George Massey Tunnel Replacement | Proposed

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

I drive, walk and cycle. Hell, I'll even take transit sometimes, but don't ever call me a zealot because I drive sometimes. If anything, call me a zealot for balanced transportation networks because I believe in multi-modal responses to the widely varying needs of users, not "transit only" "biking only" mantras that spew out of the likes of the Sierra Club-funded Vision Vancouver.

You can't just view all drivers with your zealot-coloured lenses. You've just confirmed your zealotry.

It's clear you don't read what people post and just make wild assumptions. I drive, bike, and transit to work. In that order of frequency. I drive to work about 3 out of 5 days every week.

Explain to me what is multi-modal about forcing a doomed to fail referendum on public transit, while at the same time pushing through a multi-billion dollar expansion of roads for drivers?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by s211

You could only say that about drivers, for example, if they only support driving, and disparage anything else. In that case, you have a zealot.

I don't think anyone in this forum is a zealot by that definition. Most of the posts I've seen here are attempts to restore some sort of balance to our transportation strategy in the face of what appears to be very one-sided thinking by the Provincial Government. In fact that Government seems to be closer to your definition of zealot than most.

[gordoninvancouver]

Explain to me what is multi-modal about forcing a doomed to fail referendum on public transit, while at the same time pushing through a multi-billion dollar expansion of roads for drivers?[/QUOTE]

I know, I know, Clark is not popular. But every discussion of transportation seems to draw out angry comment about the referendum. If that is going to happen I think it is more useful if we acknowledge what is really being said by each side.

The region can build all of the projects on its wish list, with a priority on mass transit and bike lanes, no referendum required. The region just needs to come up with its share (17%) of the $$. To be clear, no referendum is needed to proceed while raising regional contributions through traditional sources such as property taxes or development levies.

The mayors and councils don't want to be blamed for raising taxes. So every funding plan they have presented for a generation has called on the Province to amend legislation to create a some new funding source...the hope is that the public will blame the Province and not the mayors (that is what happened about the vehicle levy proposal decades ago). The Province does not want the blame, hence Clark's no legislative change without referendum promise in the last provincial election.

When the Province funded the newly finished PMB project or does fund the proposed GMT project the responsibility goes right where it belongs...to the Liberals and to the Premiere. The public should give them the credit or blame. By contrast, whether by the fault of the media for not being clear or the public for not thinking through the complexity or the politicians of all levels for playing games, but the assignment of responsibility for local infrastructure costs is mixed up.

[SFUVancouver]

^ The problem with this narrative, of it being the Mayors not wanting to raise taxes or use their existing funding streams, is that it ignores a key part of the story, which is that when Translink was created, the Province gave assurances that it understood that greater ongoing funding would be required by the nascent Translink and that it would support the creation of new revenue stream(s), specifically the vehicle registration tax. At the 11th hour, the Province reneged on supporting this tax, however Translink was assured that an alternative would be acceptable.

Since then, Translink has pursued approval from the Province of additional significant funding stream(s), upon which its creation was originally predicated. The Province has made the same promise again and again, notably when it committed to an MOU that Translink's temporary increase in property and gas taxes to fund its third of the Evergreen Line would be rolled back once the Province imminently approved an alternative source.

In each instance, Translink (via the Mayors Council since its creation) has come to the Province with revenue stream options and the Province has denied them all out of hand, with the exception of putting to a plebiscite (never previously announced or intimated) the 0.5% sales tax option.

The Province has worked, and continues to work, in bad faith when it comes to fulfilling an original commitment it made at the time it established Translink and downloaded BC Transit's Metro Vancouver-accumulated debt.

Now, with all of that said, I still think that the Mayors should just increase property taxes to get the first round of projects moving, particularly the 3rd SeaBus, extension (to UBC) of the Millennium Line, an extension of the Expo Line to the City of Langley, and Surrey's LRT line along 104 through downtown Surrey and south along King George to Newton, plus new B-Line, more Canada Line trains, etc. The Province did make tax room by uploading hospital funding to the Province from Metro Vancouver ratepayers, and that's a frequently forgotten/ignored point.

At a certain stage the Province has won. They have failed to fulfill a promise made close to two decades ago and I'm not going to hold my breath and expect them to finally make good. The region needs these projects for personal and social mobility, and SkyTrain has proven to be an unparalleled catalyst for inducing development in and around SkyTrain Stations. There should be a value-capture method that is universally applied, both retroactively and for all new station area precincts, but this, too, I understand is something that the Province must approve because it is currently not in Translink's tool kit.

[WarrenC12]

^^^^

Good history SFUVancouver. The hospital tax issue should not be forgotten either.

