A scary headline on my Globe story today says the Sustainable Transportation Coalition is campaigning for property-tax increases to kickstart the $700-million transit expansion that TransLink has proposed.
Are they really? No, people like former NPA councillor and Business in Vancouver founder Peter Ladner are not in favour of permanent property-tax increases to pay for transit expansions. What the group really wants is a vehicle levy, road pricing, or a carbon tax whose revenues are turned over to transit.
But are they advocating that mayors pass a plan with a theoretical tax increase for 2013 in order to provide the security needed to get financing right away while the province figures out which other funding mechanism to put in place by then? Yes.
And that argument is the confusing kind of debate you’re going to hear more of in the next three weeks as mayors prepare to vote. (North Vancouver District Mayor Richard Walton is trying to organize a vote for the last week of September or first two weeks of October on what’s called the TransLink supplemental plan, which is the last kick at the can to try to get transit expansion funded and going in 2012.)
It’s hard to follow these transit-funding stories because of what seems like hair-splitting arguments. But it comes down to this, as you read your allotted quota of TransLink stories in the next month.
No mayors or advocacy groups are really supporting a property-tax increase. Every one of them says it’s the wrong way to fund transit and it’s a hardship for already overloaded municipal taxpayers.
But some mayors are willing to vote for a 2013 tax increase in order to show the province some good faith.
TransLink can’t go out and borrow money unless it can prove to lenders that it has a way of making the monthly payments. Just like us when we borrow money for a house. We need to show we have an income that is sufficient to make mortgage payments.
So the approval of the property tax is like collateral.
The promise from the province is that it will look for other mechanisms than the property tax, to be put in place by 2013.
The problem for a whole ‘nother set of mayors is that they are worried the province will jam out when crunch time comes. It’s happened twice in the past. (And then there are those, like Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who thinks there wouldn’t be such a demand for extra funding for transit expansion if the mayors had control over TransLink’s base budget. But it doesn’t. The TransLink board, appointed by the province, can pass that on its own.)
And Premier Christy Clark scared all of them when her own minister pitched using a two-cent gas tax for part of the funding and then she came out sounding like she was not in favour of the idea and that it’s hard for people to pay new taxes. She was quickly brought back into line and issued a letter saying she supported it.
But it gave many of the mayors the willies imagining what would happen to their own political necks if they pass this new plan, with gas-tax hikes and commitments to property-tax increases, and then she goes around saying people can’t afford it.
So this is a nervous bunch, these 22 mayors. Vancouver, Surrey, the District of North Van, and Greg Moore over in Port Coquitlam appear to be solidly prepared to support this plan. But it’s not completely clear how the vote will go among the others.
Some think there’s enough to carry the plan. Others think it’s closer to a 50-50 split.
40 responses so far ↓
1 Jeff Murdock // Sep 12, 2011 at 11:11 am
“already overloaded municipal taxpayers”
Give me a break. Property taxes here typically work out to <0.5% of the property values. Way lower than most other places in Canada.
And don't even get me started about the land-hoarding seniors who defer their property taxes.
2 Paul T. // Sep 12, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Wow, that’s awful angry Jeff. I think you don’t quite understand how property tax deferment works for those seniors. It’s a provincial program to help families, seniors, disabled or recently widowed persons cope with property taxes.
The province simply loans those people the money to pay their property taxes. It’s not interest free (although in some cases it is very low interest) and the municipality receives payment from the province.
3 mezzanine // Sep 12, 2011 at 1:17 pm
And then there are those, like Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who thinks there wouldn’t be such a demand for extra funding for transit expansion if the mayors had control over TransLink’s base budget.
I don’t know how having mayors controlling TL’s budget would limit demand for extra funding, unless the mayors refused to expand transit.
Of course, this is Derek “Hate Wizard” Corrigan talking.
4 D. M. Johnston // Sep 12, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Here is the real reason we are in a transit jam, no one will admit to it as the truth hurts.
It’s called SkyTrain.
Vancouver adheres to the very dated, SkyTrain/light-metro which costs up to 15 times more to build than LRT (TramTrain starts at about $5 million/km. to build), which means Vancouver and regional taxpayers are paying far higher taxes to get less SkyTrain than other cities.
Portland’s taxpayers have paid just over $3 billion for 4 LRT lines for a total of 85 km of LRT operating 4 lines with 87 stations, plus two streetcar lines. The first Portland LRT line cost a quarter of the first Vancouver to New Westminster SkyTrain line.
