Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Politicians at odds
Seems a couple of our local politicians the Honourable DNV Mayor Richard Walton and BC MLA Jane Thornthwaite respectively have a difference of views on how much money has been spent in recent years on the local Highway. According to a front page story in reference to that in the July 5th North Shore News, Walton says, " has not had virtually a nickel put into it", but Thornthwaite in a letter to the North Shore News on Wednesday, July 15, 2015 claims that that she has pushed for improvements and that the total contribution ffom the Province on the local highway is $56.7 million. That's quite a disparity from "not virtually a nickel". One would expect a rebuttal letter from Mayor Walton in the days ahead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Yeah, but, you have to understand why the highways on the North Shore has been so hard pressed for improvements. The Sea to Sky Highway price tag is Billions, not the $600 millions that the BC Liberals crow about. The billions owed is due the P3's inherent flaw, no requirement to declare Future Obligations payments to the Contractors, from gas taxes (not for Translink). No tolls collected from local residents and tourists to Squamish and Whistler, whereas any resident living south of the Fraser at the Port Mann Bridge and upstream to the Golden Ears bridge, do pay tolls in their daily commute. The Obligation 'Future' stretches out 25 years from now and where the final tally is only declared on the BC Liberal Government books on the very last day.
Gas Tax money that should have been spent locally was squandered on the 2010 Winter Olympics.
At first glance, it sounded like you knew what you were talking about, but then I realized it is all baloney.
Sea to Sky upgrade cost was $600 million, PSAB does not require depreciation and replacement to be accounted for on major infrastructure, the very specific 'billions' figure from your analysis includes a whole lot of costs that have zero relationship to the actual upgrade itself. Yes, the highway will need to be maintained, yes, the maintenance will be higher because of the higher standard of the highway from the old one, but by your logic, the Lions Gate bridge maintenance for the last 75 years should have been included in the price. Instead of a $6 million price tag in 1938, it would have been in the 'billions' too.
Also, Gas Tax funds were spent in their respective regions. In the Lower Mainland they were seconded by Translink, but outside of the lower mainland they were returned to their regional districts or municipalities.
Having said all that, your comments have nothing to do with the article that was referenced. I doubt there will be a rebuttal. The Mayor was wrong, but he made his point, millions have been spent on the maintenance and some simple 'upgrades' in front of the Holiday Inn but nowhere near the capital improvements seen on Highway 1 and 99 on either side of the municipality. However, most of the money Jane Thornthwaite was referring to hasn't actually been spent yet and is part of the 134 million dollar 8 year upgrade plan that is starting now.
They both made their points, no point in getting into a bun fight over something that is already underway and agreed to by both parties.
Ultimately unless you're planning to build another bridge all of the improvements being planned and built at the bottom of the Cut do nothing to eliminate the bottleneck.
We're not going to see a significant reduction in auto traffic to and from the North Shore unless we can offer people a better, easier, or cheaper way to get to and from their destinations.
In practical terms that means a significant improvement in public transit, which in turn requires a significant investment in both infrastructure upgrades and operating funds.
Because Thornthwaite's bosses in Victoria are so dead set against supporting and funding public transit this is unlikely to change in the near future.
I am quite sure that Thornthwaite understands that moving people to and from the bridges more efficiently does not remove one single car from the road. To do that you need to get people into busses, SeaBusses (like the ones that spend most of their time parked at the bottom of Lonsdale), or even a Skytrain extension to the North Shore.
Yes and no Barry, Burnaby has the same line up snaking through the community at 8am, but most of the local traffic is able to get around it so the only people stuck in the line up are the people heading over the bridge. The improvements will help East - West traffic into Seymour and North - South traffic from Seylynn to Lynn Valley.
There are plenty of half empty buses commuting through that corridor. More buses will not make more people want to take transit unless it is way faster for a bus.
Real solutions?
