As reported by Jeff Nagle in the Surrey Leader.
To me, the new transit question has always been “who raises taxes?” And the Province has been insisting that the mayors raise property taxes or face another doomed referendum. If a new funding formula emerges from the Feds (besides 1/3 each), will the Mayors reconsider a smaller increase? Or will it be road pricing, or tolls, or carbon tax revenue?
B.C.’s minister responsible for TransLink showed signs Thursday the province might waver from its commitment to hold another referendum on any new transit tax if that’s necessary to secure billions of dollars in federal government contributions.
Peter Fassbender told the Surrey Board of Trade the province will aggressively lobby the new federal government for B.C.’s share of money for transit and other projects in light of the incoming Liberals’ pledge to make major infrastructure grants and the new federal infrastructure minister’s indication that a more generous funding formula may be coming.
. . . . Fassbender said he and Transportation Minister Todd Stone have a list of projects they want the federal government to support.
They include the light rail ‘L’ line in Surrey, a Fraser Highway rapid transit line, the Broadway subway, buses elsewhere in the region, a third SeaBus and a Pattullo Bridge replacement – all of which were on the plebiscite ballot – as well as the province’s pet project: the replacement of the Massey Tunnel with a new bridge.
… a rule is a rule until the rule is politically inconvenient in which case what rule?
The most expensive and least possibility of extra revenue comes with the Massey Tunnel replacement.
This government is just a train wreck.
I’d a freeway mash up. They don’t do a lot of trains.
Fassbender reiterated he does not intend to reopen TransLink’s governance structure, adding mayors now select all the directors on the TransLink board except the two provincial government appointees.
He also urged business leaders to support and defend the often embattled transit agency.
“I know they’re trying their best,” Fassbender said of TransLink managers and staff.
“We need to support them. Yes, we we need to hold them accountable as we should hold ourselves accountable for those things when sometimes they don’t go right,” he said.
“But you know what? On the whole we’ve got a great system and we can make it much better by stopping the negativity and getting on with the vision the mayors have developed.”
It’s obvious he and his government are positioning themselves to receive federal funding by playing nice. A few months ago it was a slugfest on TransLink, not the least by the premier and key ministers who have always had TL in a headlock
Sounds wonderful. Too bad the general public doesn’t believe a word of it and won’t get “on side” with TransLink unless there is a big, highly visible change in the organization, a change that Fassbender has said won’t be coming.
Love to have that change, namely a directly elected Metro government and TL board. But please note the headlock mentioned above.
The federal government is in a good negotiating position. The province would be on thin ice by, for example, petulantly withholding their 1/3 for transit if the feds choose to devote it’s larger share to transit instead of wastefully overdesigned bridges and freeways. Just last week the feds put up the trial balloon that it would consider covering over 40% of project funding, with cities covering 10%, leaving the province with its repeatedly-stated 1/3rd unchanged. Just hold Victoria to its word on transit funding.
The Patullo is in dire need of replacement, and one would hope the feds would demand that that two of the new bridge lanes be devoted to transit as a condition for funding. Ditto the Massey Bridge. The feds are in a position to demand a less expensive 6-lane bridge with two lanes designed exclusively for transit. There is no justification for 10 lanes, not even for suburbs full of penis trucks and urban assualt vehicles.
But 40 + 10 + 33.33 < 100%
Even if the province were to match the feds that would still be 40 + 10 + 40 < 100%
Correct. Make it 57%. The feds could justify that expenditure as part of a climate change mitigation policy if they focused mostly on transit and clean energy. There is also measureable urban efficacy.
The province is saying 10 lanes because they need justification to get rid of the tunnel. If they build something smaller it makes sense to keep the tunnel which they don’t want because the province is in the pocket of coal exporters.
10 lanes looks modest compared to North Van plans for 12 or 13 lanes across Lynn Creek, in addition to the existing 4 lanes at the Main St bridge.
