BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I don't think you realise you're making my point for me. We're obviously not talking about office and industrial buildings in the housing thread. It is what it is.

You introduced office and industrial zoning, most of it allowing "five-floor buildings...". This is all off topic anyway.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You introduced office and industrial zoning, most of it allowing "five-floor buildings...". This is all off topic anyway.

It's perfectly on topic you just don't have to argue against everything. Housing (not just five stories) is still illegal on lots zoned for office and industrial use only. This is fact. That doesn't have to be seen as a bad or a good thing, it's just a true thing. I understand you have to move the goal posts to not "lose" but there's nothing more to discuss about that.

It's actually quite disappointing that the TOD legislation has carve outs for commercial and industrial zones now that I think about it. I wonder if we'll see any municipalities rezone areas to commercial/office only to escape the density requirements.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by chowhou

[

and an entire new line in pre-business case right now.

Would this be the Inlet/Purple Line (North Shore to Metrotown)

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Would this be the Inlet/Purple Line (North Shore to Metrotown)

Yes, right now we're in the "hmm interesting, yeah this could work" phase. The BIRT study came out two and a half years ago.

Conclusion:

In reference to the TransLink Business Case Lifecycle, BIRT is in the project exploratory phase in advance of the
formal business case lifecycle process. As BIRT advances towards confirmation within Transport 2050 and the
Mayor’s Council Investment Plan, it has not officially entered the stage-gating process outlined in Figure 6-1. BIRT
has set itself up for success through significant pre-planning work previously undertaken.59 Once formally accepted
into the business case lifecycle process, project partners will have significant information and project history to
expedite the process and efficiently make informed decisions and land on a preferred BIRT alternative to further
develop. In advance of determining the best solution for technology and alignment, it is recommended that the PWG
proceed liaising with regional partners and senior levels of government to further progress BIRT project planning.

The "Willingdon/Hastings/Second Narrows" major transit network improvement was then mentioned in Transport 2050 as a regional priority which "may require grade separation".

https://northshoreconnects.ca/burrar...ar-priorities/

Transport 2050, TransLink’s regional strategy, commits to:

delivering a traffic-separated Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) connection between Park Royal and Metrotown as soon as possible by immediately beginning the required planning work to advance a BRT option so construction of rapid transit can begin within years 0-5;
advancing business case development concurrently to confirm whether the ultimate technology will be BRT, Light Rail Transit, or SkyTrain (or a combination);
confirming the associated alignment, terminus locations, and degree of grade separation including options for a dedicated transit crossing of Burrard Inlet; and
in the meantime, increasing bus service and transit priority measures, as feasible, between Park Royal and Metrotown to improve bus travel times, operating costs, and grow ridership in advance of a more permanent rapid transit investment.

Then, the BRT lines were officially announced, instead of announcing BRT for the corridor, they announced only extending the R2 and doing more planning.

Recognizing the high transportation demand on this corridor, work has begun to extend the R2 Marine Drive RapidBus from Phibbs Exchange to Metrotown, providing a direct express connection between Burnaby and the North Shore. This will replace the limited, peak service 222 between Phibbs Exchange and Metrotown and provide all day service, higher capacity articulated buses, and enhanced stop amenities.

At the same time, an ultimate rapid transit connection will be determined through the Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit Program, which will plan for BRT and consider other rail alternatives. The study will evaluate technology, different route alignments, stop and station locations, and degree of roadway separation including options for a dedicated transit crossing of Burrard Inlet.

Finally, the most recent investment plan announcement, included the Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit Program as a business case under development.

TransLink is also continuing to plan, design, and develop business cases for major
projects that were identified in the Access for Everyone Plan. This includes the first three
Bus Rapid Transit corridors, Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit Program, Burnaby Mountain
Gondola, long-term SkyTrain capacity, and fleet and facilities plans. Future studies
highlighted in the Access for Everyone Plan and Transport 2050 include transit needs
along the 41st/49th and Hastings corridors in Vancouver, assessment of potentially
extending the Millennium Line to Port Coquitlam, and others. The Government of BC is
leading, and TransLink is participating as a strategic partner, in the development of a
business case to extend the Millennium Line to UBC.

