Turns out that, like the Mayor of Surrey, the Mayor of Vancouver has a Plan B in the event the referendum fails, as, reportedly, does the Premier (raising the question for many: why did we vote in the first place?).
.
Ian Bailey in The Globe and Mail:
Vancouver working on ‘Plan B’ to fund subway ahead of plebiscite results
.
Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson says his administration is working on an alternative to build the Broadway subway across the city, regardless of the outcome of a controversial plebiscite on a new tax to pay for transit and other transportation projects. …
“Obviously, we’re hopeful we have a Yes vote and we can proceed as planned with the mayors’ 10-year investment, but if that doesn’t work out, we’ll go to Plan B and look at alternatives.”
However, the mayor declined to offer specifics on the plan for building the $3-billion project from Commercial Drive to Arbutus, currently hinging on plebiscite funding as well as money from the federal and B.C. governments.
Asked for details on Plan B, Mr. Robertson said, “It’s too early to say.” …
Gord Price, director of the City Program at Simon Fraser University, said he expects that Mr. Robertson is talking about some kind of levy on development to help raise money, but saluted the Vancouver leader for affirming the necessity of expanding transit in the region.
“I’m surprised. If he’s got a mechanism for capital projects of this scale, the implications are profound,” Mr. Price said in an interview on Wednesday.
Still, he said he was curious about how the city would cover operating costs for such a project.
Mr. Price suggested the entire plebiscite process has been a waste that postponed the need for hard decisions on transit in the region. B.C. Premier Christy Clark announced the plebiscite concept as part of the platform for the B.C. Liberals ahead of campaigning for the 2013 provincial election.
“The Premier forced it on us,” Mr. Price said. “Every part of it was a waste.” …
.
Correction on my part: the Broadway subway could likely cover its operating costs (depending on how much of the debt servicing is included in annual budgets, which in turn is dependent on the scale of the project and who provides the financing.)
I’m skeptical that Surrey’s light-rail proposal could cover operating costs, but same criteria apply: It will no doubt be a P3, with senior governments providing most of the funding, given the electoral importance of the municipality (expect an announcement by the Feds prior to October). A development cost charge on new development could provide some bucks without tapping existing property tax excessively. So it’s presumably possible to make that deal pencil.
But here’s the thing: rail lines do not a transit system make. The concept of a Frequent Transit Network is primarily dependent on the bus lines that provide coverage and service to the region as a whole, and feed the rail lines that provide cross-region services at higher speeds and frequency. (Jarrett Walker discusses Vancouver’s FTN here.)
Without that integration and continued growth of the bus network, the system as a whole fails to justify the costs of the expensive rail lines. Worse, with no new funding for TransLink, the temptation will be to cannibalize the bus system if the agency has to pay for new services – and post-referendum, there’s a very good chance of that happening.
Exactly. It’s “easy” to get funding for the big splashy subway lines, but it’s the day to day bus routes that drive the network. With presumably no increase to those and more likely a decrease, the system degrades even with new train lines.
Right. Alternatives for elements of the plan to do not constitute a Plan B for the whole. On the contrary, falling back to piecemeal measures indicates that there never was a Plan B.
Given that the operating and debt servicing costs for a subway will far exceed the operating costs for the #99 bus, even if senior governments pay most of the capital costs, the region will still have to cut bus service to compensate. The so-called plans B are nothing more than recipes from cannibals.
A driverless subway system does not add to the operating costs but it can dramatically increase frequency and therein attract many more riders than labour-cost constrained buses and LRT. The capital costs are heavy, but with the anticipated very high initial ridership on Broadway a break even point will be reached sooner. The most important operating cost measurements are per capita and per rider life cycle costs.
It is possible to forecast a Broadway subway making a profit once the Network Effect takes root and the FTN enjoys full connectivity to this most important leg of the regional rapid transit network.
I hate to say it, but I told you so — there are plans B, C, D, E, F… ad infinitum, but the referendum has to fail (“NO” vote) before these plans will see fruition.
The provincial government started the ball rolling uphill, and there is no evidence the premier or the minister have any contingencies that can save face in the advent of a No vote. To go ahead and build any part of the proposed plan or present it dressed up as anything else after No is just as much a cop out as it was to propose a I-don’t-wanna-fund-transit-like-roads plebiscite.
Mayor Gregor Robertson. March 2, 2015
“There’s no plan B,”
We always knew that, and much other bluster, was and is – spin.
We will soon learn how many fell for it.