In addition, we need to consider the municipal governments' tax collecting power. They collect less than 10% of the taxes. At the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer and it is us. Which level of government is collecting and distributing the dollars doesn't matter to a certain extent.

The vehicle levy, along with carbon taxes and fuel taxes all suffer the same issue IMO, which is that they are inversely related to transit expansion and expense. As we spend more to build bigger and better transit systems, all of those sources of funding will naturally decline on a per capita basis.

In that sense, sales tax is ideal, as it will grow with the economy, which should in turn drive the need for more public transit, particularly high capacity rail service.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As much as I disapprove of closing off road space for the sake of a few dozen bikers, those "upgrades" didn't take $4-5 billion. I'd bet that more than half the forum would want to see a return on their investment for that kind of money.

How many bridges in the world have a direct return on investment at the toll box? If bridges had a solid business case, the government wouldn't need to build them. Companies would form and build bridges on their own.

It's not like the Government makes iPhones.

Most bridges are built with general revenue (or money borrowed against general revenue). They do not return anything directly to government coffers. They directly lose 100% of the money spent to build them.

But they do contribute to the economy and society. They increase mobility, which in turn generates new and improved opportunities. The economy grows, GDP grows, and tax revenue grows.

Some times you just don't see a direct return, like spending hundreds of thousands on a surgery for a senior citizen... how's he ever going to pay it back directly (even through taxes)? He doesn't, but his survival contributes to the quality of life of those around him, and to the very stability of our society in general.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Exactly. Spending several Billion on this project limits our ability to spend on other infrastructure.

Spending a few million on a bike lane (which is a 100% municipal decision), is not comparable at all.

It is though. Both governments have very different sized budgets. And even with a comparably small budget, you have to target it carefully. You could just as easily say spending a few million on more social housing on the east side rather than a bike lane for the priveledge west side is serious choice the city must make.

The price of a fast food meal is nothing compared to my anual budge, but if I chip away at my bank account by eating out twice a day, I won't have money when those big budge items come around. A plane ticket cost X dollars, it doesn't really matter if I'm short $3 or $300; short is short.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It is though. Both governments have very different sized budgets. And even with a comparably small budget, you have to target it carefully. You could just as easily say spending a few million on more social housing on the east side rather than a bike lane for the priveledge west side is serious choice the city must make.

The price of a fast food meal is nothing compared to my anual budge, but if I chip away at my bank account by eating out twice a day, I won't have money when those big budge items come around. A plane ticket cost X dollars, it doesn't really matter if I'm short $3 or $300; short is short.

You are mis-construing my original point and arguing against a straw man. Of course there is one taxpayer and a million demands for the money. The point is we need to be far more concerned when several Billion are spent on a particular project vs. several Million.

Of course bike lanes are a serious choice the city makes, but they still make up a fraction of the overall streets and transportation budget, nevermind the entire city budget.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

^ The problem with this narrative, of it being the Mayors not wanting to raise taxes or use their existing funding streams, is that it ignores a key part of the story, which is that when Translink was created, the Province gave assurances that it understood that greater ongoing funding would be required by the nascent Translink and that it would support the creation of new revenue stream(s), specifically the vehicle registration tax. At the 11th hour, the Province reneged on supporting this tax, however Translink was assured that an alternative would be acceptable.

Since then, Translink has pursued approval from the Province of additional significant funding stream(s), upon which its creation was originally predicated. The Province has made the same promise again and again, notably when it committed to an MOU that Translink's temporary increase in property and gas taxes to fund its third of the Evergreen Line would be rolled back once the Province imminently approved an alternative source.

In each instance, Translink (via the Mayors Council since its creation) has come to the Province with revenue stream options and the Province has denied them all out of hand, with the exception of putting to a plebiscite (never previously announced or intimated) the 0.5% sales tax option.

The Province has worked, and continues to work, in bad faith when it comes to fulfilling an original commitment it made at the time it established Translink and downloaded BC Transit's Metro Vancouver-accumulated debt.

...

The province has been downloading responsibility for plenty of things, just like the federal government has been doing. The Municipality ultimately is the "best" decision maker when it comes to deciding what the property tax rate should be, but when it digs in it's heels, it's acting like inflation and growth do not exist.

If responsibility and funding was privatized across the board (Eg all roads, rails, and city services) things would become a lot more expensive because every time something has been privatized, without fail, the costs have gone up and the quality has gone down.

At some point it has to be realized that "Metro Vancouver" is one area with shared common services, and trying to fight Translink or the Province over how those services are developed is going to result in less services. The mayors are picking the wrong battles. Instead of arguing over raising taxes, they should be demanding more transit and be willing to raise the taxes to get it. It would make complete sense for Translink to bill each municipality for the level of service they want, and the city can then stake their political career on underfunding their city's transit services.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The province has been downloading responsibility for plenty of things, just like the federal government has been doing. The Municipality ultimately is the "best" decision maker when it comes to deciding what the property tax rate should be, but when it digs in it's heels, it's acting like inflation and growth do not exist.