I'm of the opinion that it's a foregone conclusion that we see Skytrains running across Burrard Inlet by 2050, but it's still technically in pre-business case.

[BaddieB]

I really wish it happens soon. A Lonsdale (having it go to Ambleside or Park Royal seems too far for now) to Metrotown Skytrain is really needed as a bridge between skytrain lines and the Inlet. It should also be further extended to Oakridge, providing Vancouver's own circular line. Would be extremely expensive, but worth it.

Unfortunately, at least Federally, there isn't much vision for Transit. Hopefully Translink can pivot to generate money off real estate to fund expansion, and that the region sees skytrain expansion as politically highly popular.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

I really wish it happens soon. A Lonsdale (having it go to Ambleside or Park Royal seems too far for now) to Metrotown Skytrain is really needed as a bridge between skytrain lines and the Inlet. It should also be further extended to Oakridge, providing Vancouver's own circular line. Would be extremely expensive, but worth it.

Unfortunately, at least Federally, there isn't much vision for Transit. Hopefully Translink can pivot to generate money off real estate to fund expansion, and that the region sees skytrain expansion as politically highly popular.

Federally, there's about as much vision for transit as there has ever been. There's been more federal investment into transit projects across the country during Trudeau's tenure than ever before (perhaps even all previous governments combined but I'm not willing to bring up receipts on that). On the chance that the LPC remains in power, we have a permanent transit fund to look forward to (which should have been moved up to start this year but I digress). Even if there is a change of government we'll likely still see Federal funds being used for capital projects as funding large shiny projects to cut ribbons for is appealing to politicians of all political stripes.

That all being said, British Columbia has never pursued a transit project that will be as complex as building the "Purple Line", it's not a straight shot underneath (or above) a single street like the majority of the Canada Line, Broadway Extension, and SLS are. Or a project with a historical ROW like the Expo Line, or with a shared ROW with wide roadways/existing rail infrastructure like most of the Millennium line both original and Evergreen extension are. It's a complex routing with elevation issues, crossing through dense established urban areas, and will require a bridge across the second narrows. All this to say, that using timelines from previous projects is going to be a bit dubious as all previous Skytrain projects were much more straightforward in terms of complexity. However, most of those projects when they were at this nascent stage took about ~15 years to go from the approximate point we are at now to completion. Considering the relative complexity of this line, I think 15 years is a reasonable "as soon as possible" target. So by 2040. Hopefully.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

Federally, there's about as much vision for transit as there has ever been. There's been more federal investment into transit projects across the country during Trudeau's tenure than ever before (perhaps even all previous governments combined but I'm not willing to bring up receipts on that). On the chance that the LPC remains in power, we have a permanent transit fund to look forward to (which should have been moved up to start this year but I digress). Even if there is a change of government we'll likely still see Federal funds being used for capital projects as funding large shiny projects to cut ribbons for is appealing to politicians of all political stripes.

For better or for worse (depending on your political leanings), there's basically zero chance the LPC remains in power after next year's election. The polls are just that bad.

That all being said, British Columbia has never pursued a transit project that will be as complex as building the "Purple Line", it's not a straight shot underneath (or above) a single street like the majority of the Canada Line, Broadway Extension, and SLS are. Or a project with a historical ROW like the Expo Line, or with a shared ROW with wide roadways/existing rail infrastructure like most of the Millennium line both original and Evergreen extension are. It's a complex routing with elevation issues, crossing through dense established urban areas, and will require a bridge across the second narrows. All this to say, that using timelines from previous projects is going to be a bit dubious as all previous Skytrain projects were much more straightforward in terms of complexity. However, most of those projects when they were at this nascent stage took about ~15 years to go from the approximate point we are at now to completion. Considering the relative complexity of this line, I think 15 years is a reasonable "as soon as possible" target. So by 2040. Hopefully.

The Canada Line wasn't exactly the simplest RoW in existence. Either way, methinks prepare for a phased construction, not unlike the Millennium Line.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No development is being 'forced' around SkyTrain stations, it's just being allowed to develop, rather than being forced to be further away from SkyTrain station because some (but not all) stations had very low density zoning in place very close to the stations. And the densities aren't particularly high, although some municipalities might chose to allow more.

