HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2007, 12:49 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by fever View Post

A couple ways to get around this would be to have the proposed unelected Board appointed by the regional districts within the service area or by the Council of Mayors instead of the Province. It could also be a combination.
Never gonna happen....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2007, 1:15 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,228
From the Richmond Review.


Quote:
New TransLink has ‘great dangers’ Mayor worried about threat to override local zoning decisions

By Martin van den Hemel
Staff Reporter
Mar 10 2007

The threat that a newly restructured regional transportation authority might receive the power to override local zoning decisions around rapid transit stations has Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie worried.

“I see great dangers because the cities have been responsible for the zoning and the land use within the cities...I think to have a provincial override over the local autonomy is a real danger,” he said Friday morning.

Brodie is chair of TransLink, which Victoria announced Thursday is about to undergo major changes following a review launched last year into its governance structure.

“Often times, it...may work out but that’s not to say that the province should have that overriding power...TransLink will own the stations so who know what their plans can be...There could be some real local implications on this.”

The authors of the review tout the “significant potential to raise revenues from non tax sources including advertising, retail kiosks, shops at the transit stations, commercial development around transit stations and depot lands including...rights for such things as housing and office space.

“Translink should be encouraged to maximize revenue from these sources...We encourage municipalities in TransLink service areas to support this densification around stations to maximize the benefits from substantial rapid transit developments, to redirect development away from areas less well served by transit and to improve Translink’s financial performance,” the report states.

Brodie also has other concerns that the previous close working relationship between TransLink and the Greater Vancouver Regional District appears to be at an end.

See Page 3

If TransLink operates entirely independently of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which formulates land use planning and growth strategies for the region, that could present major challenges for transportation planning, he said.

“In the past we’ve had mutual support and approval of the major plans of the other body and I think that that has brought land use and transportation planning very close together,” Brodie said.

When planning for the type and locations of growth, transportation is an important component of that, Brodie explained. In the past, when Translink came up with a plan, it required the approval of the GVRD, which also had to approve the financial plan.

“What I don’t see is where the GVRD fits into it because their land-use plan is very important,” he said, referring to the new Translink.

There are many unanswered questions about the new TransLink, Brodie said, adding that it’s possible the province has plans to incorporate the GVRD’s plan into its vision for the area.

“It begs clarification.”
This would be a good thing if Translink could dictate zoning near rapid transit stations. It would force Vancouver to densify near its stations (which it has not done in established areas).

Even though GVRD approves the Livable Region Strategic Plan, it has no teeth in enforcing it. Enforcement is just through each municipality agreeing to comply with it. There have been some contentious projects approved that run counter to the plan - most notably Richmond's approval of housing in the Riverport area of Richmond.

Even if there is no formal approval by GVRD of transportation plans, those plans wouldn't be formulated in isolation - i.e. they will cater to the demands of the population, which in turn has been shaped at least in part by the Livable Region Strategic Plan. There could be a problem in "shaping" new development, but a rapid transit line isn't going to be built without a reasonable business case behind it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2007, 3:33 AM
fever's Avatar
fever fever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,019
What would density sell for along Broadway?

As high as $100/sf? At that price and with one million square feet per kilometre elevated rapid transit would be profitable there and likely in some other corridors. Of course, they wouldn't want to flood the market with density, but they could sell it off slowly.

This is going to cause opposition to rapid transit, especially in Kits and West Point Grey. Personally, I think it's the best way to go but I have reservations about how urban design would be regulated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2007, 5:15 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,228
Not sure if Translink would ever be able to sell density (even bonus density) - it'll be interesting to what mechanisms would be established to implement this.
Would this be tantamount to Ontario's hated Ontario Municipal Board?
A Translink Board of Variance, perhaps?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2007, 7:18 AM
Rusty Gull's Avatar
Rusty Gull Rusty Gull is offline
Site 8 Lives
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver's North Shore
Posts: 1,285
On the subject of rapid transit to UBC, there is a huge push for this at the university currently. The bus system to campus along the Broadway corridor is absolutely overflowing and deteriorating - although it did reach its crescendo earlier this winter during some of the snow and wind storms, when thousands of commuters were passed over by full 99 B-Lines.