Vancouver’s taxpayers have paid over $8 billion for 3 metro lines (1 being incompatible with the other two) for a total of 69 km. of light-metro and 47 stations.
Please remember, SkyTrain has been quietly subsidized by the province to a tune of $250 million annually.
Taxpayers have paid almost three times as much as taxpayer’s in Portland for 18 km. less transit route.
Today, SkyTrain is considered inferior to LRT, as it not only costs more to build and operate than modern light rail, it now has less capacity than LRT due to larger vehicles and modern operating technique. Even a simple streetcar line can carry as much or more than SkyTrain!
As LRT has improved with age, SkyTrain has not and is why no one is building with it; such is fate of all proprietary railways.
If we continue building SkyTrain/light-metro on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain it (about 4 times more than what the Canada line now carries), property taxes & gas taxes will continue to rise and politicians will force new vehicle taxes and more on the regional taxpayer.
SkyTrain is the the reason that we are in this financial predicament and if we keep building more light metro, taxes will increase dramatically to pay for it.
Want more SkyTrain, then be prepared to pay much higher taxes to pay for it.
5 Jeff Murdock // Sep 12, 2011 at 2:37 pm
“Wow, that’s awful angry Jeff.”
Yes, I am angry. Land that could be used by productive members of society is being hoarded by those who can’t even afford the ongoing expense of owing their house. (Let alone buying it outright.)
“I think you don’t quite understand how property tax deferment works for those seniors.”
Actually I do understand how it works. Seniors who didn’t finance their retirement properly (by life insurance, disability insurance, pensions, RRSPs, etc.) and can’t even afford to operate their house are getting subsidized by the municipal and provincial governments, and being charged interest below the rate of inflation. That’s free cash.
The property tax on that land is a reflection of its utility to society. If someone can’t afford that tax then their utility to society has become so minimal they should downsize, move. Even selling that property to a family member is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
6 Robert in Calgary // Sep 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Malcolm, you are one of the most obsessive compulsive fibbers I have ever come across.
Skytrain is the superior choice for Metro Vancouver and has the ridership numbers prove it.
Calgary’s LRT has in essence, been overwhelmed by its ridership numbers.
Anyone who rationally looks at Calgary’s LRT success can see that Skytrain becomes the superior choice for Metro Vancouver.
The biggest problem with the existing Skytrain system is not long enough platforms. That’s an indication of success, not failure.
Capacity, frequency, safety. (five deaths here since mid-July, and that’s with a system that’s mostly separated from traffic)
TransLink has been handicapped since day one by inadequate revenue streams. That’s the number one issue that needs to solved.
7 Joe Just Joe // Sep 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Good old Malcolm, comes on and makes points that are not backed up by facts.
Fact A Trams can be built for ~$5M/Km
Fact B Trams can have higher capacity then Skytrain.
Fact C You can have A or B but not both.
Seattle’s recent line cost very close per km as our Canada Line, yet has a fraction of the ridership.
That’s my example, now I’ll patiently wait your example of a recent $5M/km line that carries as many people as our lines.
8 Dan Cooper // Sep 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm
If you pass a law to raise taxes, then the basic assumption must be that taxes will end up being raised. Personally, I don’t see that as a bad thing. I might prefer that it be one kind of tax rather than another, but if this is what it takes, so be it. However, to vote to raise taxes but claim that is not what you are really doing, because you hope (I would say, against experience) that all the powers that be are going to agree on an as-yet undetermined better plan later….
9 D. M. Johnston // Sep 12, 2011 at 6:12 pm
@ Robert and Joe.
Sorry to say the world has passed you by, the age of SkyTrain has ended, except for Lotus Land that is.
If Calgary’s LRT system is so bad, why are they building more? Why hasn’t SkyTrain been built in Seattle, Portland, LA, or the hundreds of cities around the world that have built with light rail?
Joe, I said TramTrain could be built for as little as $5 million/km.; I did not say a $5 million/ could carry over 20,000 pphpd.
But a simple streetcar line can, as evidenced in Karlsruhe Germany, when the main tram line through the city was carrying over 40,000 pphpd during peak hours. But of course the SkyTrain lobby are the great deniers and rank up there with the American birthers.