New Keith bridge (5) + new Highway 1 bridge (5 or 6) + local lanes as part of new Highway 1 bridge (2) = 13 lanes. This is up from the current 6 lanes. No dedicated transit lanes as far as I know.
Coal export and LNG export and aircraft fuel import. Lots of reasons for the bridge. So why doesn’t the Port offer to pay for it?
Probably because it would not get built, only through subsidies does this form of pollution exist.
The tunnel is 4 lanes. The proposed bridge is 10 lanes. That’s a massive unjustified jump. A good compromise would be 6 lanes with dedicated transit.
With dedicated transit taking one lane each direction we’re back to 4, in your plan. Back to the size it was over half a century ago. That was before, well, before just about everything from Tilbury to the south east, South Surrey, Panorama Ridge, South Delta, Tsawwassen and the primary Ferry Terminal of the largest ferry service anywhere, the South Fraser Perimeter Road linking Richmond and the whole southern region with the Trans Canada Highway, the growth of YVR serving everyone from Chiliwack, Aldergrove, the Langley and all the others mentioned. Did I also mention the link to the USA?
I saw a cartoon recently. A politician asked “Who wants change?”. All hands go up. Then he asked “Who want to change?”. No hands went up.
People like their cars – for good reasons: personal choice of destination, music & temperature, no one bugs you, it is not too crowded in the car, you chose leather, cheap or funky interior depending on your budget and lifestyle preferences, loads of space for up to 5 usually, plus stuff, you can stop anywhere, anytime, in any weather. Yes, these cars may get smaller, or be electric or hybrid, or even self-driving, and eventually tolled in some fashion, but the personal vehicle will be with us for another century or more. More public transit is NOT the solution for all traffic woes. Some more public transit, yes, especially rapid transit. But also more roads for individual cars and trucks.
We need more roads AND more bike lanes AND more public transit in a region with soon 4M people ! 6 lanes, with a dedicated transit lane seems too small, like SFPR is too small already. PM bridge today is too wide, yes, but wait 20 years and it will not. LG bridge is a joke. So 8 lanes makes sense to me for Patullo bridge, at least, and 10 is not too wide either, or two decks, especially once New West bypass tunnel is built. Tolled, of course, as more and more hybrids (like I drive now) and soon e-cars do not pay enough gasoline taxes (I now pay 50% compared to my previous BMW and plenty of Tesla drivers pay nothing .. that is fair ?)
The bridges we have now will be pretty empty in a few years when self driving cars arrive. Why build for a future which will never happen?
Why would that be ? Uber has been around for a few years now and is not in sight in MetroVan anytime soon. With self driving car the technology is immature and brand new, utterly untested on a large scale. It won’t be here until 2030 or so, and then a small percentage of cars, like e-cars today. So mass adoption perhaps 2050 .. that is a long time away. Cell phone were invented in the 1970’s and we did not see mass adoption until the early 2000’s and smart phones 2010’s .. at far lower price points. Cars, once acquired will not change for a decade or two even !
Cars will be here to stay, whether you like it or not, be they e-cars, or h-cars or s-cars, and public transit or shared vehicles do not appeal to all. Why not get out there and talk to some old people, rich people, people with kids or people that love to drive to see that your view is overly myopic. The bridge will be busy in 2030, very busy !
Why would you bother with a transit lane on Patullo? Unless the skytrain bridge is falling down, any buses running over it would be a pointless duplication of services.
HOV perhaps…
Commuter rail to Hope via the BNR r/w in Burnaby, over the Patullo to Surrey Centre, then eastward via one of several routes. One route could loop from Abbotsford over the Fraser to Mission and the West Coast Express route back to Waterfront Station.
Eventually, HSR, but that’s far into the future.
If not transit, then do a 4-lane bridge with wide sidewalks for pedestrians and bikes.
Surrey’s planned light rail could also cross over the new Patullo to the North Arm rail r/w to the canada Line and possibly the Arbutus Corridor via Eburne.