The situation is embarassing to the province, the city, and the university. I don't think that UBC can wait until 2021 for a Broadway Skytrain extension. Frankly, this -should- have been Translink's priority before Evergreen Line, and even before RAV.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2007, 2:53 PM
The_Henry_Man The_Henry_Man is offline
HA
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Cloud, MN/Richmond, BC
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Gull View Post
On the subject of rapid transit to UBC, there is a huge push for this at the university currently. The bus system to campus along the Broadway corridor is absolutely overflowing and deteriorating - although it did reach its crescendo earlier this winter during some of the snow and wind storms, when thousands of commuters were passed over by full 99 B-Lines.

The situation is embarassing to the province, the city, and the university. I don't think that UBC can wait until 2021 for a Broadway Skytrain extension. Frankly, this -should- have been Translink's priority before Evergreen Line, and even before RAV.
I hope that sentiment can lead to the second Great Trek (of 1922)!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2007, 6:01 PM
fever's Avatar
fever fever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,019
Yes. I wouldn't want an OMB. My understanding is that developers can go to it to overturn a municipal zoning bylaw. I'm not sure what other powers the OMB has.

I would prefer a system in which Translink and the municipality come to an agreement beforehand on how much bonus density would be sold and how it would then be regulated. I'm not sure what should be done with existing stations. There would be no consideration (and it wouldn't be seen as fair). Translink would have to be able to change municipal zoning laws or grant bonus density there, but I don't like it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2007, 8:27 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,104
translink will be headed by mayors - so they can rezone etc what they want in their own cities - of course it would have to pass city halls
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2007, 11:26 PM
raggedy13's Avatar
raggedy13 raggedy13 is offline
Dérive-r
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,446

Critics pan province’s new TransLink model



By Jeff Nagel
Black Press
Mar 11 2007

The new TransLink unveiled by transportation minister Kevin Falcon Thursday faced immediate accusations it’s confusing, politically motivated and certain to fuel more discord with Lower Mainland cities.

It wasn’t immediately clear what carrots or sticks might be used to persuade cities not now part of TransLink to sign on and subject their residents to stiff fuel and property tax hikes.

“It will be done with their approval,” Falcon promised. “It won’t be done by fiat.”

Marlene Grinnell, the review panel chair, wouldn’t say whether lower property tax rates or other sweeteners might be offered to places like Abbotsford or Chilliwack, but added she expects those cities will make significant transition requests as part of the pending negotiations.

The panel also recommended TransLink get the power to override local zoning so it can develop high-density residential and commercial areas near transit stations to provide new revenue.

That will be a flashpoint for civic leaders, predicted NDP transportation critic David Chudnovsky.

“It’s a wacky idea for TransLink to become a development company and siphon off development revenues from municipalities,” he said.

He said it means Falcon and his new TransLink will find themselves in “constant conflict” with municipalities.

He said the plan to extend TransLink boundaries appears aimed to water down influence of the directors in and around Vancouver Falcon considers troublesome.


Also up in the air is exactly who would appoint a board of professionals that will oversee most TransLink decisions.

Falcon stressed it won’t be the province, but the process to select those directors is undetermined.


Chudnovsky said the NDP wanted TransLink instead made a committee of the GVRD.

He said the transportation challenges facing Hope or Chilliwack or Whistler are very different than those facing Greater Vancouver.

Political analyst David Schreck said the new TransLink may end up far from democratic and accountable if the new Council of Mayors is “going to be so distant from the nitty gritty that in effect the board Falcon will appoint will run the show.”

He said the big questions are how decisions will be made regarding the order of major projects to proceed.

“Who make decisions around the Pattullo Bridge?” he asked, giving one example. “The professional panel or the mayors?”

Schreck said the funding formula is designed to make the region raise its own revenue, rather than the province putting an extra share of the fuel taxes it already gathers on the table – or some other pool of money.