Incidentally, for those interested, there is an Open House meeting today 4:30 PM – 8:30 PM at Bayview School on Collingwood Street in Kitsilano as hosted by the City to discuss Phase 2 of the changes to Point Grey Road (permanent cul de sacs between Blenheim and Trutch, increased greenspace, sidewalk widening on the North side, improved lighting, signage, parking adjustments, bike path adjustments, etc.) The City has sent residents of the area notice of this meeting and a demand for “input” on the changes proposed for Phase 2. Let your voice be heard by attending the meeting, or forever hold your peace. There is a further Open House meeting this Saturday on Point Grey Road itself at the Trutch-Blenheim temporary diverter (to be turned into permanent cul de sacs). All are welcome.
It looks folks are preparing for a referendum defeat
Without that integration and continued growth of the bus network, the system as a whole fails to justify the costs of the expensive rail lines
yes absolutely,
Worse, with no new funding for TransLink, the temptation will be to cannibalize the bus system if the agency has to pay for new services…
…unless the conversation shit toward what really matters, and here is some hope:
I am delighted that the Translink 2014 annual report, uses at last the cap.km metric, something we have long argued o the voony blog, especially here.
The 2014 report indicates that for the same amount of service hour as 2013, we have got less cap.km in 2014: Productivity is decreasing and that should be a matter of concern.
Outputting more cap.km per service hour – that is improving productivity and quality of service- doesn’t necessarily involve inflated Translink budget, but better priorities from the municipalities:
Ex: Here is the average speed by time of the day (horizontal axis) and location on the route (vertical axis), for the bus 20
https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/speedmap20downtown.jpg?w=480
Yes, an average cyclist can move faster most of the day. The mayors, and possibly even Translink, don’t seem concerned by that fact…and that is the very real problem we have to address:
The mayors’ plan was calling for duplicating service here and there under the form of B line: very expensive proposition, especially on Commercial…
Better existing bus route management can go a long way to improved and more productive service. and the cities can do a lot to help toward that.
In Vancouver we are quickly talking in million of $ of potential operating saving per bus route, as soon as the average speed of a bus route can be increased by a mere 2km/h
That is the route Zurich has chosen to follow in a referendum, and we eventually should prepare to follow this successful example:
The Vancouver Mayor has mentioned Transit is utterly important, when it is time to introduce new taxes,…but we still have to see action of the City showing this commitment to better transit on the ground…
The problem is that we will need to have a conversation about new taxes if the plebiscite passes or fails because gas tax revenues have been falling since 2008. That is despite the fact that the gas tax rates has been increasing.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/10/11/Translink-Gasoline-Problem/
The Park Board is planning on opening up new Gas Stations/Coffee Bars/Car Wash, etc., in strategic parts of the city; like next to the Museum of Anthropology and in Stanley Park, to stimulate driving and gas use for more transit revenue. Premium’s will also be offered, like free tickets to the VAG with two big fill-ups.
Lol do you really think that will solve the problem of more people using hybrids and electric cars and its affect on gas tax revenues???
Just increase the gas tax, again.
Lol gas tax revenues have been decreasing despite gas tax rate increases. What are you suggesting we pay 3 dollars a liter?
Clearly Christy Clark was right to ask voters for new tax approval as she ran on a “no new taxes” platform. If the referendum fails, it sends the message: “we don’t want more provincial taxes, such as a higher PST”
To me, a failed vote does not mean “we do not want more transit”. It merely means: Mayors, go back to work, and come up with a better plan.
Common sense plans such as
a) more RAPID transit, i.e. subways or LRTs east, west and north from Vancouver, and not just more buses
b) higher property taxes for all, including far higher taxes on non-resident owners
c) far higher parking fees on residential roads [ a true decongester btw and a true revenue maker in the region]
d) more efficient spending, i.e. lower wages for TransLink and city employees, or more likely less wage/benefit growth or more outsourcing
e) higher user fees
f) higher development levies
g) more borrowing as borrowed money is cheap, sub 2%
Christy Clark is a clever fox. She knows that the Mayors have all these choices, but that it is on them to make the move, make them look “bad” and she can continue on her provincial low tax platform.
I also believe the province needs to give the cities more tools, such as the right to meter road use i.e. road tolling which currently needs provincial approval. (i.e. add as option h on this list) as decongestion needs a carrot (more rapid transit) AND a stick (i.e. higher car use fees for both driving and parking). Mere carrots do not work.
Perhaps common sense will prevail, i.e. a combination of options a-h !
