6 —- North Shore News - Wednesday. December 6, 2000 Deck de North Shore’s best known three lanes of commuter misery were at it again over the week- end. If you were one of the hundreds of commuters caught Sunday in traffic bound to or from the North Shore, you don’t need to be told which three lanes we're talking about. For everyone else, it will be of little surprise to learn that the installation of Lions Gate Bridge deck section 10 of 54 during another all-night bridge clo- sure did not go as smoothly as planned. The scheduled bridge reopening time of 2 p.m. Sunday was missed by approximately four hours. That delay _ predictably snarled local traffic all : Sunday afternoon. It also predictably followed what has become an unset- ‘thing pattern of delays and miscalcula- tions surrounding the $100 million “Lions Gate Bridge refurbishment. mailbox Dear Editor: Tim Renshaw's “ripping } yarns” (Heritage and Other Sea Battles — Nov. 15) i is a-great.base to work from in -questioning -the so’ called revitalization of Lower Lonsdale.’ Grandiose plans stich as the street car and marine museum may help relive the history of the area, but what VIEW POINT: For example, the project was initia!- ly scheduled to begin in the fall of 1999 and be completed Iast month. But since the bridge deck replace- ment end of the project began in September only 10 bridge sections have been instailed. That leaves 44 to go, and the majority of the remaining 44 make up the bridge deck that cross- es the heavily used First Narrows ship- ping lanes. Bridge crews will also have to deal with complexities of First Narrows tides and currents, So the easy part of the bridge deck replacement is done; the hardest part lies ahead. The most recent estimate for com- pleting installation of the remaining bridge deck sections is June 2001. North Shore commuters will be excused if they view that estimate as lit- tle more than public relations wishful thinking. HEY, North Vancouver: time to give your Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) represen- . tatives the heave ho. - Reason: they might be representing some- body bur that somebody doesn’t live in these parts. In case you've mis- placed your municipal score card your GVRD representative in North Vancouver District is Mayor Don Bell; in North Vancouver City . it’s Ma yor Barb Sharp. - 0 vehicle levy last Friday. Both did so even though nobody in voted for the Greater Vancouver l a RAT tpg Bt AD ORES ot Laker? aPC Bete seme ‘For'some | lanning direction, Seattie’s Pioneer Square: and. Fisti Market or San Francisco’s Fisherman's Wharf are . se examples'of what could be done with lots of fore- (eee cations of every decision they make in regards ond ‘Almas? ship that’ ‘they will have to y about sinking, it will be theirs.” 7 Ron Penwill : a pe. vou HAVE A STORY IDA? Hours: Sharon Cocomile :. > Editorial Assistant - 985-2131, local 120. ae mated to hit close to $1 billion over the Sublsrban’ ewspaper and qualified ‘under Schedule” 2, cg 11 ie Ei se and counci must look carefully at the long: - either municipality supports what is anoth- er.tax to finance 2 regional transit operation and Strategic Transportation Pian that’s off-track, off-road and out of control. Both did so even though the levy, which will range from $40 to $190 per vehicle next year but will increase at least -. five per cent in subsequent years, will result in zero benefits for North Shore com- 7 Both did so even though the entire five. year $1.4-billion Lower Mainland transit plan appreved last May includes only cos- metic additions to North Shore transit: facilities and ignores recommendations for: ~»a third ScaBus and other needed North | _. Shore improvements Granted, the priorities of the funding ° “approach approved Friday by the GVRD © ‘: board are to continue lobbying the federal. and provincial governments for the funds’: needed to offset a TransLink deficit «sti- General Manager 985-2131 (133) oc snares com: next 10 years. But if anyone believes either government will come through with those _ Mnillions after the region has approved insti- tution of the vehicle levy he or she has been inhal- motiiy ing too much medicinal , marijuana. Not only would the levy have been defeated had’ the two North Vancouvers voted against it, a no vote from the municipalities’ represen- tatives would also have accurately reflected the area's atatude towards the levy. - Eartier this year, for example, 95 per... cent of respondents to a telephone referen- ” dum conducted by the North Shore-based Coalition for Accountability in. Government Expenditures opposed any vehicle levy. I'd wager that percentage hasn’t changed a lick. But Friday’s GVRD board meeting shows North Vancouver unani- _mously on board the levy bus. a ’. That's wrong. - me North Shore transit concerns remain on ripping yarns distant TransLink backburners. The vehicle. \-. levy wilt'do nothing to change that; it will also do nothing to improve or increase the | ‘carrying capacity of the region "s arterial Toads and bridges. ; ~ It’s a subsidy from the rest of the © —GVRD for Burnaby, New Westminster and :, . ~: Vancouver commuters. Full stop.“ -*. The $996 million TransLink hopes to - "generate over the next 10 years from the -- ool levy will be poured into the $2 billion * : financial blackhole better known as the ° ~ SkyTrain extension.» © : The levy will not balance the TransLink 2 books, Even if TransLink finds a way to ws LETTERS TO THE EDITOR must include your name, full. address . and . telephone number.: . . " Sobmit via e-mail fo: mbocker@nsnews.com ; collect that levy, your rey jonal transit sys 7 ce ‘tem will still be Hopelessly in the glue — ~ after 10 years somewhere around $285 :. milion, this even though ‘TransLink i is legally prohibited from running a deficit. : AS pointed out by urban’s gon consultant Ron Stromberg in a briefing” paper to the GVRD board prior to Friday vote, 95 per cent of the dollars earmarked over the next 10 years for TransLink’s:, Strategic Transportation Plan are transit- related A paltry five per cent will go to. - Maintaining road infrastructure.:: As with most issues involvin ; TransLink and regional transit, the rationale for that inequity doesn’t add up. For example th projected $8-billion investment in transit- related operating costs aid debt servicin; . charges over the next.10 years will only marginally increase transit usage: from the“ current 11 perce cent to 12.5 per cent by ry debate has centred inds will come fom 2005. Big , Recent vehicle ke on where additional . | to pay for TransLink’s transportation plan. ’ Missing in action is‘any mcanin cussion of the plan itself, any consi of how current funding can be, bette: or how the system can be made more =: dent. The source of additional funding | -Moot point. As the well " there’s only one taxpayer. And that taxpayer; given the extrav . gance of a SkyTrain compou 7 under-used, under-poticed an ized, can’t afford the current transit plan. . That’s what North Vancouver GVRD ” and TransLink represeatatives : should bé telling the unelected GVRD brotherh on behaif of their constituents - They haven’t been tha ‘North Vancouver needs soi "1139 Lonsdale Avenue. North Vancouver, BC .7M 2H