“It’s not like saying we will share part of our natural gas revenue with you,” he said. “It means everyone in the region will pay.”

http://www.tricitynews.com/portals-c...d=850290&more=
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2007, 11:09 PM
obscurantist obscurantist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 30
Local media focused on the shiny surface of the review panel's proposals. But scant attention was paid to the elements that had local transportation experts crying into their bike helmets.
Quote:
For a taste of that, you would have had to crowd into a lecture hall at Simon Fraser University's downtown campus on Thursday night. That's where two hundred-odd transpo geeks gathered to hear the world's expert on traffic hold forth on our region's crisis of mobility. Anthony Downs -- author of the transportation bible, Stuck in Traffic -- is no starry-eyed car-hater. The septuagenarian is most famous for advising urbanites to recognize congestion for what it is: an inevitable by-product of vibrant cities.

The best way to plan complex urban regions is to create a regional government responsible for both land use and transportation planning, said Downs. That was it. No silver bullet, just boring, effective government with plenty of local input and control.

Downs's model would look something like the Greater Vancouver Regional District, but with directly elected members and much more power to compel local municipalities to follow collective plans.

In other words, it would be the exact opposite of Falcon's TransLink 2.0.

According to the people who spend their lives thinking about city and transportation planning, TransLink 2.0 will corrode what's left of our regional planning process, and scratch apart years of local work to build a livable region.

First of all, 2.0 will effectively take responsibility for long-range transportation planning away from Lower Mainland residents, and give it to Victoria. How? Under the suggested plan, the province will decide on the 30-year-vision for the region. Their appointed board will develop 10-year plans. Then the new council of mayors will have 90 days to pick one of the board's strategies. If the mayors can't agree, then the board will simply go with the strategy of its choice. In other words, Minister Falcon will call the shots, and invite local mayors to the shotgun wedding.

"What is so funny about this proposal is that it flies in the face of everything we have learned about how democracies are supposed to fashion sustainable plans for the future," lamented Alex Boston, a sustainability consultant who has advised all levels of government.

"It's the height of arrogance to suggest that politicians who are not immersed in local politics are able to figure out what's best for the entire Lower Mainland."

Ironically, it was Premier Gordon Campbell -- in a previous life -- who brought together all the region's players to forge a common plan for the future.

"Campbell created the Livable Region Strategy. He stick-handled it when he was the mayor of Vancouver," said Boston. "The reason it was a good plan is that it involved lots of people in its development. But it wasn't implementable because there was no governance structure to make it happen." ...

Right now, the GVRD and TransLink work together to ensure that new road and transit projects jibe with the Livable Region Strategy. They do a fairly weak job of it, largely because the province never gave the GVRD the power to force municipalities to follow their strategic plans. But when TransLink 2.0 takes its orders from Falcon, the link will be lost completely....
(I realize there's also another thread in this forum about Anthony Downs, but this seemed more on topic here.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2007, 11:20 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,104
the LM will always have problems has long as each city within the region has its own agenda
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2007, 9:02 PM
obscurantist obscurantist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 30
But the different regions of the Lower Mainland will always have competing interests. I don't see how a merger (if that's what you're suggesting) would change that.

What I'm suggesting is something close to a merger anyway -- having transportation and land use decisions being made by a single regional government body.

The question is whether it's more appropriate to have region-wide decisions made by a regional government, or by the provincial government (or in this case, an agency that's primarily answerable to the provincial government).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2007, 9:12 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,104
well obviously thats the best decision but as long as the cities have their own power and priorties they will never just accept thinsg being forced

look at the thing over that little bridge between new west and coqutilam - the reguion planned a roadway so Coquitlam did its part and created a 4 lane road to the new west border where a single lane bridge is, new west mayor was like i don't think so we don't want to be a thouroughfare and locked the bridge with a gate - it ended up having to go to court and new west lost

unless this new body has the power to over rule the city councils and mayors than its kinda useless and than if does have the power to over rule and over power city councils and mayors - thats a slippery slope to start
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 7:57 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,684
Kevin Falcon is so evil he is the devil incarnate for sure...