Seattle’s LRT, is actually a hybrid light metro/rail system that has taken the worst from both. The Canada Lines ridership is mostly bus riders cascaded onto the metro and over 20,000 free rides on Sea Island, where YVR airport workers park at employee parking lots and ride from Templeton Station to YVR. Both Seattle’s hybrid light metro/LRT line and the Canada line have attracted about the same numbers of new passengers. And let us not forget the those multiple trips made by one hundred thousand $1.00 a day U-Pass students and how they factor in TransLink’s ridership numbers and what they are costing the system.
In the end, if we build with SkyTrain, the taxpayer has to ante up three to four times more tax money than cities who build with LRT.
So what schools and hospitals will be closed to build more SkyTrain?
10 Joe Just Joe // Sep 12, 2011 at 7:02 pm
And the Karlsruhe Germany line that you say carriers 40K/ppdph how much did that cost per Km?
Calgary’s line has been successful no doubt but it did not cost $5M/Km, nor did you mention that they are now looking at spending hundreds of millions for grade separation.
Again you are picking and choosing stats but not comparing apples to apples.
Show me a tram line built recently that carries as many people as your hated Skytrain and what that line cost per km. For someone that is so obsessed with bashing Skytrain you should have that information handy.
11 Richard // Sep 12, 2011 at 8:01 pm
From the “experts” at Rail for the Valley:
http://www.railforthevalley.com/news-articles/aecom-wins-canadian-light-rail-contract/
“3·3 km, three-station light rail extension in Edmonton” costs $755 million! Yikes! That is way more expensive than the Evergreen Line and the Canada Line per km. And it is expected to carry a whole “13 200 new weekday riders”.
Time to start comparing apples to apples not Granny Smith apples to vegetables.
Anyway, regardless of the technology, more funding is needed.
12 Robert in Calgary // Sep 12, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Malcolm, where did I say it was bad? I’m at the forefront of LRT advocacy here in Calgary.
Unlike you, I recognize and adjust to each individual situation. I’m….reasonable.
I get friendly responses when I deal with the power players. I’m listened to because I’m rational and factual. You get threatened with lawsuits.
Calgary Transit clearly states a major part of the success is because – gasp, the buses take people to the stations. But for your attacks on the Canada Line, that becomes something to sniff at and wave off.
I can still find a letter you wrote declaring with your usual arrogance about how the Canada Line trains would be “empty”.
And again, for everyone other than Malcolm, the key issue for TransLink, is adequate revenue streams. Unless a constant moaning about funding and when or if big projects will get built is a preferred long term goal?
As I stated in another recent thread, Paul Hillsdon’s post on bridge tolls lays out a decent way forward. Include all the key bridges at $1.50-$1.75 to raise $500-600 million per year. Pour most of it into Skytrain construction.
http://www.paulhillsdon.com/2010/05/10/2-50-bridge-tolls-would-raise-450m-each-year/
13 D. M. Johnston // Sep 12, 2011 at 10:26 pm
It seems the spate of deaths in Calgary are suicides and traditionally SkyTrain has about double the number of suicides than Calgary’s light rail system. But of course, suicides don’t count on SkyTrain and are quietly ignored.
Some years ago an official with Calgary transit advised me that many of the car/tram accidents were suicides or attempted suicides, but not officially designated as such.
Carrying almost 300,000 passengers a day, Calgary’s LRT is the most successful of new LRT lines built since the 1970′s in North America.
As for the Canada Line, if you went to a conference singing hosannas about how successful it is, you would be laughed off the podium, as Herr Goebbels observed, repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth. I don’t see transit planners coming to Vancouver and say, “god we just have to build one of these.” In fact Vancouver and SkyTrain are ignored as an eccentric city that likes to build expensive metros that they really can’t afford.
Still, I don’t see any cities in North America or Europe building with the SkyTrain wonder system, I wonder why? Certainly 25 years of unbelievable success in Vancouver would have persuaded some cities to, with the only new SkyTrain being the JFK Airport line which was a private deal between the Port Authority and Bombardier, with Canadian Government providing the loans to build it.
So Robert, who are you really, how do you know I was threatened with lawsuits? I know a troll when I see one.
As for the lawsuits, didn’t happen – why? The defense against libel and slander is truth and the truth is on my side happy to say.
TransLink hates me because I have the wit to ask the real questions, the important questions and the powers that be do not like that.
Oh by the way, I never said the Canada Line would be empty, rather it would not attract much new ridership. Remember those 200,000 car journeys a day that was supposed to be taken off the roads because of the Canada Line? Nope, didn’t happen.