Further to my earlier notice on this blog about the Open House to be hosted by the City today regarding further changes to Point Grey Road, please consider looking at this link for more information:
http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/point-grey-cornwall.aspx
You can also make comments online about these two improvements:
http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/cycling-network-spot-improvement-program.aspx
Really misleading. A big difference from starting to make a Plan B from having a Plan B. Making a plan can take years and still the public will likely like it less than the Plan A.
Richard,
The point is that we want to see plans B,C,D,E,F… before settling on any plan, including plan A, as the only provided solution. We want and deserve options, not an ultimatum.
You really think local planners and politicians had time to come up with 10 different plans, explain them all and be ready to act in the highly unlikely event that the public showed a clear preference for one of them?
Public opinion would have ended up split 7 ways and nobody would have been able to agree on what to do, when to do it or how to fund it.
Oh wait, that’s exactly what happened on the No side.
Talk with people (or read this blog) and you’ll see an nearly endless list of reasons why they voted No. Some clearly would have voted No to any plan no matter what was proposed or who was going to be in charge of the money. Some thought it was too much all at once while others thought it was far too little. Some voted No because it was a proposed tax increase, some because it was the “wrong” tax increase.
At some point leaders need to lead. They need to consider the options, pick the best one and get it implemented. Government by public consensus doesn’t work.
Or we have to change the leaders, as they lead with the wrong tools or into the wrong direction.
Totally agree, David.
Then write Premier Clark. Only the Province has the power to approve new funding sources. The Sales Tax is the only one they were willing to even put in front of the voters.
…Because it’s the only one that The Mayor’s Council came up with. The mandate was for the Mayor’s Council to decide how to fund their transit desires.
The Mayor’s Council didn’t have to bounce the idea off of the province. Obviously, in a federation there are taxation powers that are restricted by jurisdictions. The cities have specific areas where they can make taxation decisions. The province, for example, could not enrich into municipal areas and determine property taxes.
Not quite: they can raise parking fees, they could raise user fees, they could raise property taxes, they could raise development levies or they could lower expenses in the $5B+ budgets across all 25+ municipalities in MetroVan [especially wages & benefits such as pension]
The province needs to give approval for road tolls or higher licensing fees for cars.
Richard,
What evidence do you have that only “a new funding source” is the answer; why not reallocate existing funds?
Summary of 1st of two Open Houses by the City to propose Phase 2 changes to Point Grey Road. So, let me get this straight: Point Grey Road was closed at Macdonald in Phase 1 to divert motorist commuters off this local, narrow, residential road to the arterials for safety and a bike path, but now the Phase 2 plan is to narrow the road, thereby squeezing cyclists and motorists together once again just to build an utterly unnecessary but aesthetically pleasing wide “promenade” for pedestrians, subjecting taxpayers to the huge costs of taking back City-owned frontage from all the residents on the North side of Point Grey Road, not to mention alienating these neighbours from the rest of the City and its government as a whole. This was not the Phase 2 that the City originally proposed to residents two years ago, and the residents approved. All hell is about to break loose!
I like the preferred design options presented, not the alternates. A wide sidewalk, lack of long driveway ramps to improve wheelchair and stroller access, and a narrowed street.
It was never for a bike path, you are wrong on that. It was for a Greenway, an active transportation corridor. Time to get going and build the pedestrian portion. We have seen the number of increased users even with the current configuration, which is less than ideal. Time to finish the job.
Jeff,
Of course it was for a bike path; hence the bike lanes that were installed and the many thousands of bikes now on the road that were not there prior to the changes to Point Grey Road. Seaside Greenway is just the name for the glorified bike path. Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we.
A bicycle path is a specific thing, Susan. One that is generally understood to not have cars on it. There is a bicycle path now on the section around MacDonald through the park, but after that, heading west, it isn’t a bicycle path. It is a shared road, and a good one for bicycles. Let’s not call everything a bike is ridden on a bike path. Perhaps you meant a bicycle route?
Jeff,
In addition to the separated (not “shared”) bike path at Macdonald, the planned dual cul de sacs for Phase 2 between Trutch and Blenheim on Point Grey Road will have a bike path (no cars allowed, not “shared”) between them. The block between Alma and Dunbar on Point Grey Road already has a designated, and separate (not “shared”) bike path on it. The rest of the road is a bike route. Please get your facts straight.
Susan;
The separated path at MacDonald exists. The one between Trutch and Blenheim hasn’t been built yet. I did mention it here, two days ago, just two posts down. We are not discussing west of Alma, that already exists. My facts are fine, thanks.