Argh …. delete “also”, add “alternatively”.
If it’s high speed rail or normal rail, then the bridge is going to be substantially longer and larger than it would be otherwise. Trains don’t handle grades nearly as well as vehicular traffic, so the bridges have to extend much further.
An LRT or Streetcar could do a similar grade as a truck on a highway bridge, but I don’t see the point. Either option isn’t as good as skytrain for long distance travel.
I’m still confused as to why raising property taxes is such a bad thing. If the mayors are so hot and heavy to raise money for transit, why aren’t they prepared to put their mouths where the money is and raise the taxes to pay for it?
Is it at all possible that they know they’d have to face the voters in the polls with their policies, and hence they’d rather have the province and the feds take the heat for raising taxes? It’s so much easier to point fingers at the evil who won’t do their dirty work, rather than actually standing up for what they believe in.
This is Vancouver. All talk. All posers.
because mayors are rightfully concerned about municipal downloading of services without increasing the available tax base. Of course, if mayors are so “hot and heavy” about affordable housing, they should just raise property taxes, right? Who cares if that was historically provincial jurisdiction, which was downloaded onto municipal governments without any increase in funding. Same goes for transit – new rapid transit is actually provincial jurisdiction and the province used to pay for all of it, that’s how the earlier skytrain lines got built as far as I’m aware, so it makes sense that if municipalities are going to pay for a bigger share in the future, they should also get new revenue sources.
Municipal leader do have these revenue sources, but chose to not use them:
a) property taxes, both commercial as well as residential
b) parking revenues
c) user fees
d) development levies
Our income taxes are already far too high. Property taxes, and certainly free parking on residential trees has ample of taxation room left, as, of course, has constrained (growth of or reduced) spending on employees based on private sector norms, so down 25-33% to bring them in line with realities, when counting benefits and risk of layoffs.
As such I’d say they are shirking the responsibilities that are tasked with !
My point is that the mayors are not willing to contribute anything to the cause they claim to hold dear. Better to blame the feds, the province, downloading of costs etc.
If they were sincere, they could have proposed a property tax increase of the same order as the PST increase they were proposing. After all, it’s the same people that are going to be paying the tax, whatever it is. No referendum, no whining about lack of transit – it would just move forward.
But then they would be on the hook for the tax and the plan, they wouldn’t be able to point fingers somewhere else, and they’d have to face voters with their decision. No, it’s much better to do nothing and blame others and pretend that you believe in something.
And since you bring up affordable housing, how is it that the city has held up replacing the units at Little Mountain for so many years? The province tossed in a bunch of money, but I’m sure we’ll still find a way to say that it’s all their fault. It’s the same thing really, a lot of talk, and very little action.
But at least we’ll tear the viaducts down to give a gift to the favoured developers in the city.
The mayors can’t decide property tax increases even if they wanted to. It is the majority of the council in each municipality that passes property tax rates. If you suggest that all municipalities should just somehow do it without council voting, it would be serious interference with democracy at the local level.
Any tax increase may be paid by the same people, but the burden is differently distributed if the money comes through property taxes versus sales tax.
There is a line for TransLink on the municipal tax form. Similar to School tax, BC Assessment and Regional district taxes. There must be some mechanism for changing the level of these taxes.
If Mayor Robertson was so hot and heavy about affordable housing he wouldn’t be allowing demolition of thousands of older affordable homes in favour of glitzy mini-mansions.
You are obviously correct, bar foo.
Did you see Greg Moore, His Worship the Mayor of Port Coquitlam, is naturally in Paris having a wonderful time. He even got to see Al Gore and posted a picture on his Facebook page. He doesn’t want to raise taxes.
Unclear why neither he nor Gregor Robertson have resigned from their posts on the Mayors’ Council after they lost the transit referendum by a wide margin.