The arguments supporting SkyTrain are tiresome, just he same old rhetoric that quickly fades the further one gets from Vancouver. The world has moved on, only Vancouver is stuck in a rut pretending it is some sort of world class city because it has a subway.
14 Joe Just Joe // Sep 12, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Malcolm, you need to realize no one here is trying to sell you on Skytrain. None of us are stupid enough to think we’d ever get thru to you.
We are simply countering the BS stats you constantly throw out there, so that normal sane people can make up their own minds.
This message brought to you by the Skytrain Lobby.
15 Robert in Calgary // Sep 13, 2011 at 5:35 am
Malcolm,
Your last post is a hoot.
You’ve lost track of all the claims and fibs you’ve made.
16 IanS // Sep 13, 2011 at 5:55 am
Personally, I have no objection to a hike in property taxes to pay for better transit.
17 boohoo // Sep 13, 2011 at 7:45 am
@16
Nor do I. I can’t think of a better use of money than making the City more accessible for all, cleaner and more efficient.
18 Sean // Sep 13, 2011 at 8:09 am
What makes Skytrain expensive is grade separation, and grade separation is what makes it a rapid transit system. Surface LRT that has to contend with the existing street grid in an already-developed city like Vancouver can never have the speeds, frequencies and automated operation that grade separation enables.
The Skytrain-vs-LRT debate is really a grade-separation vs. surface debate. It doesn’t really have much to do with proprietary Skytrain technology.
19 A Dave // Sep 13, 2011 at 9:39 am
“The Skytrain-vs-LRT debate is really a grade-separation vs. surface debate.”
But in Van City, at least, we have underutilized ROW in the East Side, Arbutus Corridor, False Creek, and along the waterfront, do we not?
“We are simply countering the BS stats you constantly throw out there, so that normal sane people can make up their own minds.”
Assuming I am somewhat sane, based on this thread alone, I’d be seriously leaning towards LRT, rather than towards a couple a guys calling the other side’s advocate names, talking lawsuits, not backing up their claims, and putting their hands out for billions more of taxpayers’ money — one of whom is even claiming to be “at the forefront of LRT advocacy in Calgary”, while mocking someone advocating LRT in Metro Van. How does that make sense?
“Include all the key bridges at $1.50-$1.75 to raise $500-600 million per year. Pour most of it into Skytrain construction.”
Funny, but when someone mentioned a similar plan to toll major routes into downtown a couple of threads back, he was scoffed at by several posters and basically called an eco-nazi and told he was insane…
20 mezzanine // Sep 13, 2011 at 10:12 am
Assuming I am somewhat sane, based on this thread alone, I’d be seriously leaning towards LRT..
Fair enough. but why LRT? which corridors?
21 IanS // Sep 13, 2011 at 11:37 am
Further to my point #16, I would see such a hike in the form of a transit surcharge, the proceeds of which would be legally required to be turned over to Translink for investment in transit projects.
22 Joe Just Joe // Sep 13, 2011 at 11:51 am
A Dave #19, I have given examples of LRT systems costly more the Skytrain and with less ridership to boot.
See my post about Seattle’s line, also see Roberts post which references Edmontons expansion and the cost of that per/km.
I’m not advocating for Skytrain over LRT, I’m advocating against Malcolm’s made up figures.
This is an ongoing issue with him coming on here and other forums spouting cherry picked stats but then failing to back them up when called on them.
23 Bobbie Bees // Sep 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm
D.M. Johnson, the number of suicides on Skytrian is easily available.
You can get the reports from the BC Coroner’s Service.
In 2008 there were a whopping 3 suicides on Skytrain.
Hanging was the most popular method at 159 deaths in 2008
In 2009 there was a massive increase in suicides on Skytrain. The number jumped to 4. (no pun intended)
In 2009 there was a small increase in hangings up to 202. Not nearly the same increase that Skytrain experienced.
24 Sean // Sep 13, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Sean: “The Skytrain-vs-LRT debate is really a grade-separation vs. surface debate.”
A Dave: “But in Van City, at least, we have underutilized ROW in the East Side, Arbutus Corridor, False Creek, and along the waterfront, do we not?”
You’re missing the point. The Skytrain Expo Line itself largely follows the old Interurban right of way. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been grade separated. A right of way doesn’t negate the need for lots of street crossings.
The difference between LRT and Skytrain isn’t the availability of rights of way – both technologies have been used where ROWs exist and where they don’t. The key difference is the fact that grade-separated transit isn’t get impeded by surface traffic.
