, 2010 at 3:26 am
For an idea as to where this TX conversation is going lets look at the Canada Line.
The whole contraption, from Seabus to YVR, cost C$2.8B.
Construction disrupted legitimate business for two years plus leading to, as of now, on going law suites.
In the end you can get to YVR in an hour at a cost of C$8.00+/- replacing an Airporter bus from Hotel Vancouver costing, last time I used it, C$12.00+/-: taking approximately the same time.
There are no, as yet, substantial nodes, accessible by what could be a short bus ride, between that justify such a huge expense.
Take a look, you can see the link on the Marine Gateway conversation, at Jim Cheng’s idea of the six storey blocks along the line that Land Lift will give us: the foot-prints look like lined up coffins. That’s how architects thinq these days.
And after all that we are seriously considering using that technology on the Evergreen and UBC lines and elsewhere . . .
And that ladies and gentlemen is sick, sick, and very sick . . .
29 The Fourth Horseman // Sep 25, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Re: income tax as a sole revenue source to fund transit.
Indeed, we need only look to everyone’s favourite tranit example, Portland, Oregan, to see what reliance on income tax has wrought. With a sinking economy and job loss, Portland has cut service three times in the last 18 months.
So yes, tou need several sources. Think of it like balancing a “transportaion portfolio”. Some tax, some user pay.
30 Julia // Sep 25, 2010 at 12:37 pm
“employers and retailers both gain from the provision of public transport services which give them access to a wider labour market and retail market respectively”.
how about the notion that public transportation services give people wider access to employment!
31 Taxpayer // Sep 25, 2010 at 12:53 pm
@Rodge
I suggest you take a tour of the line. There are already significant nodes along the corridor. That is why the ridership is doing better than expected.
– Richmond Centre
– River Rock
– Oakridge
– Broadway and Cambie
– The Olympic Village
– Yaletown
What is “sick, sick, sick”, is kilometre after kilometre of strip malls, parking lots and other auto dependent development. Fortunately, in places like downtown Richmond, that is rapidly being replaced by walkable transit oriented development thanks in large part to the Canada Line.
32 Taxpayer // Sep 25, 2010 at 12:55 pm
@Roger
My apologizes for mangling your name in the last post.
33 Roger Kemble // Sep 25, 2010 at 1:44 pm
@ Taxpayer . . .
Yes, of course I stand corrected there are nodes along the way.
They are, nevertheless, already served by a reasonable reliable bus service: especially those north of and including Oakridge.
I rode CL sometime last spring just after the games and it was very pleasant albeit not many users . . . it being mid-morning probably.
I very much doubt CL will effect auto intensity in its catchment though: traffic was as mad-cap as I have very seen it last July.
My contention is this heavy duty technology is inappropriate and costly for a medium sized city: Vancouver is not the 28M Mexico City Monstruo.
34 Robert in Calgary // Sep 25, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Roger, do you use transit much?
During my last visit to Vancouver the CL was busy, very busy at all times of the day. It highlighted the tragedy of under-building the line.
My contention is Metro Vancouver needs to triple the size of the Skytrain system.
It’s quite appropriate. It actually is affordable as long as the folks in leadership positions would finally make some decisions.
35 Roger Kemble // Sep 25, 2010 at 6:33 pm
@ Robert . . .
No, I live in Nanaimo. I have family in Metro and visit often. I have not owned a car since 1984: walking and public TX being my preferred mode.
I lived and practiced in Vancouver from 1952-96. I lived in Mexico City: 1996-8.
I have experienced Calgary’s LRT. The Plus 15 didn’t seem to be working as intended.
I am an urbanist with a clear understanding of TX and the city.
In my considered opinion neither Vancouver Metro or city is large, or wealthy, enough to indulge HRT or a variegated modal split.
To wit:
Metro has pop 2,000,000+/- compared to Curitiba 1,800,000 +/- almost the same.
Curitiba, a relatively new conurbation, has developed along a spoke and hub configuration . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemblesnr/curitiba/curitiba.html
. . . with a very sophisticated colour coded BRT system.
I am not suggesting Vancouver replicate the Curitiba experience in toto. I am definitely suggesting Vancouver find its own autochthonous TX model as did Curitiba in 1972, i.e.
Recognize Vancouver’s/Metro’s traditional and very beautiful urban quartiers . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/thu.future/vancouver.failed.html
. . . you will see what I mean by following the links.