Of course they can
– increase property taxes,
– cut staff and/or salaries and/or benefits (or increase them less),
– charge parking fees in residential neighborhoods that are actual market rates for the land value, say $200-400/month per stall or
– raise development levies etc ..
but that would not be loved by their voters, so instead they complain about the evil province not handing them even more money and taxation room, as we now see in Alberta with bloated budgets and exploding debt levels.
Thank God we still have two conservative provincial governments left in Canada keeping the lid on spending, the other one being SK.
With a $5B+ budgets across the 20+ municipalities in MetroVan there is enough room to find the money for transit if they actually wanted to find it, or enough taxation room to get it. But they do not !
Why is any Mayor in the City of Lights anyway besides a big fat ego, a photo opp and pre-Christmas shopping ? No wonder we have a homeless and housing affordability problem in Vancouver.
On his way to Paris he stopped of in London and found the time to visit the sights and take some snaps.
I’m sure his citizens are vey happy. Buses, trains and Paris – Greg is saving the planet. He might become a Senator.
Why should the residents be penalized through higher property taxes, when the non-Metro Vancouver users (such as those from Squamish / Whistler / Howe Sound, Sunshine Coast ferry commuters, and the hoards of drivers from Mission / Abbotsford and Fraser Valley, and beyond) are the ones who are doing the most driving per user and the most wear-and-tear on the roads?
Why should the senior citizens (who drive the least) or others who walk to work be subsidizing them?…or for that matter, be subsidizing those driving in from far flung suburbs in Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows or Langley / Surrey?
Gas taxes also don’t seem to be working, because people are filling up outside GVRD or going across the border.
The other principle idea of charging for the use of major bridges and major inter-city roads is to moderate demand. Otherwise, “build it, and they will come”. They will just fill up with more urban sprawlers.
Greg Moore and Gregor Robertson wouldn’t resign. This is what happens to politicians, no matter where on the political spectrum they reside. They are completely convinced that they are right. Their minds are made up and nobody can confuse them with the facts. They also become addicted to their own self-importance. Take a look at Greg Moore’s Facebook pictures if you want to see a small town politician embarrassing himself as he bops around the world on highly questionable dime, showing off in kitchy costumes in exotic locales.
They live in real-world denial. They blew over $10 million of their voters money, over 300 times the amount the overwhelming winner spent, yet it’s apparently all his fault.
And here we have the 3.5 billion dollar tunnel, no debate, no questions.
http://engage.gov.bc.ca/masseytunnel/files/2015/12/GMT-Project-Definition-Report-Dec-2015.pdf
…tunnel ‘replacement’.
The bridge will bring extensive environmental benefits and more efficient transit, as well as a spectacular bike lane.
Let’s hope they build it ahead of time.
There are a lot of better ways to spend 3.5 billion if you want to help transit and the environment. This is obvious.
Public transit is NOT the main goal here. It is about growing the economy and people movement in a region with 30+ ports and soon, 1M+ new people. There is plenty of “environment” in BC incl. “environment” near the bridge.
Why not drain / dyke half of Boundary Bay and make room for some housing, industrial land, parks and agricultural land ? Why not push Richmond, Delta and Surrey further into the ocean ? That would be a real smart idea in a land constrained region, as opposed to leaving it muddy and dirty for the birds.
10 lanes makes sense, incl. HOV lane and multi-use ped/bike path. Tolled, too.
BRAVO !
Let’s get on with it !
$3.5B is peanuts for a project that last a century !
btw: why is SFPR only 4 lanes ?
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/plans+unveiled+billion+lane+toll+bridge+replace+massey+tunnel/11593812/story.html
If growth is ultimate objective then we should not pursue projects that encourage more government waste like driving. For 3.5 Billion they could have extended the Cad Line or Built lots of Skytrans as you have linked before.
Truckers, mini-van owning multi-generational families and those that love to drive alone as opposed to be squeezed into comfortable buses with strangers (and there are aplenty in that part of MetroVan) would strongly disagree with you here.