You pay extra to build a grade-separated system, and you get more benefit from it. You can’t just say “Skytrain is more expensive” and stop there. You need to include the benefits of grade separation in the equation, and not worry so much about Skytrain (Expo/Millenium lines) vs. conventional metro (Canada Line).
25 Bobbie Bees // Sep 13, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Sorry Malcolm, but sticking your transit at grade with cars is just asking for trouble.
I grew up on CFB Downsview in North York. As a teen getting my driver’s license in Ontario, part of my driver’s test was we had to go downtown and drive amongst the streets car. You had to show that you knew how to drive safely around the street cars.
That’s why I shudder when you get off on your tangent about LRT.
Do you have any idea just how many pedestrian deaths there will be in the first few years of operation?
Sure, the LRT will be operating in it’s own special ‘guideway’ with platforms separated from traffic ala Calgary. But as some of these plans call for running LRT down the middle of Broadway I can only shudder at the sight of pedestrians running into the middle of the road to catch their train.
Also, as intersections are the #1 location of all car accidents, how do you intend for your LRT to pass through an accident? Are you advocating to install cow catchers and simply push the accident out of the way?
When traffic on Granville St. or Burrard street backs up and blocks the intersection, how do you propose for your street cars to get through?
Now, as someone who rode on the Bombardier demo trains when they were here, yeah, sure they were very nice. But unless you’ve got a very bad astigmatism, there is no way on earth that a Bombardier LRT car has the same capacity as a Bombardier Mark II Skytrain car.
Actually, I think you could easily fit the street car inside the Mark II car.
26 MB // Sep 13, 2011 at 12:55 pm
@ DMJ 13: “It seems the spate of deaths in Calgary are suicides …”
You don’t have the slightest notion of what you are talking about, pal. My research on the death of a relative killed by Calgary’s C-Train revealed that there were 23 deaths on C-Train in the 1990′s at level crossings. There were also 106 injuries, some very debillitating and life-long. Since then the number of accidental deaths has climbed to probably exceed four dozen (Robert in Calgary may have up-to-date figures).
During that same period there were 6 suicides.
There is only one person who would continually ignore years of factual correction and callously and very cavalierly throw in the double tragedy of suicides to attempt — very childishly I might add — to cloud the obvious fact that grade-level passenger rail systems in urban areas are not nearly as safe as those that are grade-separated, regardless of the technology. This is especially true of systems that are meant to be part of a regional rapid transit network with higher speeds than local and slower service.
27 MB // Sep 13, 2011 at 1:19 pm
@ DMJ 13: “Some years ago an official with Calgary transit advised me that many of the car/tram accidents were suicides or attempted suicides, but not officially designated as such.”
How can someone a supposedly professional background possibly postulate such a thing without knowing every circumstance in the lives of indivuduals behind the wheel of a car?
One Canada Day weekend a few years back a tour bus turned into the path of a parallel-moving train in Calgary. That caused Calgary’s first Class A emergency declaration where every hospital in the entire region was placed on alert. There were no deaths (the bus was moving slow, and the train wasn’t at full speed), but the numbers injured were very significant.
Was the bus driver trying to commit suicide? Or was he distracted by passengers? Or was the view of the train in his right mirror not very clear? My guess is the latter two, and the fact that Calgary’s C-Train system — at least the older parts — was poorly designed and suffered from the intensely backwards idea that low budgets will outweigh all other concerns, including safety. The deaths and injuries prove it.
The new western leg has apparently more grade-separation and will exceed a billion bucks at the end of the day. And it will be safer for it, and have much more efficient service too.
Lastly, one of my cousins switched from driving buses in Calgary to driving trains. That lasted about four years because the stress of driving a train was a lot more than driving a bus, so he switched back. Split shifts were part of that story, and one has to know that this is the reality of labour-oriented operating costs with two workday rush hours that imposes safety risks.
This operating safety issue doesn’t with the driverless SkyTrain system. Moreover, SkyTrain’s operating costs are predictably lower, yet I can board a choice of four eastbound six-car trains in a five-minute period any workday at 3:30-35 at the Burrard station, and that’s only on one line.
28 Robert in Calgary // Sep 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm
I can’t please everyone A Dave, especially Malcolm. Malcolm has an ultra rigid viewpoint. You either agree with him or get abused.
