HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2009, 2:48 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,521
I wouldn't see it as a problem actually. BART for a few stations have different lines on different platforms but all going into the same area. As long as there is enough signage (AHEM TRANSLINK), it's fine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2009, 11:11 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 1,928
Looks like the Evergreen Line might be subject to some inter-jurisdictional politics due to Translink's never-ending funding shortfalls.

Hopefully it will be resolved as so much funding has already been committed toward the Evergreen Line.

Quote:
TransLink: Funding Shortfall Could Scrap Evergreen Line

TransLink needs extra $450 million per year to afford new line

Jim Goddard BURNABY (NEWS1130) | Wednesday, July 15th, 2009 2:52 pm

BURNABY (NEWS1130) - A massive funding shortfall looming for TransLink may push the Evergreen Line to the back burner again, as TransLink warns that unless it can find an extra $450 million a year, the long promised Tri-Cities transit line will remain just a promise.

TransLink says it needs more money to build it, and run it after it's built. TransLink's Ken Hardie says even if the transit authority exhausts all of its current funding sources (property taxes, gas taxes, fares and even a vehicle levy), it will still be hundreds of millions short of what is needed.

Hardie says without a new source of $450 million a year to expand, TransLink will concentrate instead on keeping existing transit rolling and on current problem areas. "We have people standing by the road right now watching full buses go by and we really need to look after them before we go out and spend large amounts of money on new infrastructure."

Hardie says the TransLink board is currently crunching numbers so it can make recommendations to area mayors on how the funding shortfall might be addressed. The mayors will have until the end of October to decide whether to approve a plan with supplemental funding, or stick with a 10-year base plan that reflects current revenue with no new funding sources.

The no new money plan would eventually trim transit service by 40 per cent.
http://www.news1130.com/more.jsp?con...15_174446_8924
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 12:18 AM
metroXpress's Avatar
metroXpress metroXpress is offline
(||||||-||||-||||||)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 2,219
^ If this line won't be finished by 2014 We will probably have to wait till the 2050's to see the Broadway/Surrey extensions
__________________
"Think simple…reduce the whole
of its parts into the simplest terms,
Getting back to first principles"


~ FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 12:42 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,806
The train that never sees the light at the end of the tunnel...


Sad. I have a feeling that the mayors' council won't approve Translink's funding recommendations, considering they're bound to get a ear full from property tax hikes or even a car levy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 3:20 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
zoom zoom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 1,919
No Murray-Clarke connector OR Evergreen Line? Wow. What the hell, Translink?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 3:23 AM
Gordon Gordon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 679
The Mayors have all come out in favor of more transit . The $450 million dollars is the top end of what Translink says it needs. Hopefullly this group of Mayors will not fall prey to the pettie ploitical partisanship that almost sunk the Canada Line. even $300 million \year would be great. That would allow a far amount of expansion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 3:24 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,521
I think the "threat" or implied threat is just from TransLink so that they can get more funding. I really doubt it won't continue since the project is in the hands of the Provincial Government already going through Environmental Assessments and Detailed Designs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 3:39 AM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
The Mayors have all come out in favor of more transit . The $450 million dollars is the top end of what Translink says it needs. Hopefullly this group of Mayors will not fall prey to the pettie ploitical partisanship that almost sunk the Canada Line. even $300 million \year would be great. That would allow a far amount of expansion.
I seem to recall in their recent questionnaire that Translink indicated that $450 million was to keep the status quo (e.g. all current announcements and current operational levels of service).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 3:51 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is online now
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,344
No the $450Million additional funding was the heavy expansion solution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 3:59 AM
Gordon Gordon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 679
Translink seems to have changed the goal posts somewhat it's now $260 million\ yr to maintain the status quo up from $150million & the 450 million = 400 new buses & funding for Evergreen line & no mention of other rapid transit. We don't know what the exact proposals thta the board is bringing to the Mayors Council.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 6:29 AM
Kwik-E-Mart Kwik-E-Mart is offline
A.H.-Ha!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vancouver et Edmonton
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
I think the "threat" or implied threat is just from TransLink so that they can get more funding. I really doubt it won't continue since the project is in the hands of the Provincial Government already going through Environmental Assessments and Detailed Designs.
*DING DING DING* You have just said what I wanted to say.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 5:43 PM
randito randito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 36
Quote:
TransLink to yank Evergreen Line funding

The start of the much-delayed Evergreen rapid transit line, could be delayed once again, because TransLink says it's running out of money.

Spokesman Ken Hardie said TransLink is now facing a $450 million annual deficit with no solution in sight, and it won't have the money to build the 11-kilometre rapid transit line linking Lougheed Town Centre in Burnaby to the Coquitlam Town Centre.

"We do not have the money to build the Evergreen Line," said Hardie on Wednesday. "And in fact, unless we find new revenue, starting probably in 2010, 2011, we are going to have to start cutting transit service."

The regional transit authority had committed to pay $400 million of the line's $1.4 billion estimated price tag, with the federal and provincial government also chipping in to cover the cost.

TransLink is expected to make a final decision on the fate of the line by October, but Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart says the line must go ahead.

"Well, we can't hope to keep transit going unless we continue to expand the rapid transit, the rail transit portion of it, and this is the only place that's next," he said.

New taxes needed: mayor

The mayor would like the provincial government, which controls TransLink, to give the transit authority more options for generating revenue.