TransLink 'makeover' a sham

By Allen Garr

The Big Lie told about the current TransLink board is that it is "dysfunctional." The dozen local politicians appointed to the board by the GVRD become so entangled in their own parochial interests they are paralyzed.

This point has been effectively repeated by the provincial government in general and Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon in particular with the able assistance of the Vancouver Board of Trade.

A series of public opinion polls conducted by TransLink starting near the end of the 2001 bus strike showed the organization growing in public approval from a low of 33 per cent to a high of 67 per cent. Since the provincial assault began, that has dropped to the high 50s.

What irked Falcon and the rest was the lengthy, and at times, tortuous debate over the RAV Line (now the Canada Line) and specifically whether it should proceed as a "P3," a public-private partnership.

TransLink Board member NPA Coun. Peter Ladner wasn't on the board for that debate. But he notes the size of the RAV project and its impact on other transit projects was sufficient reason to warrant a lengthy discussion. "To confuse disagreement with dysfunction is a mistake," he says.

The board also produced a three-year operating plan and a 10-year outlook. And it did approve a RAV plan that included a P3. What is more, in spite of so-called parochial interests, the RAV project, which will most directly benefit Vancouver and Richmond, was supported by mayors from the northeast of the region even though their own priority for a rapid transit line-the Evergreen Line-was delayed as a result.

None of that matters. Falcon set the table to yank significant control of transportation policy away from local officials. He is expected to introduce legislation to implement a series of recommendations issued in a report last week. There will be changes to funding, governance and the geographic area covered by the transportation authority. All Vancouver councillors agree we will be worse off as a result.

TransLink funding has always been precarious thanks, again, to Victoria. The first problem arose with the vehicle levy, a tax the province agreed to implement. But once it was passed by TransLink and the GVRD, former NDP premier Ujjal Dosanjh reneged. That decision threw TransLink into a state of financial uncertainty. It took years to recover. TransLink director NPA Coun. Suzanne Anton says the board still "mourns" the loss of that levy.

But the B.C. Liberals have been no better. Their refusal to give TransLink an extra penny of their gas tax revenue left the board with no real choices except more property taxes and the unpopular parking stall tax.

Under Falcon's plan, bus fares, property taxes and the gas tax will all rise. But it won't cost the provincial treasury a nickel.

The governance of the operation will be even less accountable and more remote from regional voters than it is now. It will also cost more for extra layers of bureaucracy.

The TransLink board will be replaced by 11 "professionals" appointed by the province. Some 31 regional mayors will sit on a council that meets a few times a year to approve a 10-year strategic plan developed by the board.

The mayors will also hire a commissioner on a six-year term. The commissioner will set bus fares but will be independent of the board, the mayors and the provincial government. He will judge citizen satisfaction through polling and take no specific complaints about service.

And that's not all. The area covered by the transportation authority will be expanded beyond the GVRD to include Pemberton and Hope. That will likely shift the focus of the debate from transit improvements to asphalt. Those outlying communities of car drivers will be demanding better and bigger roads for their commutes.

published on 03/14/2007
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 8:00 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,684
View from the Ledge

Will region's transportation woes ever end?

By Keith Baldrey - chief political reporter for Global B.C.

No issue seems to get Lower Mainland residents more worked up than transportation. Not even the debate over health care seems to spark the frustration and aggravation that comes with trying to figure out the solutions to the traffic nightmare that is part of so many people's daily lives. Which is why Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon's plan to revamp TransLink no doubt has more people talking than the government's ongoing Conversation on Health Care.

A steady rise in population growth, along with years of poor regional planning, has resulted in a transportation system that is failing the residents who use it.

TransLink, the regional transportation authority created by the NDP government in 1999, was supposed to change that. Unfortunately, TransLink hasn't lived up to the task. Not that it really had much of a chance.

It was never really sure of its long-term funding, which made long-term planning that much more difficult. As well, the makeup of the TransLink board was ever-changing, with local politicians coming aboard for short stints that provided little continuity and didn't allow for the build-up of institutional knowledge. And it was never clear for whom the board directors were acting - their own constituents who elected them to perform duties within their municipalities or the regional interest as a whole.

