Vancouver's Broadway transit gambit condemned
Derek Corrigan says Vancouver has ulterior motives on transit funding.
Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan believes the possible development of rapid transit along Broadway has blinkered Vancouver politicians to the funding constraints facing a regional transit authority he calls “bankrupt”.
“I think that Vancouver very much has seized on the idea that somehow they are going to get a Broadway line out of this and that there is a campaign issue for them [Vision Vancouver],” Corrigan told the Georgia Straight by phone.
Because TransLink is in such a financial crunch, its TransLink 2010 10-Year Plan has laid out a “base plan” along with two supplementary funding options, each with a varying price tag to get out of the hole.
A third option, called “On Track to a Sustainable Region”, would piggyback on the supplementary plan titled “Maintain and Upgrade” and abandon the base plan. It is also the most expensive version. Vision Vancouver—representatives of which occupy all of Vancouver’s six spots on the Metro Vancouver board—has come out in favour of “On Track”, which would require an additional $450 million in annual funding above current levels and would dramatically expand the borrowing limit, to $6.5 billion.
“I think one of the things that happens very clearly is that unless you go to the $450 million [option], there is no discussion of expansion of any rapid transit in Vancouver,” Corrigan said.
He added that he favours a position of “no supplement”, which is the base-plan option. This would require “drastic cuts”, according to TransLink documents. (The remaining option, called “Funding Stabilization”, requires an additional $130 million a year above current levels.)
Provincial legislation requires that TransLink’s mayors’ council—consisting of the region’s 21 mayors as well as Tsawwassen First Nation Chief Kim Baird—respond to the funding scenarios by October 31. TransLink spokesperson Judy Rudin told the Straight that the mayors’ council will vote October 23.
Neither Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson nor Dianne Watts, Surrey mayor and chair of the mayors’ council, responded to messages by the Straight's deadline.
On August 26, Metro senior regional planner Raymond Kan sent a list of recommendations to the regional planning committee. The On Track option presented “the highest level of consistency and support for the Livable Region Strategic Plan”, Kan said. The regional planning committee approved Kan’s list and sent it to the Metro Vancouver board meeting of September 25, where Robertson moved the initial motion before giving an impassioned speech pushing for more funding.
“I think it’s critical that Metro Vancouver directors remain united on the $450 million and that we don’t fold our tents now,” Robertson said at the time, having just stated: “The other [funding] levels are totally inadequate and inappropriate to be suggesting.”
Baird and Corrigan both missed the Metro vote, and Burnaby city councillor Sav Dhaliwal was the only dissenter as the motion passed. Corrigan countered later that Vancouver politicians are pushing for the $450 million because they want to “get back in the queue”.
“And they are desperate to get back in the queue, because, in essence, past councils have completely messed up any opportunity for the line to go along Broadway,” he said. “So they are really the authors of their own misfortune. I’m not blaming Gregor. He wasn’t on council. He inherits a series of decisions from [former Vancouver mayors] Philip Owen through Larry Campbell through Sam Sullivan that have militated against any expansion of the transit system down Broadway.”
The mayors’ council has “no appetite” for approving the $450-million option, Corrigan claimed, partly because TransLink commissioner Martin Crilly’s August 31 report on TransLink’s 2010 10-Year Plan states that this option has a “gap of $175 million [per year] in identified funding”.
“This means that the scenario has no status as a Supplement to be approved or rejected under the Act,” Crilly wrote.
Speaking at the September 25 Metro meeting, Surrey councillor Linda Hepner also expressed concern over the changes to TransLink governance initiated in 2007 under then–B.C. transportation minister Kevin Falcon. Hepner called it a “dog’s breakfast”, which resonated with Corrigan, who has claimed both at the Metro board and to the Straight that a private, unelected board equates to “taxation without representation”.
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Google
Comments
What is even more galling is that Vancouver politicians rejected using the Arbutus Corridor, a former rapid transit route, because those living beside the railway has a collective hissy-fit.
The irony of it all is that Vancouver has a almost $3 billion subway that as built, has less capacity than if LRT were to be operated on the Arbutus Corridor.
Now Vancouver politico's want a $4 billion subway to UBC instead of much cheaper on-street light-rail. Well I hope Vancouver taxpayers pay for that one!
That includes:
- Bus service reduced by approximately 40% - a reduction of between 1.8-2.2 million service hours
- SeaBus operating hours reduced and 3rd vessel not used after the Olympics
- Annual investment in cycling reduced by over 80%
- No ability to cost-share with municipalities on cycling projects
-Reduction in SkyTrain hours of operation
I don't like taxes either, but what he is proposing is parochialism at its best. I'm sure that he represents Burnaby well, but not Metro...
http://www.translink.ca/en/Get-Involved/featured-Be-Part-of-the-Plan/Be-...
"Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, however, warned TransLink's plans are unaffordable and argued scarce funding should be used to sustain service to areas with strong existing ridership rather than areas with low transit use if cuts are required.
"There are significant subisides going into many of the South of Fraser routes that are questionable in terms of business efficiency,""
He would rather do this than to provide funds to ensure further growth of transit, espicially south of fraser?
What is Mayor Robertson doing pushing for $4.5 billion over 10 years for an expansion of rapid transit when we don’t have enough trolley buses to operate on existing trolley bus routes in Vancouver? Does he or anyone connected to transit in Vancouver know what he or she is doing? Mayor Robertson needs to get on TransLink’s tail to get TransLink’s stinking diesel buses off our trolley bus routes rather than worrying about grand 10 year transit plans.