The problem with this is downloading costs to the municipalities without giving them any say over how they raise funds. Simply expecting them to raise the property tax is a grand experiment in shifting the tax burden from income earners to property owners. Not all owners of expensive properties are big income earners, particularly in this era of rapidly rising real estate prices. My tax bill went up 10% last year simply because Vancouver detached house prices are rising so much faster than condo prices, but I'm sure not getting a matching income boost to pay for it - nor will I any time in the future because I'm retired.

[Alex Mackinnon]

The amended RFQ went up on BC Bid today.

BC Bid Link

[officedweller]

The Environmental Assessment Application was submitted yesterday (previous submission was the "pre-application" submission).

Looks like the same reference concept as previously issued.

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/...430_r_app.html

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/...430_40798.html

[WarrenC12]

Nathan Pachal had a good blog post on the GMT, tolling, and volumes:

http://sfb.nathanpachal.com/2016/08/...ow-massey.html

He has taken a few key excerpts from the government's submission on volumes and estimates:





Make of the numbers what you will. If we have a brand new bridge in ~2022 with 70k daily volume, that will look absolutely terrible. As a reference, the PMB traffic is about 117,000/day (before Patullo closures), and had original tolling breakeven of about 179,000/day.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Nathan Pachal had a good blog post on the GMT, tolling, and volumes:

I've been saying for years now that the sensible thing to do is to start charging tolls immediately with the understanding that the revenues would be set aside to fund a tunnel replacement when it's needed. Then we'd find out what the tolled volume will actually be, instead of optimistic guesses by the MOT. Chances are that we'd discover the bridge isn't needed right away, which means that we could start to build up a fund to pay for the bridge so that at least some of the money is already there when it's needed.

[CanSpice]

The latest news is that the provincial government has documents showing that the Alex Fraser Bridge will be at 120% capacity after the George Massey Tunnel replacement bridge is in place.

I think everybody knows that this would be the case, but now there's documentation showing that the province knows that this will be the case and they're going ahead with it with no plan on any sort of help for the Alex Fraser Bridge. It'll be even worse after the Pattullo gets replaced and tolled.

[WarrenC12]

With the already existing Annacis Island issue, the case for a nominal ($1?) toll on the AFB is easily made. Add the Patullo and existing GMT while you're at it. Reduce the toll on the PMB by $1 if that helps.

The current government plan is stupid in a variety of incredibly obvious ways.

[SOSS]

Road pricing would resolve that issue.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Road pricing would resolve that issue.

I have no doubt that if all the new crossing are tolled then even the old crossings will end up being tolled. Otherwise once the Massey Tunnel and the Patullo Bridge are replaced the Alex Fraser would end up being the only untolled crossing this side of Mission, and that really doesn't make any sense.

Of course that's probably a decade or two off, the big question is whether they will wake up and smell the roses before then...

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I have no doubt that if all the new crossing are tolled then even the old crossings will end up being tolled. Otherwise once the Massey Tunnel and the Patullo Bridge are replaced the Alex Fraser would end up being the only untolled crossing this side of Mission, and that really doesn't make any sense.

Of course that's probably a decade or two off, the big question is whether they will wake up and smell the roses before then...

TransLink's timeline for the new Pattullo has it opening in 2023, so it's not as far off as you'd think.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

TransLink's timeline for the new Pattullo has it opening in 2023, so it's not as far off as you'd think.

I'd say it's probably 6 years after funding is secured, so that's a moving target.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The latest news is that the provincial government has documents showing that the Alex Fraser Bridge will be at 120% capacity after the George Massey Tunnel replacement bridge is in place.

I think everybody knows that this would be the case, but now there's documentation showing that the province knows that this will be the case and they're going ahead with it with no plan on any sort of help for the Alex Fraser Bridge. It'll be even worse after the Pattullo gets replaced and tolled.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

With the already existing Annacis Island issue, the case for a nominal ($1?) toll on the AFB is easily made. Add the Patullo and existing GMT while you're at it. Reduce the toll on the PMB by $1 if that helps.

The current government plan is stupid in a variety of incredibly obvious ways.

All this seems to beg (for me) two questions; why can't the planners "think bigger" in terms of road capacity and / or .... is this not a clarion call for more transit?
Commuter trains, metro, skytrains, as you like it, but more of it. This would especially target the Valley suburbs and the southern suburbs, and presumably reduce automobile ##s.
For car commuters, taking into account the daily bridge tolls, fuel and parking costs, this would seem rather self-evident, the major obstacle, as ever, being $$$ funding.