And replicate the Curitiba model, only, with an inter-connected, colour coded networked BRT.
36 Roger Kemble // Sep 26, 2010 at 5:08 am
No, not very much.
I lived and practiced in Vancouver from 1952-96 and visit often. I know the city.
In my considered opinion neither Metro nor the city is large, or wealthy, enough to indulge HRT or a variegated modal split.
In lieu of appropriate alternatives, of course it will be used a lot: but hiking taxes, up rooting communities and wasting billions is not the way to go.
Example, to wit:
Metro has pop 2,000,000+/- compared to Curitiba 1,800,000 +/- almost the same.
Curitiba, a relatively new conurbation, has developed along a spoke and hub configuration . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemblesnr/curitiba/curitiba.html
. . . with a very sophisticated colour coded BRT system.
I am not suggesting Vancouver replicate the Curitiba experience. I am definitely suggesting Vancouver find its own autochthonous TX model as did Curitiba in 1972, i.e. recognize Vancouver’s/Metro’s traditional and very beautiful urban quartiers . . .
And replicate the Curitiba model, only, with an inter-connected, colour coded networked BRT.
Me too-ism is not the way to run a city!
37 Morven // Sep 26, 2010 at 8:48 am
@spartikus # 15
An interesting question.
Prudent economic forecasters deal with risk and uncertainty. So, you do not rely on one fixed figure but look at the consequences if the figure (say) is 10% higher of 25% lower costs or benefits –probability forecasting. I see nothing in the TransLink page you flag to show they do any sort of probability forecasting and so the budgets are perhaps too inflexible. As taxpayers we would want to know what they would do if construction costs escalated by 30%, how do they rebalance the short and long term budget?
Plus, if you read carefully, you will note that all the economic assumptions mirror figures in the provincial budget which is not unsurprising for a government agency.
But should Colin Hansen and his advisers get the figures wrong ( where have I heard that before?), there is a cascade effect through all the agencies and TransLink could either be swimming in cash (unlikely) or suffering an unplanned deficit (far more likely).
Remember, we were told that the provincial budget deficit grew so fast that the HST became inevitable. We would be naive to think that there were no consequences for other provincial budget projections.
The page you flag makes assumptions about construction costs that I find low. Mark me down as a sceptic but an inability to plan for a range of construction costs has been the undoing of a number of major B.C. resource projects in the past five years. Why should transit projects be exempt from the same factors?
In short, if TransLink was doing an effective job of managing public finances, it would plan for a range of projected costs not just follow the constrained provincial figure. They may do this and have all the flexibility and agility needed but we will never know.
And even further, we like to think our municipal elected representatives have that very agility needed to manage public finances but I am forced to conclude that they likewise are in thrall to the same figures and assumptions in the provincial budget.
You can be quite sure that any private organization interested in investing in public infrastructure in B.C. will use a range of their own figures and assumptions and manage the risk appropriately. Why should public agencies not have the same planning skill?
That aside, the main issue I have with TransLink is that it mixes and mingles projects that are provincial, regional and local in scope and each have different funding needs.
Mark me down as perplexed.
-30
38 Bill McCreery // Sep 26, 2010 at 11:36 am
@ Roger 35++. CL [suitcase friendly] takes 26 minutes end to end either side not an hour unless you’re linking with a bus [not suitcase friendly]. I ride CL frequently, all hours. always standing room only. According to City transit planners it has made a reduction of +/-11% @ Marine & Gateway, which is still backed up in all 3 directions for a block to 3+ blocks @ peaks.
You raise a good point about doing sustainable, walkable neighbourhoods 1st & then linking with appropriate transit. &, that is something each city in Metro can do. Vancouver has kind of started but, from the wrong end. City-wide Eco-density & massive, out of scale spot rezonings do not a community make.
39 Ron // Sep 27, 2010 at 8:51 pm
WRT revenue sources – Sound Transit in Seattle has a big problem with lower than forcasted revenues from sales taxes (its primary source of funding) – there’s a projected $3.9 billion shortfall through to 2023. That will impact their capityal spending on expansion projects to Northgate and potentially to Bellevue.
http://www.soundtransit.org/News-and-Events/News-Releases/ST-long-term-revenue-forecasts.xml
40 Lewis N. Villegas // Sep 28, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Richard 10
“Planning is underway for Surrey Rapid Transit and the UBC Line. There are more than enough strategies and plans, what is needed is the funding.”