(and excuse me, for tooting my own once in a while)
To squeeze in a quick post.
Vancouver does not have enough ROW’s to run LRT the way Calgary does. Vancouver has higher pop. density and more intense traffic.
LRT with -less- separation than we have here in Calgary. That sounds like a very bad idea.
What is the point of spending a huge amount of money to build LRT that is…
1 – not as good as Skytrain
2 – not as good as what we do in Calgary
..what does that achieve?
Here’s the West LRT animation.
http://www.westlrt.ca/contentabout/route_animation.cfm
And then there’s money.
1. The prov. can simply redirect monies from general revenues.
2. redirect existing carbon tax.
3. large increase in gas tax
4. system of bridge tolls
5. a basket of various options including property tax
Make your choice.
29 Bobbie Bees // Sep 13, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Thanks for posting that informative link Robert. The way Malcolmn was making it sound was that the Calgary LRT was going to be run at grade just like a good ol` fashioned street car line.
I can only wonder how much all of those elevated guideways and excavated tunnels are going to cost.
30 Robert in Calgary // Sep 13, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Hello everyone.
Here are two links regarding recent LRT deaths in Calgary.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Transit+probe+rash+deaths+Train+tracks/5391551/story.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/09/12/calgary-lrt-death-probe.html
We’ve had five since mid-July. Two were cyclists.
Of the four most recent, two are being viewed as apparent suicides.
31 Rico // Sep 14, 2011 at 9:55 am
Great to see the fine Skytrain vs LRT debate again….oh wait I thought I thought the topic was translink funding. Lets just cough up more money from….name your source and get on with it. I would be willing to pay more than I currently do for good service (even if I don’t directly benifit from it).
Now being hipocritical about the LRT vs Skytrain arguement I could not help but look quickly at Edmonton and Calgary extensions currently being built on Wiki taking lengths and projected costs, they work out to be about 80-90 million/km, Ottawa will be about 170 million/km (lots of tunnel downtown but a lot of at grade in the existing busway). These are probably the best belly rub numbers for LRT in Canada we can use.
32 A Dave // Sep 14, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Rico, thanks for the numbers. That compares to:
$150million/km Canada Line, (with absurdly tiny stations and max 3 car trains, and a non-compatible system).
Evergreen figures work out to about $127million/km.
Broadway Line projections look to be at least $225million/km.
Meanwhile, according to Patrick Condon, “for the $2.8 billion cost of the single 12 kilometre SkyTrain tube from Commercial Drive to UBC, Vancouver could build 175 km of tram lines crisscrossing the city and beyond.” (I can’t wait to hear the Condon-slagging).
But most experts seem to agree good systems have a mix of types. I don’t see why we wouldn’t take a breather from the extreme cost of Skytrain, and try something new? I have yet to see a compelling enough reason to spend the money and slavishly build more Skytrain.
The official Translink/City comparisons I’ve been looking at suggest that Robert’s claim of LRT being a vastly inferior system with a huge pricetag are not at all accurate.
Maybe both sides of this debate have blinders on and are cherry-picking their data?
33 Bill Lee // Sep 14, 2011 at 8:11 pm
And of course Richard Campbell has to rally the bicycle [alliterative pejorative] with a mass emailing from his richard.campbell.lists@gmail.com to a half dozen mailing lists, saying :
Subject: Transit Advocates Launch Campaign for More Funding. Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:21:36 -0700
“Good article with a rather unfortunate headline. The campaign is for funding for transit (and cycling). While property tax (and gas tax) is in the current plan, we strongly support efforts to find other sources like road pricing, vehicle levies and carbon tax. It is important for them to approve the current plan so Evergreen Line construction can begin.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/transit-advocates-
launch-campaign-for-property-tax-hike/article2161676
Letters to the editor:
letters@GlobeAndMail.ca
A good idea to write your mayor and the others as well in support of transit and transit funding. The ones close to the top of the list need the most encouragement.
