3 — Wednesday, December 24, 1997 ~ North Shore News ae he a i Dear Editor: A Nov. 23 article by Catherine Barr entitled “Politicians square off over GVRD plan” was effective in arousing public interest in the grow- ing debate over the negotiated agreement arrived at by the Greater Vancouver Regiona! District (GVRD) and the provincial govern- ment in October. Describing the opposing views held by North Vancouver District Coun. Ernic Crist and West Vancouver District Coun. Victor Durman of the new transportation “Proposals for Improved Governance and Funding for Transportation” certainly illumi- nates some facts about the agreement, but unfortunately misses some very salient ones. According to Mr. Durman not only Mr. Crist but the GVRD board is trying to hood- wink the public into accepting “proposals” which will bring about huge liabiliues for che people of the Lower Mainland. The public is not being denied access to the cost of the pro- posals as Mr. Durman claims. In presentations given in a number of municipal halls as well as to all councils in che Lower Mainland, the nego- tiator for the GVRD and GVRD staff provided ‘hard copy information of financial forecasts of expenditures and revenues and of the amount of _ capital debt when the new transportation authority rakes over BC Transit, Skytrain, the West Coast Express and other properties. _ .. With no new taxes, revenues or cost savings, - the forecasted shortfall of the new transporta- tion authority will be approximately $90 million by 2010. On the plus side, the new transporta- tion authority takes over all the revenues that were formerly collected by the provincial gov- _ ernment. With new revenues from a gas tax . increase of a mere rwo cents a litre by 2005, a 3% increase in transit fares. the existing $1.90 . B.C. Hydro charge, the existing non-residential property tax and a new vehicle charge of $50 per car and any new toll charges within the region, that shortfall can be balanced. ¢.; Mr. Durham. claims that Aircare charges could ‘go up to $100. There is no mention of _.. this figure in the materials. But it makes a great : Scare tactic for anyune trying to defend the . fights of automobile users to continue to pour ae ee. 2 VA RL FR a SSI RRPR, AN Crit TPR AISA ER RE north shore news _ MAIL Box tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into our precious air. It’s a great scare tactic for any- one trying to defeat the idea of having 2 “Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority” doubling the number of buses in the region from: around 950 to 1,600 at the expense of the private automobile user. Keep in mind that the private auto is currently subsidized around $2,400 to $2,600 while transit is subsidized around $600 per year. We take for granted the use of roads and bridges but we don’t pay their true costs as auto owners. Improving the air qualiry of the region by reducing automobile pollution is apparently not a priority for West Vancouver’s Mr. Durman. Frankly, if the monev went to improving transit, it would be easy to save the $100 a year by using a greatly improved public rransit system and eliminating one car from the stable. Practically speaking, it is the thousands of working men and women, students and seniors who can’t afford the ewo, three or more cars for whom this agreement shouid be of great benefit. Who is Mr. Durman spcaking for? However, there are problems with this agreement which are apparent for anyone to dis- cover. First, the results of GVRD financial and enginecring studies of the agreement are sup- posed to be available early in the new year. Until those studies are available the hard costs and benefits of the provincial government turning over Transit and certain major roads and bridges to the municipalities will not be available for analysis. Municipalities should not be expected to approve or reject the deal until these studies are complete. We can, however, argue about the costs and benefits of what we know. Those bent on going down the great L.A. freeway forever will reject the agreement out of hand. Meanwhile the gov- ernment of California plans to turn over more freeways to public transit and is attempting to correct decades of neglect of its air quality! The time-lines in this agreement are too short. The GVRD is asking residents to com- ment on the agreement by Jan. 16 so that municipalities can make their reports to the Ret BREIY . bs atl Re USES TAS caer Me EARN RT SV EEA ROR LS oa no GST or PST * Except on watches & crystal GVRD by carly February. Legislation will be prepared for the 1998 sitting of the legislature. Councils should demand a time extension so that they and the public can be better informed. This decision to turn transportation back to the municipalities atter decades of provincial control is too important to rush, With respect to North Shore residents, who don’t receive any of the promised Light Rail Transit improvements going to the more heavi- ly populated areas, they should demand the same level of expanded wansit service as the more populated centres as a condition of approving the agreement. In this respect Mr. Durman is right: the “big buck items” of transit are going to what is called the “Growth Concentration Area.” The less populated North Shore must have access to a better transit service because we all have zo pay for new infrastructure thac is in the agreement. Citizens should request more factual infor- mation about the agreement from local govern- ments and not rely solely on press reports which are often based on conflict-style journalism. Lower Mainland residents have said that trans- portation is their number one concern. News on this issue is to be welcomed and Catherine Barr’s article certainly should have elicited great interest from the public. Allan Orr North Vancouver MAILBOX POLICY LETTERS to the editor must be legible (preferably typewritten) and include your name, full address and telephone number. Duc to space constraints the North Shore News can- not publish all letters. Published letters may be edited for brevity, clarity, accuracy, legality and taste. Submissions can oe faxed to 985-2104 but still must be signed and fully addressed. on transit issues Whitby orri remain Dear Editor: In Timothy Renshew’s Dec. 7 column “BPP's Whitby wobble,” he writes: “The 1,200-ioor level remains sacro- sanct, Durman maintains, despite fears that the Whitby driveways and other struc- tures will push beyond the line and legit- imize future encroachment.” Please note the Whitby subdivision clearly shows development above the 1,200-foot level, so that sentence not only docs not make sense, it misleads your readers (and the public) into thinking there is nothing proposed for develop- ment above 1,200 feet. But there is. While no tennis court above the 1,200- foot level as in a previous BPP deveiop- ment, this one indeed has driveways (also backyards, hence “development”, not the wilderness stipulated) and allows struc- tures up to four feet high. Further, please remember ‘all candi- dates during the election pledged absolutely no development above 1,200 feet. As you correctly point out, the OCP ‘permits 2.5 units to the acre and 5.0 are proposed. Do West Vancouver residents want to double the density there? Is the mixed housing worth it? What will it look ike? And then we have ro take the froggies into consideration... Carolanne Reynolds West Vancouver Poto . Raven Lauren BOXING WEEK SALE UP TO 50% OFF SELECTED MENSWEAR, WOMENSWEAR, BOYSWEAR AND ACCESSORIES. THE POLO STORE VANCOUVER - THE LANDING 375 WATER ST. (604) 682-7656 VICTORIA - 1260 GOVERNMENT ST. (250) 381-7656 OPEN Dec 26TH 11:00AM-5:00PM