And the new legislation doesn't only reference rail transit, it also requires higher densities and different housing forms near frequent bus service too, and as that's widespread across the region, so is the newly created development potential.

Only 7 places have a 60% transit mode share - the highest are Seoul at 66% and Hong Kong at 77%. Vancouver only had 15% commuting by transit in 2021 (although it's recovered a bit since then), so it has huge potential to increase that.

I didn’t say not to densify. Density is being built out organically. After all Vancouver went from 1 mill when I was young to 3 mill today and continues to grow and densify as a whole. The rapid transit network is low capacity and it’s very simple to calculate what will happen when you double hell quadruple the people near stations. If you increase density everywhere organically you have more options to handle via simple articulated buses and bus lanes and future rapid transit stations. That doesn’t mean you don’t get more density around current stations, you do, but hopefully you don’t overload them as this plan envisions because there is little to no chance of increasing capacity around them. It’s a ridiculously stupid legislation that does nothing to solve any problems and decades from today will create much larger problems (not to mention the impact on current residents).

You said it your self 15% transit mode share. Other math. What happens when you are forced to needing 60% in 20 years? I mean maybe my imagination is just too good or maybe it’s life experience. I know precisely what happens. And this legislation makes things worse not better and does absolutely nothing zero for housing.

As for mode share Prague is at 71%. 71% residents use transit on a daily basis. Chapter 4 for reference https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy..._cities_en.pdf

As for someone mentioning why I care? I still have family and friends and am invested in the city ultimately for my whole life as it is where I grew up and lived most of my life. The chance I ever live there is more or less zero but that’s not because I don’t miss home, but POLICIE’s like these just ensure it’s. it a place for me to live with my family not run my business. Still love the city and visit regularly to see family friends.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by cornholio

As for mode share Prague is at 71%. 71% residents use transit on a daily basis. Chapter 4 for reference https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy..._cities_en.pdf

The 71% of residents using transit on a daily basis isn't comparable to the 15% commute mode share here. Apparently (?) this report says the commute mode share for Prague was 37% in 2021 - so significantly more than Greater Vancouver, but not four times more. The proportion of the population here who take transit on a daily basis would be more than 15%, but the latest data seems to be the 2017 Trip Diary, and that doesn't have exactly that data (but 18% of all trips in the region were on transit). There was a 2023 survey, so maybe we'll get some better comparisons soon.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cornholio

- snip -

Vancouver’s 15% is down from 21% pre-pandemic; we’re actually under-undercapacity at the moment. On top of that, the Canada Line’s only at ~8,000 pphpd out of a possible 15k, and the Expo and Millennium are at 15k out of 26k (closer to 30-40k now that the Mk Vs are starting to replace the Mk Is). Using your own logic, SkyTrain's ready to handle 36-39% mode share and up, more than Prague... and that’s not counting all the new expansions that’ll take pressure off the current lines.

So Vancouver will be fine. Scatter all the density among a bunch of trolley bus corridors - which have nowhere near the same level of capacity - like you want us to? We’ll be much less fine. Singapore's gotten 42% transit mode share and minimal overcrowding with the same kind of tower hubs.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The 71% of residents using transit on a daily basis isn't comparable to the 15% commute mode share here. Apparently (?) this report says the commute mode share for Prague was 37% in 2021 - so significantly more than Greater Vancouver, but not four times more. The proportion of the population here who take transit on a daily basis would be more than 15%, but the latest data seems to be the 2017 Trip Diary, and that doesn't have exactly that data (but 18% of all trips in the region were on transit). There was a 2023 survey, so maybe we'll get some better comparisons soon.

I do read references. What you shared is data from a web form filled by 2000 Prague residents and 1000 residents in the region surrounding Prague in 22021 during Covid, which it mentions the number of trips by foot increased (35%..section 3.1 it says 39% so no idea what’s right but the people on this document at the front are politicians so probably why numbers don’t line up).