No Jeff,
You led people to believe that Point Grey Road does not have “bike lanes,” “bike paths”; it does have them. It is not merely a “bike route” (a bike friendly road without designated or separated areas for bikes only). Moreover, because of the separated areas for bikes only that are now on Point Grey Road, cars are not able to travel the full length of Point Grey Road, but bikes are. That is also not typical of a mere “bike route.”
The pedestrian path, aka inland seawall is indeed far too narrow. Either widen the northside sidewalk or build a true ped/bike path below the houses along the water.
The road is wide enough for the occasional car, many unidirectional, plus wide ped & bike path. Makes TOTAL SENSE to me !
Take a look at the City’s proposals. There are two different (wider) north sidewalks presented. Both claw back a portion of the the street right of way from north side residents who, in some cases, have landscaped and assumed that public space.
There is no bike path except through the current park at MacDonald, and the proposed new parklet. There is a shared bike/motor vehicle roadway with parking on one side.
Jeff,
Don’t put perfume on the pig. The reality is that the bikes have taken over Point Grey Road, riding 5 abreast daily and denying local resident motorists the ability to make their way home or enter/exit their driveways safely. Try talking to a few residents to understand their true experiences before you attempt to speak for them uninformed.
Thomas,
Glad to see that you are prepared to foot the bill for the extravagant “promenade” for pedestrians. I, on the other hand, am not. I oppose the promenade outright. Proposing such a luxury when we can’t fund essential Translink, rapid transit and improved roads and bridges for motorist and alternative forms of transportation is the ultimate of taking one’s eye off the ball.
It is great to see the City investing in pedestrian infrastructure. This was planned for, budgeted for, and is being combined with other roadwork (water, sewer) to reduce the costs.
The clawback of City property was turned down during Phase 1 due to the hefty costs. Such was the recommendation of City engineers and Council. Considering how strapped for cash the City claims to be, especially in trying to extract extra dollars in extra sales taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure, I am amazed that the City seems to have the dollars for for the extravagance of a promenade. Irony, or fudging the books?
An inviting sidewalk is a transit system, too ! Plus, it costs comparatively very little, and is virtually maintenance free.
Are you kidding?! Tearing out the existing infrastructure, which needs little to no modification, and replacing it with a luxurious, wide concrete promenade with a separate boulevard and landscaping simply for aesthetically enhancing only one street in the City, and a local 9-block street at that — extremely costly. Just ask the City engineers who said it was too expensive to be viable. Again, I ask, where is the City getting the money from? I’m not going to authorize this lavish spending for a totally unnecessary promenade. Are you?
It is practically self-funding: property value along the street are going up 10-20% due to these improvements, and for every $1M the city collects about $1500/year extra. So let’s see: 9 blocks times 30 houses a block times $2M each in additional value ($3M on water side plus $1M on the south side being average $2M) = $540 million in additional property value .. times $1500 per million = roughly $800,000 a year in extra property taxes.
What is the NPV (net present value of $800,000 per year extra, say at 5%) .. roughly $16M. Is the city spending $16M on this ? I doubt it. Maybe half that ? Then it is a great investment, both financially and esthetically.
Thomas,
Prove your claim of a property value increase on Point Grey Road of 10-20%. There is no such evidence.
It is obvious that a house on a quiet road is worth far more than one on a busy road like Point Grey Road used to be.
An “inland seawall”: now I’ve heard everything!
How does it differ from what was proposed previously?
More details on the north sidewalk design.
Previously, there was no “clawback” of North side neighbour frontage in the design. Moreover, there was no “promenade” planned with a boulevard of minimal greenspace that the City will not maintain. The City told us that it was too expensive to take back City property; taxpayers would not want to pay the cost. I’m wondering what makes them think that taxpayers are more ready to pay 1.5 years later, especially when we’ve got urgent, expensive transportation improvements to make. I am just imagining how the public is going to react when they discover that a luxurious “promenade” is going to be built only on the waterside (North) of Point Grey Road, where all the 20-52 million dollar properties are located. First, the closed road was called “Chip Wilson Way”; what can we expect for the promenade? “Chip Wilson’s Platinum Promenade?”
Susan, I am currently looking at the Seaside Greenway Open House information displays from May 2013. They are all on line. For this stretch from MacDonald to Alma, the City proposed a narrowed roadway (two travel lanes, and one parking lane, option 2A), as well as a widened north sidewalk, a grass boulevard between the sidewalk and the roadway, and tall vegetation removed from the street right of way on the north sides. Seems pretty much what is being proposed now in the detailed design for the sidewalk. The options being presented are either for a wide sidewalk, or two narrower sidewalks (alternate plan). You can call it a promenade if you like, but it is a sidewalk. Look at the final report to Council from July 2013. Widened sidewalks, grass on the boulevard, modified driveway ramps to reduce the up and down for wheelchairs on the sidewalk. I don’t understand the objections at this stage. You appear to be arguing for not building what was planned now that the road in front of your residence has been calmed. It was calmed for a purpose, and the walking improvements are a key part of that purpose.