The driverless car will change things, but that is 30-40 years out in large meaningful numbers: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-in-praise-of-the-driverless-car-soon-may-i-see-my-own-e-chauffeur
Who often do you spend time in Delta, Richmond or S-Surrey, in the rain, or even on a normal day, to see how much fun it is to not have a car and try to get places ? Individual transportation options will be with us for centuries to come, be they a horse 200 years ago, a one cylinder carriage 100 years ago, a gasoline powered car today, or a self-driving e-car in 100 years !
You can’t be serious. Muddy – dirty for birds? This area is critical feeding ground for migrating birds and you would destroy this? A simple solution for the tunnel is simply to toll it right now. That would make it usable until autonomous vehicles arrive and then there will be tons of capacity on all our roads, bridges and tunnels.
What I find really galling is that the tunnel replacement bridge will go through without a vote, yet government insists of vote for new transit funding.
Their own chart shows no increase in tunnel traffic volumes over the last 10 years. So they need to increase from 4 lanes to 10? For what purpose?
For the 100 kilometres of continuous commercial traffic that was supposed to materialize out of the ether. For the 300,000 cars a day going pumpkin picking in the farmer’s fields of Delta. For payback to the private road building contractors who donate to the BC Liberal Party. For the SUV-driving single occupant BC Lib voters of Delta, South Surrey and White Rock. For any reason not advertized.
Billions of taxpayer debt to spend, not a referendum in sight.
@ Thomas Trucks Comment here for readability
If they extended mass transit then less traffic would exist on the Massey Tunnel so those drivers would benefit.
Everyone would benefit from less pollution which leads to heart disease, cancer, asthma and so on. Not to mention global warming. Transit is also cheaper, CAA says the average car costs 10K per year. Thus it would be less costly for everyone!
Its an obvious win win.
No one wants (more) pollution. Idling trucks pollute, stuck in traffic. 1M+ people want land and housing to live in, and not all prefer stacked tiny shoeboxes. Some actually want some grass, trees and space around them, also referred to as a house or a desirable leafy sub-division.
Global warming ? I thought it was relabeled climate change since the warming has been widely debunked ?
E-cars too needs lanes to drive in. Fraser river is too shallow to accommodate big container carrying ships. Hence a bridge, not a tunnel. Transit is for dense cities. Not suitable for
a) families in less dense areas south of the Fraser
b) commercial traffic
c) affluent people that value their time and space
d) middle class people that value their time and space
e) poor people that have to move about tho their job
Richmond used to be a muddy island. Half of Holland is below sea-level, diked. Many nations have expanded their cities into the ocean to create more land for people, housing, recreation, farmland. Even BC did .. 100 or so years ago. But no, today, here in BC the birds are more precious than humans ? Birds will adapt when Boundary Bay is half drained / filled with valuable ag land, parks, industrial space and affordable housing. We care more for birds than humans ? Is that the new eco-movement of the 21st century ? Humans are part of the environment too, you know !
If you build good public transit, people will choose to live in places that are good for public transit. If you build highways everywhere people will want to live in endless suburbs. You also didn’t address the point of government waste associated with the hugely subsidized driving.
Not everyone uses public transit. We need more public transit, especially RAPID transit, indeed, but we also need more road / bridge capacity for more commercial traffic for 30+ ports in MetroVan and for 1M+ people.
Yes, loads of government waste, especially salaries & benefits, indeed ! http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/7290-public-sector-workers-oped.html
The bridge will be tolled, will it not ? And in time we will see more road tolls, congestion fees or a mileage based system like in Oregon. We might even see higher parking fees for residential neighborhoods by our timid councils that allow $3M house owners and/or apartment dwellers to offload their parking needs for free onto public road spaces. We might even see higher property taxes to monetize foreigners parking their cash here, or mooching off our education/ESL and healthcare system for free while paying almost no income taxes. Yes, loads of inefficiencies in the system abused by everyone that can.