Burnaby- Mayor Derek Corrigan, mayor.corrigan@burnaby.ca
Richmond – Mayor Malcolm Brodie, mbrodie@richmond.ca
North Van City – Mayor Darrell Mussatto, dmussatto@cnv.org
Delta – Mayor Lois Jackson, LJackson@corp.delta.bc.ca
Pitt Meadows – Mayor Don MacLean, dmaclean@pittmeadows.bc.ca
Lion’s Bay – Mayor Brenda Broughton, bbroughton@telus.net
Langley Township – Rick Green, rgreen@tol.bc.ca
New Westminster – Mayor Wayne, Wright wright@city.new-westminster.bc.ca
Port Coquitlam – Mayor Greg Moore, mooreg@portcoquitlam.ca
White Rock – Mayor Catherine Ferguson, ferguson@city.whiterock.bc.ca
Maple Ridge – Mayor Ernie Daykin, daykin@mapleridge.ca
Surrey – Mayor Dianne Watts, dlwatts@surrey.ca
Coquitlam – Mayor Richard Stewart, rstewart@coquitlam.ca
Vancouver – Mayor Gregor Robertson, gregor.robertson@vancouver.ca
W. Van – Mayor Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, goldsmith-jones@westvancouver.ca
Langley City – Mayor Peter Fassbender, mayor@langleycity.ca
N. Van District – Mayor Richard Walton, waltonr@dnv.org
Thanks
Richard”
———–
Only 80 comments to the Globe and Mail article and what might be expected from the newspaper commentaritat these days.
Does Astroturfing work? Hasn’t it had its day and that the Post Office is more reliable, thoiugh less easy, (like taking the bus for 10 minutes rather than driving for 15 minutes)
Sigh
34 MB // Sep 15, 2011 at 8:50 am
@ Rico, we need it all.
My problem is when the technology and costs become the only considerations, well ahead of quality of service and the notion that you build to suit the city’s structure and character of tomorrow, not just today.
No one in their right mind mind would propose a subway or SkyTrain in the Township of Langley. Likewise, proposing a milk run surface tram designed for slow local service on Central Broadway makes about as much sense.
With the latter, if the planners choose to listen only to the narrow message of the Light Rail Lobby (tongue in cheek here) then I say just stick with improving the B-Line and save us a billion bucks, because the quality of service with trams will not increase much over the B-Line on this corridor.
The Arbutus corridor, 41st Ave, Fraser Highway, 200th St ….. bring ‘em on.
And please never forget the lowly bus. They are the flesh on the rail bones.
No major transit project should proceed without a proper risk assessment. The dozens of accidental deaths and hundreds of injuries (not to mention the payouts to families) in Calgary are proof that the advent of light rail was not subjected initially to an independent risk assessment. Perhaps they have learned the hard way and performed one for the design of the western leg, hence its much greater built-in grade separation.
Most of the comments about cost are quite naive and obviously stem from a lack of understanding about construction. Also, nobody who cites these often incredibly low low per-km numbers care to address the operating costs of labour-intensive surface rail over the decades, nor its impact on the frequency of service.
35 Robert in Calgary // Sep 15, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Re: #32
That’s a vast misrepresentation of what I wrote.
Your thinking is as rigid as Malcolm’s.
36 Robert in Calgary // Sep 15, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Re: #34 – MB, an excellent post
Another issue that has been simmering here in Calgary has finally made to the front page.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/expect+quick+Train+woes+transit+officials+warn/5404029/story.html
“After a nasty string of breakdowns on the LRT system that hundreds of thousands rely on daily, Calgary Transit’s director is warning riders to be ready for more of the same.
The C-Train celebrated its 30th birthday this year as one of North America’s busiest light-rail lines, and many of the original cars, overhead electrical gear and other infrastructure are still in grindingly heavy use.”
37 MB // Sep 15, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Interesting article, Robert. I left Calgary for new horizons two years prior to the implementation of the C-Train.
The thing does have very good ridership numbers, but as an urban designer I see that as quite artificial.
After 30 years you think they would have created better neighbourhoods within walking distance of the stations. But several big mistakes were made, one of them placing a number of key stations in industrial areas (Chinook comes to mind, and Heritage to an extent).
This was part of the “cheapness” I alluded to earlier; Chinook Station should have been placed at Chinook Centre and occupied a big chunk of the land now devoted to a sea of cars.
Heritage has been retofitted as an afterthought cluster of towers, but the walk to/from the station remains cluttered with asphalt parkin lots and roads where there should be a village square and shops. You get the picture.
Moreover, the ridership reflects a good deal of people who still drive, but to the huge park and ride facilities. It’s better than before, but there is a long ways to go.
And the evidence that three decades of LRT supposedly had a positive impact isn’t obvious at all to those of us who visit regularly and are forced to use hundreds and hundreds of km of arterials lined with hundreds and hundreds of km of concrete sound walls, and drive for hours through a sparsely-populated landscape.