Yeah-but-said-the-rabbut… are all the plans flowing from the same poisoned stream?
Charles Gauthier 12
“I heard on a number of media reports that a vehicle levy is being considered. It could be based on distance driven and type of vehicle (more for 6 and 8-cylinder vehicles, less for a hybrid).
The levy would be a lot easier to implement than road pricing especially if ICBC collected it. No need to create another bureaucracy.”
If ICBC wants to do something on the basis of “distance driven” they could begin by selling insurance that way.
The issue is not “how to fund it”—the issue is that we are trying to fund systems that are prohibitively expensive and blighting the neighbourhoods.
That’s TWO big no-no’s.
Morven 20
“… there are really two issues – one, how to fund existing services and two, how to fund proposed services.”
There is a third issue… do the services existing/proposed contribute positively to the local economy/quality of urban space (i.e. issues of urban planning or design)?
The indications are that this third issue is not even on the radar screen, yet it is the one that will crystallize the issue and build consensus.
Richard 22
“The real risk to the people and the economy of the region is the reliance on oil based transportation.”
Get on your 2010 Olympics ger on, Richard. Alberta oil is good for Canadians.
However…
“The average cost of owning and operating an automobile is around $10,000”
In urban areas, it pays to have families own a single car, and use transit for go-to-work trips (even if driving to the kindergarden, or to the day-care is still a carbon footprint ride).
Roger does a good job of dealing with the “we don’t want to invest in transportation issue”. Of course we do. It’s just that we can get the HST to referendum, but not the damn twinning of the Port Mann.
Roger Kemble 28
Roger, what I notice along the Canada Line stations is a great concentration of pedestrian traffic. That is going to be neighbourhood shaping. I agree, Roger, the Line was not planned with great aplomb.
But… let’s keep learning from our mistakes.
The lesson for the peripheral zones (evergreen or ever-asphalt-gray) is that BRT/LRT is a cost-effective, transit-service.
Bite that? Not as long as the Mayors get to decide. They want what everybody else wants. Shiny trinkets.
Robert in Calgary 34
“My contention is Metro Vancouver needs to triple the size of the Skytrain system.”
We do that with trains-in-the-sky and Merto Vancouver will look like a dump.
Here’s the part that concerns me in the MOU:
3d. A means of capturing some of the increase in land value created by the provision of rapid transit along the region’s strategic corridors.
6d. Efficient methods of obtaining appropriate zoning on publicly owned holdings to maximize benefits and minimize taxpayer or user costs.
I am on board for local taxes capturing a “land lift” from transportation investments… that’s how the suburbs were built.
But I worry that the decisions around built form and density will be made one City Hall at a time.
We have seen the missed steps along the Canada Line. Why should the smaller Halls, with smaller staffs and elected representatives that may be lacking experience living in urban settings fare better?
(1) We need to create development guidelines at a nation-wide level, insuring through diversity and deeper funding sources the best possible results.
(2) We need representational government at the regional scale.
Portland Metro takes care of Metro Vancouver’s mandate as well as Translink. One of their Councillors, speaking in Langley last summer, suggested that the regional Mayors are pitted one against the other in a “beauty contest” to see who gets the next transportation project built in their constituency.
Only the best projects get green lighted. And the Mayors, their constituencies and their staffs all know it.
41 Roger Kemble // Sep 28, 2010 at 7:27 pm
All I say Lewis, is, plan around quartiers before we plan the gadgetry.
Then get a user friendly affordable LRT/BRT (preferably the former) net-work up and running.
Rely on urbanists and keep the nit-picking engineers off the tracks.
42 Roger Kemble // Sep 28, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Ps . . . @ Lewis again . . .
“. . . I notice along the Canada Line stations is a great concentration of pedestrian traffic.”
Well , there was a great concentration of pedestrians in the life boats of the Titanic.
They had no where else to go!
43 Lewis N. Villegas // Sep 28, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Too good, Roger! Let’s rearrange the deck chairs, face the music, and dance!
Okay, let’s inject quartiers into the mix (I don’t have the numbers in front of me, so I’m going by memory).