I have looked at the plans, attended the Open Houses, and spoken at length with City staff and engineers. They admit that the clawback of property was not in their original plans, and it is they, not I, who have termed the widened sidewalk “a promenade,” so if you have a problem with the term, speak to the City. Plan 2A, which was only Phase 1 of the Seaside Greenway Extension, did not include any clawbacks. Phase 2 has been proposed with clawbacks. I trust that the affected residents will oppose the plan as did the residents on Lower Point Grey Road, who refused their reconfiguration in Phase 1 and got what they wanted, as did the Hadden Park neighbours, who opposed a bike lane and succeeded, for now, to oppose it.
Susan; you’re attempting to discuss logically, against ideology. They take taxpayer funded training in ‘spin’. Entire teams are sent into neighbourhoods and communities to absorb and deflect frustrations and any suggestions. Once a decision is made at the Kremlin on Cambie it’s over.
Eric,
I do not disagree with you. From my most recent encounters with the current City government’s tactics, I would have to characterize them as, unquestionably, Gestapo-esque. Citizens would be very wise to read amendments to City bylaws that have occurred in the last year and keep very close tabs on current projects. Our rights are at very grave risk.
“current City government’s tactics, I would have to characterize them as, unquestionably, Gestapo-esque.”
There isn’t an eye roll large enough for this. You might dislike the current government, but keep it in perspective…
Gestapo is as Gestapo does.
Reducto ad Hitlerum. Also known as playing the Nazi card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
The City played the card.
@Susan Smith
“Tearing out the existing infrastructure, which needs little to no modification, and replacing it with a luxurious, wide concrete promenade with a separate boulevard and landscaping…”
Did you miss the part about the street being dug up for water and sewer work? Why would we not take advantage of that opportunity to improve the sidewalk? We want to increase mode share. We have a City plan to do so. We know that just calming the street made a big difference in the number of pedestrians and people on bikes using the route, so we know the latent demand is there. All this is, is after the sidewalk and streets and dug up for other necessary work, replacing them with a roadway more suited to the number of vehicles (cars and bicycles) using it, and likewise for the sidewalk.
The City builds a bike lane somewhere, and people complain that pedestrians are being ignored. Well, now the City wants to improve walking conditions (including for wheelchairs) and suddenly they should stop? We need more investment in active transportation modes, not less. And making those changes when the roads are being rebuilt in any case is fiscally prudent.
Jeff,
I am not aware of any City bylaw, rule or requirement stating that necessary improvements of a leaking sewer system equals or even implies widened sidewalks, or a “promenade” of all things. They are mutually exclusive. Further, one is essential; the other is not.
It isn’t a bylaw, it is common sense. Glad to see it being exercised.
Just think how many more people will use the Seaside Greenway! Or is that the problem here?
From what I understand, it will cost the same to make the sidewalks the same as now after the sewer work is done as it would be to make them wider. This is probably why they’re doing it in phases. They knew that things would be dug up in a few years for the sewers and, to save our taxes, for the benefit of us all, they’re waiting until after.
Just imagine if they hadn’t used this approach. If they had initially done it all to the final plan and then a couple years later it all had to get dug up for the sewer replacement and then had to be redone and paid for again.
And Jeff,
Who, exactly, is complaining that pedestrians are being ignored on Point Grey Road?
Pedestrians, like me. I walk there frequently.
I’d much prefer a seawall below the mansions along the water parallel to Point Grey Road. A promenade on Point Grey Road is a good interim compromise.
Necessity trumps preference, or at least it should.
A promenade on a residential street is insanity, plain and simple.
My comment wasn’t specific to Point Grey Road, I referred to the City.
Multiple posters here and on Frances’ blog have noted, when discussing investments in bicycle infrastructure, that it would be nice to see some money put into sidewalks and walking paths. I agree. We need both.
It would be “nice” to have a Rolls Royce, too, but the reality is that for most of us it is not cost-effective but cost-prohibitive.
Thomas,
Thank you for confirming that you have no evidence whatsoever that the value of properties on Point Grey Road has increased due to the closure of the road at Macdonald. Indeed, there is currently no existing evidence of such. Hence, your assessment that the non-existent increase in value will compensate for the cost of the over-indulgent promenade is inherently flawed.