How the 99 B-Lines got on the #10 trolley bus route defies comprehension. I'm hoping to see TransLink sued for negligence soon for disregarding GVRD reports harshly criticizing TransLink for creating dangerous “hot spots” along the 99 B-Line route and for making the air unhealthy to breathe within 50 m of the 99 B-Line route. The noise from the 99 B-Line service is also violating the Motor Vehicle Act but nobody seems to care at the City of Vancouver or at the provincial transportation department. The City of Vancouver’s Greenest City Action Team is concentrating on more “important” things than diesel buses on trolley bus routes.
Thanks for a couple of useful links.
One should not be surprised by the parochialism of either Vancouver or Burnaby councils, that's their job, to protect what they have and to ignore the demands of others, such as those south of the Fraser.
I note that the Translink desciption of the reduced base case states that WCExpress service in off peak hours would be reduced. Other than "trainbus", there is no such service.
In Ontario, the main Lakeshore GO train route runs 18 hours per day in both directions. Compare that to the WCE's five trains west in the morning and five trains east in the evening.
Neither Translink nor the BC Govt has shown any interest in more commuter rail, either more service on the Mission line or any expansion to a south of the Fraser route. That too is ultimately a reflection of the parochialism of the big inner municipalities and of their pull in Victoria.
Rod Smelser
First, TransLink's financial woes are coupled with the SkyTrain and RAV light-metro lines and the huge costs to operate and maintain them.
Secondly, TransLink operates far to many empty buses on routes with little or no ridership.
Thirdly, TransLink is selling vast amounts of deep discount travel passes (U-Pass) on a system operating premium (read expensive) light-metro.
Fourth and finally, TransLink fails to operate its trolleybus fleet economically.
And throwing more money at TransLink will accomplish anything? I doubt it.
What TransLink bureaucrats want is to BS their way to more tax money, to continue to mismanage the transit system.
Mayor Greggy doesn't have clue about urban transit and really wants to cut ribbons on a new subway, paid for by regional taxpayers.
Note to Eric Chris - The Eye has talled to trolleybus experts in Europe and they are aghast at how Vancouver's trolleybuses are operated.
In the purest form, transit is primarily intended to provide affordable transit service for students and seniors. Transit is not intended to make developers rich with the help of misguided politicians who are creating a transit empire and driving up transit fares with their rapid transit schemes which are only serving to bring more people into the Lower Mainland without addressing the current lack of affordable and adequate transit service.
I’d rather give people grants to buy an electric or a hybrid car to stimulate the economy and to create jobs and commerce than to give TransLink $4.5 billion over 10 years to continue its wayward ways to drive us further into debt. The ones running TransLink are losers, and it doesn’t make any sense to me to reward losers with more money.
If the former City of Vancouver mayors weren’t traitors and represented residents in Vancouver instead of TransLink, the 99 B-Line diesel buses would have been banned long ago and we would have had LRT or an expansion of the trolley bus service to UBC by now. Seattle banned diesel buses from the trolley bus route in Capital Hill when transit tried to sneak diesel buses on the Capital Hill trolley bus route. In Vancouver, countless complaints and petitions against the 99 B-Line diesel buses have gone nowhere because the City of Vancouver is in bed with TransLink. Try this link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militated
What was his stance on the Millennium Line - the real disaster project in terms of transport infrastructure for the region - when it was proposed? I suspect he is against many of the infrastructure projects because they don't directly benefit Burnaby which already has rapid transit up the the ying-yang.
Anyone who has ever ridden the 99B (especially at rush hour) knows that it is indeed a world class traffic nightmare. And they idea that there is some sort of at grade solution going through that part of town is just goofy.
We need to start building transportation infrastructure which follows demand rather than creating. We also need to recognize that these things cost money and make that commitment. It's not going to get any cheaper.
Transit should be made a priority simply for environmental reasons.
Municipalities should be working with Translink, and Translink with the municipalities to make transit easy to use and attract people out of their cars. Packed busses are not good advertising. More bus lanes, get these busses moving so they don't get stuck in traffic with cars. No advantage to having a bus if you have hundreds of people jammed in a bus going no where.
The Federal and Provincial Gov'ts should be working close with everyone to make sure funding is there.
Then again, if it did work, the Gov'ts would stand to loose billions in Tax revenue that comes from anything auto related, fuel, insurance etc. So really, why would they want to do that?
Allowing TransLink, an unelected board, to have authority over municipal Official Community Plans while being in the real estate development business to fund transit, is a systemic conflict of interest. Metro’s regional Growth Strategy should not be used to give TransLink and Metro control of the municipal planning process. Transit should be provided based on a democratic local community planning process.
It should not be funded with real estate development, property taxes or transit user fees. Transit should be funded based on a polluter-pay funding of carbon tax, gas taxes and vehicle levies. The carbon tax was reported to generate enough funding on its own to cover the cost of transit if it was not applied revenue neutral. See link below:
Say "no" to TransLink and Metro's Hong Kong model for funding transit
A subway to UBC would be hostile to the area, would destroy the ambience and would cost a fortune. Extending the trolley buses may not be perfect but it would solve the diesel bus noise and pollution issues at a very modest cost of approximately $200 million. If TransLink wants to build a subway afterwards, and it can find the money, good for TransLink, TransLink can build it. The main thing is to remove the crappy diesel buses which are slowly poisoning us with toxic arsenic and mercury emissions.
http://www.straight.com/article-248787/say-no-translink-and-metros-hong-...