"Perhaps a fuel tax, perhaps there's a carbon tax, perhaps there is some way to work this out to allow us the tools or find the existing tools and give us the cash," said Stewart.

Previously, TransLink has considered several new taxes on Metro Vancouver residents to raise revenue, including parking taxes and vehicle levies, but all have met a great deal of public resistance.

Plans for the Evergreen Line have been awaiting funding since it was first announced about 20 years ago. Construction was finally expected to start in 2010 after the federal government committed $350 million to the project in February.

The province had also committed $400 million, but even with TransLink's previous $400 million commitment, the project was still almost $173 million short of its expected cost of $1.4 billion.

That gap that was supposed to be made up by project partners, includi
from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...e-funding.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 6:00 PM
racc racc is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
TransLink is controlled by the province. The province needs to stop playing games and provide the funding or give TransLink the revenue sources needed to complete the Evergreen Line and transit expansion throughout the region.

The games the province is playing are getting really tiresome.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 6:04 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,806
^ but the province's response is: "they already have all the resources they need to find additional revenues" O:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 6:37 PM
Gordon Gordon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 679
Translink keeps changing what they are saying & how they are saying it. It would be nice if we just got the straight goods from them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 6:48 PM
metroXpress's Avatar
metroXpress metroXpress is offline
(||||||-||||-||||||)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 2,219
The three choices:


If you want the maximum investment of $450M+ per year, you’ll put us on track to the vision of Transport 2040, bringing our region reduced greenhouse gas emissions, rapid transit expansion, and more. Read more about this plan.

If you want an investment of about $260M more annually, we’ll be keeping pace with growth. We can maintain what we have and make some improvements to our transportation network, but we won’t have any new rapid transit lines. Read more about this plan.

And if we choose to make no new investment, we will be forced to make drastic cuts — which is necessary because by law, TransLink is not allowed to run a deficit. Read more about this plan.

Source: Buzzer


http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php...-consultation/
__________________
"Think simple…reduce the whole
of its parts into the simplest terms,
Getting back to first principles"


~ FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 8:04 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East Yaletown!
Posts: 3,521
I think the fares can be raised within reason every time a major rapid transit link opens up. Say 10% for Canada Line, 10% for Evergreen, and 10% for UBC. That's 30%, but potentially over about 10-11 years.

The rest should be made up in gas taxes. That taxes the amount people actually travel, as opposed to a blanket flat vehicle levy.

Property taxes are already high enough in Metro Vancouver.

Where do other transit systems get their funding? Like Portland, Seattle, Toronto, NYC even? Without comparisons, it's tough to point fingers and come up with answers. Something tells me Translink wouldn't be very efficient compared to other organizations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 8:13 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,260
Transit is run by the city in the last two examples you mentioned while the first two have one or more regional transit bodies in addition to a local department of transportation. As far as funding goes, I suspect property taxes pay for the lion's share but in the US they also typically finance their rapid transit projects through ballot measures that include a specific new tax that will expire when the interest has been retired. I believe the usual tool is to add half a point here and there to state sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Tax incremental finance is also used, whereby the city borrows against the future property tax revenue they will likely receive from the new developments that will be built due to the transit project. The difference between the base level of taxation that would be generated from properties without the transit line and the new amount that will come from higher density and or more expensive property is used to pay back the bond that was issued to pay for the project. It can also be geographically limited to the area that will benefit from the transit project. In Portland they used tax incremental financing for the first couple rounds of their streetcar and the special tax level only extends three blocks from the line. Rapid transit is more difficulty to apply this system to since the catchment area of each station is far larger than a local circulator like a streetcar.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 8:17 PM
racc racc is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
The rest should be made up in gas taxes. That taxes the amount people actually travel, as opposed to a blanket flat vehicle levy.

Property taxes are already high enough in Metro Vancouver.

Where do other transit systems get their funding? Like Portland, Seattle, Toronto, NYC even? Without comparisons, it's tough to point fingers and come up with answers. Something tells me Translink wouldn't be very efficient compared to other organizations.
Agreed about the property taxes. A gas tax, congestion pricing or tolls on existing bridges would be better than a vehicle levy. Tolls or congestion could be places on bridges where there is a new rapid transit line opening. For example, the Oak, Arthur Lang [sp] and Knight when the Canada Line opens. This both gives people options to driving and increases ridership and revenue on the rapid transit line. Unfortunately, the province needs to give TransLink the authority to charge congestion pricing, tolls or increase the gas tax. TransLink does have the power to charge a vehicle levy.

Funding is a problem in all transit agencies. Many around North America are having to cut back on services due to revenue decreases caused by the recession. Regions and cities in the states often have better sources of revenues than cities here. Many can use sales taxes to fund transportation projects. In Seattle, the voters approved sales tax increases to fund light rail expansion.

For better or for worse here, it is the Province that has all the power here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2009, 8:22 PM
crazyjoeda's Avatar
crazyjoeda crazyjoeda is offline
Mac User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 852
Fares are already to high. It currently costs more for me to take the bus from White Rock to Vancouver vs the gas to drive. We need to continue expansion, so we need to come up with more funding but Translink also needs to cut costs. I think a modest vehicle levy based on the fuel efficiency of your vehicle would be a fair solution for some of the $450 million.
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 > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:12 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.