1) Build housing units that are attractive in price to the people that are commuting to NV
2) Build business complexes that are attractive to the NV residents needs
3) Restrict the Left lane of Main Street Eastbound on ramp to Second Narrows to HOV and Buses, police it, and have express buses from Lynn Valley and Lower Lonsdale that skip Phibbs and go straight over the bridge via the new queue jumper
Some good ideas from Anon 5:01. I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the idea of a link to Skytrain from one of the transportation hubs on the N. Shore. Phibbs (hang it under the Ironworkers' Bridge or the train bridge?), LGB to Park Royal (engineers said that LGB has the strength to withstand an additional raised three-lane deck so it would certainly accept the weight of a track and train hung from the bottom), a Skytrain tunnel under the harbour from the Queue to Waterfront Station?
Bikes are only useful to a tiny segment of the population. Way too much money and effort to service less than 3% of the population.
Destroying the viaducts in Vancouver is insane.
Cars and realistic rapid transit are the only way to service the majority of the population so lets put the "mother of three with the groceries all cycling up Lonsdale hill" idea in the goofball pile and move on to realistic alternatives.
If one lives on the bench in the city, cycling is pretty easy. I'm over 50 and not in the greatest shape, but run short errands on my bike multiple times a week. I see more and more people cycling to simply get around than ever before, so don't discount cycling as an important means of transportation even here on the North shore. It's not just for spandex wearing spirt riders.
Bicycling is an important means of transportation to 3% of the population and highly weather dependent. Not discounting cycling at all, just keeping it in perspective.
In my opinion 97% of planning and resources should be allocated to the transit users and vehicle drivers out there everyday in the percentage that they comprise of the total mobile population.
Maybe there is another way to look at this bridge bottleneck.
I commuted for decades out to New Westminster and learned that there were 'holes' in the treaffic flow. Fortunately, my job and my employer allowed me the flexibility to arrive and leave my workplace when I chose and so I changed my work habit to start at 9am and leave at 6 with a long lunch so as to coincide with reduced traffic.
In truth, I could have worked from home 2 days a week and sometimes more depending on the work I was involved in but I didn't want to push it.
Perhaps an escalating tax break for employers who implement a 'work from home' option and can show they are taking employees off the road at least 1 day a week could alleviate some of the peak demand on the bridges at less cost than a major bridge construction project.
Work from home is often thought of as an all or nothing proposition but this isnt necessary or desireable most of the time.
It might be a lot cheaper than expensive and ineffective separated bike lanes, new bridges or squads of diesel buses requring 'transit only' lanes.
Just a thought.
I like your thinking, but the City of Vancouver wants commuters so it can have a low vacancy rate in its Office leases, and can get top tax dollars from the occupied properties. If Vancouver businesses start a serious work from home effort, they are likely to down size their leased space or move from the downtown core altogether. Good for Metro Van traffic, bad for City of Vancouver.
Please show that separate bike lanes are ineffective. In my experience, they're very effective in preventing accidents and provide a safe route for cyclists of all ages.
Bike lanes protected from traffic are major in getting more people to cycle. Many, many people are afraid to ride in traffic. This is the point.
Agreed, which is why I asked anon Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:01:00 a.m. to show how they are ineffective. Ineffective for whom? That roads aren't safe for all users is a major failure, not only in our infrastructure but in our attitudes about transportation.
Well ineffective means they don't solve the problem at hand which is bridge bottlenecks. As 'Anonymous' said:
"Bicycling is an important means of transportation to 3% of the population and highly weather dependent"
We all know that you COULD theoretically force 80 percent of drivers to bike in the rain, but it isn't likely to happen...car haters' fantasies aside. NOt enough people like it no matter how safe.
And yes yes.. we DO know about Copenhagen. We also know that to get the ever willing Danes to choose 2 wheeled transit in winter, they had to eliminate affordable parking in the downtown and set the tax to 'register' your car equal to 180 percent of the purchase price(in rough numbers). What that means is that when you buy a $20,000 Honda it takes $36000 more in tax, for a total of $56,000 to drive it off the lot. Add in financing costs for that tax to the financing costs of the actual car and you are well into the 60 thousands.
Basically, they outlawed cars for most people.
And that's not gonna fly here.