I have my favourite spots, notably the historic inner city neighbourhoods, but I start to get unconfortable with everything beyond the 1960s ring of suburbs where triple garage door facades and mallitecture take over.
That is not sustainable. Calgary will be one of the hardest hit cities when gasoline tops $2 a litre in the next few years. Not even the new premier (whoever that will be) will be able to control the world price of oil.
So, I wish them well in finding new funds for maintenance (another aspect of the ongoing operating costs) for the C-Train and buses. With that in mind coupled with Calgary’s sprawl, I really don’t know where they will get the funds to expand transit when the time comes.
Where is Steve on this issue in his own city?
38 A Dave // Sep 16, 2011 at 12:44 am
“proposing a milk run surface tram designed for slow local service on Central Broadway makes about as much sense.’
Translink site shows a 9 minute difference between LRT and Skytrain on Broadway…
“After 30 years you think they would have created better neighbourhoods within walking distance of the stations.”
Which neighbourhoods have improved markedly near a Skytrain station? How many have gotten worse, less safe, seen a loss in property values?
“the evidence that three decades of LRT supposedly had a positive impact isn’t obvious at all to those of us who visit regularly and are forced to use hundreds and hundreds of km of arterials lined with hundreds and hundreds of km of concrete sound walls, and drive for hours through a sparsely-populated landscape.”
I guess it’s too bad they don’t have a Gateway project underway, seeing as 30 years of Skytrain has had such a positive impact on traffic.
According to MB’s stats, the 48+/- deaths over 30 years in Calgary don’t average out to much different than Skytrain’s, do they? Don’t mean to be callous here. But it certainly does seem that the new lines are mitigating the risks substantially.
Apologies for sounding naive, I guess there’s no point in the plebs educating themselves on where our tax dollars will spent. We should just trust that the experts will always know how best to spend our money, or at least belittle anyone who questions them….
39 MB // Sep 16, 2011 at 11:55 am
A Dave 38: “Translink site shows a 9 minute difference between LRT and Skytrain on Broadway…”
Until a collision occurs with a pedestrian or vehicle which, with 38 very active intersections from Main to Alma (and often heavy pedestrian, bike and vehicular cross traffic) will inevitably be frequent.
The 9-minute difference may well pertain to a faster LRT with limited stops, which will require a dedicated fenced median. Now what would that kind of barrier do to the 24 signalized intersections between the N-S arterials and the free flow of walk-in business? Would Vancouver city hall allow its non-arterial N-S routes / greenways / bikeways / commercial vehicle access to be severed across half the city?
“Which neighbourhoods have improved markedly near a Skytrain station? How many have gotten worse, less safe, seen a loss in property values?”
SkyTrain has recouped much of its value in terms of the real estate deveopment adjacent to the stations, notably the Expo Line. In fact, I’d venture a guess that the EL has now generated more than its construction cost in high density residential and commerial space. Value is value, no matter what the form.
But that doesn’t mean the character and urban design of buildings and neighbourhoods clustered around SkyTrain stations cannot be improved. If you dig back a bit in the Bulablog archives you’ll find lots of comments by yours truly supporting human-scaled urbanism.
I don’t have crime stats at hand, but the notion that rapid transit lines transports criminals can apply just as well to any arterial or freeway. Crime is not confined to transit corridors. In fact, perhaps more crime is committed in bedrooms and living rooms than anywhere else.
“I guess it’s too bad they don’t have a Gateway project underway, seeing as 30 years of Skytrain has had such a positive impact on traffic.”
Gateway was built on a totally different premise: That commercial and port traffic require a transport response similar to LA’s in the 50s. That premise is very shaky. In fact, there is evidence it was built to please the car commuters and suburban real estate development in Kevin Falcon’s riding (Stephen Rees has a lot to say about thison his blog).
Freeways do not contribute in any way to compact, transit-oriented development or to livable human habitation. The urbanization around SkyTrain, though tower-dominated and in need of a rethink, is a completely different animal.
And Dave, take suicides out of the death-by-train equation (why would any reasonable person include them or even maintenance deaths anyway?) and the score is: Calgary – 48+, Metro Vancouver – 0.
40 chris // Sep 21, 2011 at 10:22 am
Ah good old Donald Malcolm Johnston. throwing out the same old biased crap again. Yawn. Thank goodness decision makers are smart enough not to listen to lunatics. Prepare for more skytrain my friend.
Leave a Comment