The debate over the RAV line signalled the end was near for TransLink. The B.C. Liberal government made it clear it considered the project a top priority, and when it was nearly killed at the last minute by a handful of politicians from municipalities nowhere near the actual project itself, one could sense the province wasn't interested in having that kind of debate again.

Which brings us to Falcon's plan for TransLink II. The organization will retain the TransLink brand, but the structure of the organization will be significantly different. Whether it will work any better, however, is far from clear.

The new structure will allow more municipalities - such as Squamish, Mission and Abbotsford - to join the transportation authority. It will also create a new council of mayors, made up by the mayors - or their designates - from every municipality in the authority.

But this council will not have the real power in the new TransLink. It will meet at most four times a year, hardly often enough to exert real control over TransLink operations. The council will simply approve, and occasionally update, the 10-year strategic plan that has yet to be created.

The real power will reside with an 11-member appointed board of "professionals" whose function will be to provide the council with planning options.

In other words, the politicians won't be involved in the planning process itself until the very end of it, when they have to vote on which option they prefer. It's not yet clear how this board will be appointed. Falcon has suggested the mayors' council may appoint the board members, but I suspect the provincial government may want some kind of input into its makeup. In any event, the key difference between how this professional board will function and how the current TransLink board operates lies in the fact that none of the professionals will be associated with any particular municipality, thus removing the conflicts that currently exist.

But that will only solve part of TransLink's problems. The provincial government has given it more funding sources - an increase in its share of gas and property taxes, as well as incentives to build high-density housing near transit stations - but it's not clear whether that will be enough money to solve all the transportation woes in the region.

There's a need for more buses and more transit lines, as well as for a better road system that allows goods to get around without gridlocking commuters.

Falcon insists the new TransLink, which should be in place by the fall, will have a much better chance at coming through in those areas. Maybe. But does anyone really believe that simply revamping TransLink is going to provide the magical cure? It's more likely that a few years from now, Lower Mainland residents will continue to rage on and on about their traffic problems. The Conversation on Health Care will be long over by then, but the Conversation on Transportation shows no signs of ending any time soon.

published on 03/13/2007
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 9:01 AM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Blazed Member - Citygater
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 6,119
!Go Falcon Go!
__________________
Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007

"orange vested guy" - towerguy3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 9:03 AM
djp djp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 55
This is just going to give the car-heaven suburbs carte blanche when it comes to transportation planning. What else could be expected of the Liberals, though? This is the same party that relentlessly pushed the Gateway project. I guess they desperately want to see more sprawl, more congestion, more clogged freeways, less greenspace, etc, all with no tangible benefit. I really don't understand any of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 10:07 AM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Blazed Member - Citygater
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 6,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by djp View Post
This is just going to give the car-heaven suburbs carte blanche when it comes to transportation planning. What else could be expected of the Liberals, though? This is the same party that relentlessly pushed the Gateway project. I guess they desperately want to see more sprawl, more congestion, more clogged freeways, less greenspace, etc, all with no tangible benefit. I really don't understand any of it.
and the same party that relentlessly pushed through RAV...........don't forget GORDO used to be the MAYOR of VANCOUVER..............I know for sure he wants to be the man who helped get the skytrain out to UBC......that would be an amazing legacy.......as if he has not done enough already but it would be a great cap off!


Go GORDO Go!
__________________
Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007

"orange vested guy" - towerguy3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 6:12 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
^ during Gordo's tenure as mayor, wasn't he also an advocate against highway expansion? how ironic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 9:39 PM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Blazed Member - Citygater
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 6,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
^ during Gordo's tenure as mayor, wasn't he also an advocate against highway expansion? how ironic.
well ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm TIMES CHANGE......cities grow........they even tripple in population.........and how much of the new MONSTER FREEWAY is coming into Vancouver? oh ya none..............
__________________
Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007

"orange vested guy" - towerguy3
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.