An alternative to the Second Narrows and Port Mann Bridges
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kvki5TbN_uY/VTUWGFsejTI/AAAAAAAAMJs/hM8Yg7YJBhs/s1600/OrangeAde.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hJdQw_wCUMc/VTQuxHIc1jI/AAAAAAAAMJU/ryvEhBU3gjI/s1600/Third-Crossing.jpg
@ Monday, July 20, 2015 10:51:00 a.m.
BC Government spent $600 during the construction of the Sea to Sky Highway but they still have
Page 3 of 4 Contractual Obligations 2010 to 2015 $535 and beyond: Total $1,016 Millions
Total cost $1,616,000,000. More than twice the number, including the low-balled $600 million by Finance Minister Colin Hansen, the same guy who claimed that the HST was NOT on His radar.
Again, although I am probably wasting my time, Capital and Operations are always accounted for separately... Always. But you can get a better deal on warranty, maintenance, and other service contracts when you pair them with capital construction costs. Yes the entire lifecycle cost of the Highway is probably 1.6 billion or 20 million/yr. for 80yrs, but that includes a lot more than construction costs. Similarly, when you are going to build a house, you count the foreseeable costs over the first few years, you do not count the cost of building, maintaining, upgrading, replacing, all servicing, wear and tear, insurance, energy costs etc.
Lifecycle costing is useful in some analysis, but it is almost completely useless when building major infrastructure and accounting for the impacts in five year forecasting cycles like the government's budget.
Regarding the third crossing east end of Seymour Parkway to Belcarra. This was studied extensively during the 1960's/70's. The ground was considered not suitable and would have required either a massive pile driving effort, or an earthen dam structure that would have effectively changed Indian Arm from a saltwater body to a largely freshwater lake. So, it hasn't been seriously considered for a long time.
Anon 5:06, thank you for your good sense. While bikes and bike lanes are all great for those who want to use them they really aren't significant for the vast majority of commuters and the mobile population. Just imagine if we doubled the cyclists by 100% tomorrow morning, then that would get us to 6% of the mobile population with 94% still in cars and on transit.
The additional needs of the ever increasing majority will not be siphoned off by a trickle of cyclists. The resources directed to this tiny group far outstrip reason.
We need to direct our attention to the burgeoning majority if we indeed expect 1 million more residents in the next 20 years.
Develop a transit system that can handle the burgeoning majority. Adding more cars isn't the answer.
Not realistic. Most Mom's with 3 kids won't be sitting on the bus with 10 bags of groceries and then walk 3 blocks in the rain to get home from the bus stop. Most seniors will take the car to the doctor. Most business people will drive their cars for business reasons. There will be more cars no matter how much we wish there won't be. So develop a system that can handle them in concert with improved transit.
Who the Hell says a million people have to move here in the next 20 years? I never voted in favour of this.
Are you ever right!!! Too crowded now. Our govt's have the gall to arbitrarily just change our demographics and we can live with the consequences and pay for it to boot .
They used the logic that we have to pay for all the new residents to justify a yes vote for the transit referendum. It failed.
Lets have a referendum on continued immigration and see how that goes.
I've talked to Richard Walton about this and the growth rate cemented into the OCP. His response is always 'they will be coming anyway. We can't stop people moving here! Panic!'.
I'm not buying it. In fact, the one sure way to ensure less population in the future is to continue down the path of turning every neighbourhood in the lower maninland into the so called 'sustainable development' transit village model. (Just an opinion).
If only opinions were grounded in reality and supported by facts...
...and if only baseless comments included an opinion...
Walton & the other 3 continually approve all densification in the DNV. Staff is onboard -- more of their cronies to be hired and make big $$$$.
Alright then anon, 2:45, show us the proof that transit oriented villages won't work. They seem to work in Europe, why couldn't they work here?
Thank you Anon 1:01, you have provided a context for your comment. Mindreading is so inaccurate.
We are not compact villages similar to those found in Europe. The proof exists in the reality of our sprawled contiguous communities.
A minor correction 7:08... 'wonderfully sprawled' substituted for 'sprawled'.
We like it this way.
Our country is empty.
Spreading out makes sense.
great blog
Post a Comment