For the Evergreen Line (Roger, you were away when we were Bulablogging without Frances in late August): We calculated then that two or three BRT stops might merge into LRT stations. So, instead of 17 BRT stops you might get 15 LRT stations once the build out took place and the need arose for higher transportation capacity in the area.
That’s 15 quartiers.
It is hard to go much further than that because the place is really an assortment of quite a disjunctive history of urbanism. Will the transit shape the quartiers? Of course not, but they must be planned and designed together for best results.
I spent my high school years in the Evergreen Line area so I have a bike and summer night cruising in the borrowed family car understanding of it. It is a suburb through and through.
Years later I did a revitalization study on St. John’s Street, and was able to research the urban history of the Port Moody Plan. There is something interesting about it that seems to be shrouded in silence.
The plan is shown as drawn by real estate agents. And it is done in a grand manner, with very little understanding of platting fundamentals (or imagination). The block lengths along St. John’s are dragon not human scale. That and other anomalies in the plan remain challenging to this day.
To boot, it was drawn in 1885. It is difficult to imagine that the scuttle but was not about by then that the CPR terminus would be Coal Harbour.
By 1915, a photographic survey, and an insurance plan combine to show Port Moody as a small town dormitory to the waterfront industrial mills with a couple of hotels (read beer parlours).
I cannot see any quartiers in what reads like a wild west grid-iron plat. The railroad really was a main trunk, and that caused further problems because it cut the town off from the waterfront employment centers.
However, this impression does not last if you spend any time with the so-called Moody Cenre residents. They clearly show they have the bonds of community, and live them everyday.
Thus, if our LRT/BRT dreams were to come to pass, starting at the west end of the line and travelling east, the residents of North Road, the neighbours in Burquitlam (Burnaby-Coquitlam, get it?), the people in the sub-divisioins that fall down Clarke Hill, including the residents of a very early and innovative staked town house scheme by one Arthur Erickson, the people in Moody Centre, the folks that live on the new towers at Ioco Road, those who bought into Eagle Ridge in the heady days of the 1980’s, and them who chose to populate the sterile sounding Coquitlam Town Centre, all would benefit from having transit within easy walking distance of their front door.
It is hard to imagine that the 5 skytrain stations can deliver the same quality of service, much less help to put pedestrians on the street.
44 Lewis N. Villegas // Sep 28, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Correction: “stacked town house scheme”…
If I recall correctly, side-by-side front doors lead to units built one over the other. The setting on the wooded hillside is very skillful. The parking lot skirting the front doors foreshadows what I don’t like about the Museum of Anthropology. That one, the best piece of Canadian architecture for that era in my humble.
45 MB // Sep 29, 2010 at 8:47 am
@ LNV 40
If ICBC wants to do something on the basis of “distance driven” they could begin by selling insurance that way.
=============
Right on.
I would add that it should be more expensive for larger and heavier vehicles that emit more GHGs.
46 MB // Sep 29, 2010 at 8:53 am
@ LNV 40
Richard 22
“The real risk to the people and the economy of the region is the reliance on oil based transportation.”
Get on your 2010 Olympics ger on, Richard. Alberta oil is good for Canadians.
================
Not necessarily, Lewis.
Alberta conventional oil is in decline, just like it is in the rest of the world. This will affect the economy like nothing else as prices rise exponentially over the next decade.
Oil from the Alberta tar sands is about as unconventional as you can get. The reasons are too numerous to list in one blog comment.
However, one of them is as follows. There are now signs that the federal government along with their provincial and territorial peers are considering diverting water from the Peace River to feed the voracious thirst of tar sands operations. Apparently, available water from the Athabasca River is one of the sand’s major limitations to expansion, and what is used exceeds the pollution standards of our own government, which are never enforced there. Using more water in expended tar sands processes will put at risk the third largest watershed in the world.
(Check out the essay “The Last Great Water Fight’ in the latest issue of The Walrus.)
This is the Decade of Reckoning for the industrialized world. It behoves us to give our oil-saturated cities large doses of electricity-based transit, conservation and development of local renewable, clean energy. Our cities must become far more resilient and self-sufficient. Why would BC’s coastal communities look to Alberta in future when we’ve got huge renewable and clean sources of energy already present in the tides and offshore wind?
Though it will be useful in transitioning to other energy sources for a while, we need Alberta tar sands crude on a permanent basis like a hole in the head.