Apparently the mayors council is meeting to discuss a funding formula. As a reminder, the project is currently funded 1/3 federal, slightly more than 1/3 provincial, and Translink, representing the local municipalities in GVRD region, has not come up with their $ 400 million they committed to previously.
Let me take a wild guess here ... Mayors have said they will not accept property tax as a method of funding transit projects. So , what will it be then... hmm..
I say they will go gas tax - we know it is a 2 cent per litre tax that would make up the funding vs a $ 32 / household property tax. Or something blending the two. But it will be gas tax. Why ? Because the muni's don't want to be portrayed as raising taxes any more than they already are.
TWO problems i have with this:
1. Cost of the Evergreen Line is WAY higher than what is needed. Should be at grade light rail via the southern (riverview) alignment allowing for future expansion to the east at a much lower cost.
2. How is gas tax sustainable ? What if we managed, god forbid , to actually get people out of their cars and using transit ? Is that not the goal ? So, if we are requiring say $ 40 million per year of gas tax for the Evergreen Line , @ 2 cents per litre, must mean we are consuming 2 billion litres of fuel every year in the region (yikes.. thats a lot !) . SO what if we go down to 1.5 billion litres ? We would have to RAISE the gas tax to make up the 40 million we need - now we are pummeling those left on the roads, and that is the trucks that deliver the goods , the buses that deliver the people, etc. It's a vicious circle.. we need to get out of !
Ok , third problem - this isn't doing anything for the long term structuring of transit/transportation network funding, which is just being put off, yet again, because everyone is afraid of the conversation .
Stay tuned to the media and you can either tell me I'm so smart or so wrong when we hear what the agreement is.
One thing I KNOW for sure - the funding formula , or 'supplemental plan' will not include the Murray Clarke connector, however they propose to fund it !
4 comments:
"at grade light rail via the southern (riverview) alignment"?
Mike, why would you build a transit line where nobody lives, and bypass Port Moody entirely? It's crazy talk.
I know you're making an impassioned NIMBY argument about it, but I've lived near Skytrain before. You're going to like it.
8000 people work in Pacific Reach Industrial Park (United Blvd), 1500 more proposed in Fraser Mills up to 10,000 residents, plus Maillardville. There's people here - the southern alignment would serve more people than the northern alignment 'out of the gates' - plus potential development on/near Riverview and along Westwood/Lougheed corridor. And maybe distract Coquitlam from sprawling on Burke Mtn with no transit or other services :(
I tend to agree with Mike. I have always thought it would make more sense to run along the southern alignment.That way,if there is ever an opportunity to link up somehow with the Port Mann and beyond to the valley the line is already there.I thought there was a spur off of the existing skytrain line leading down that way built by skytrain already between the Lougheed and Braid stations? It's too bad our new Premier won't dedicate the new increased carbon tax implemented July 1st towards the Evergreen.That way no one has to pay more than they do now.
Alignment - If it is along the Lougheed Highway in the southeast, why would you want light rail? Buses, guided or otherwise, are the way the region is going. The Region doesn't have enough money for light rail in Surrey either, but probably would it guided buses were used for both the Tri-Cities and Surrey.
Port Moody could have a gondola if it were extended north from SFU and down the Burnaby Mtn.
Post a Comment