In any case the transit mode share is high. My point is Vancouver does not have nor can build in the foreseeable future l the infrastructure required to handle the density the government wants to create (or thinks they can create) in specific constrained area of the urban core. If they feel skytrain and some of the rapid bus routes are infrastructure that can handle the de suites they drew on napkins they are wrong. Again natural growth is and will happen. The policies do nothing for housing. What they do is force too much density into areas that can’t handle them (no the skytrain can’t hand triple or more the people living next to it and relying on it). And force is what it is. It’s the goal. And it’s achieved by pricing out residents with taxes and forcing them to sell to developers who will then build the density. The outcome won’t be good. And it will do nothing about the housing problem, there is only one solution for that and it’s none of these things. But well so do know who does benefit from this, one group.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vancouver’s 15% is down from 21% pre-pandemic; we’re actually under-undercapacity at the moment. On top of that, the Canada Line’s only at ~8,000 pphpd out of a possible 15k, and the Expo and Millennium are at 15k out of 26k (closer to 30-40k now that the Mk Vs are starting to replace the Mk Is). Using your own logic, SkyTrain's ready to handle 36-39% mode share and up, more than Prague... and that’s not counting all the new expansions that’ll take pressure off the current lines.

So Vancouver will be fine. Scatter all the density among a bunch of trolley bus corridors - which have nowhere near the same level of capacity - like you want us to? We’ll be much less fine. Singapore's gotten 42% transit mode share and minimal overcrowding with the same kind of tower hubs.

Vancouver has no articulated trolley buses with 3 min headways. If you spread something you end up with more dynamic options of handling it at the moment and in the future.

The skytrain lines are nearing capacity and growth is organic and increasing. What this policy tries to envision is triple or quadruple the de sort around the sky train lines. I am not sure if it’s appreciated what that would do and how quickly this would happen. At the expenses of areas that actually can dynamically handle more and help create a city wide transit network that is quick frequent and can handle the capacities by spreading them out.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Vancouver has no articulated trolley buses with 3 min headways. If you spread something you end up with more dynamic options of handling it at the moment and in the future.

The skytrain lines are nearing capacity and growth is organic and increasing. What this policy tries to envision is triple or quadruple the de sort around the sky train lines. I am not sure if it’s appreciated what that would do and how quickly this would happen. At the expenses of areas that actually can dynamically handle more and help create a city wide transit network that is quick frequent and can handle the capacities by spreading them out.

Doesn't need them, aside from the 99 which the Broadway and UBC extensions are set to replace. Twice the buses also means twice the drivers, twice the salaries and twice the overhead; Prague might be okay with that because they need less vehicles/km overall, but Vancouver's a completely different kind of city. Edit: You also have to deal with the fact that previous zoning/planning has biased growth towards certain corridors and away from others, so three-minute artics on 41st or Hastings would be overcrowded yesterday (that's what the RapidBuses are for), but on King Ed, they'd sit near-empty even with additional density.

No. The existing SkyTrains are barely at 50% max capacity, and we're planning to build even more lines as we speak. Also, the Expo/Millennium currently carries 288,000 people/day from all over the metro, so 60k new potential passengers (30k homes x 2 residents/home?) along the Broadway corridor works out to 1.2x more ridership, not 4x.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by cornholio

In any case the transit mode share is high. My point is Vancouver does not have nor can build in the foreseeable future l the infrastructure required to handle the density the government wants to create (or thinks they can create) in specific constrained area of the urban core. If they feel skytrain and some of the rapid bus routes are infrastructure that can handle the de suites they drew on napkins they are wrong. Again natural growth is and will happen. The policies do nothing for housing. What they do is force too much density into areas that can’t handle them (no the skytrain can’t hand triple or more the people living next to it and relying on it). And force is what it is. It’s the goal. And it’s achieved by pricing out residents with taxes and forcing them to sell to developers who will then build the density. The outcome won’t be good. And it will do nothing about the housing problem, there is only one solution for that and it’s none of these things. But well so do know who does benefit from this, one group.

Your take on what the different pieces of legislation are aiming to do doesn't match my understanding. Currently the existing zoning, and any rezoning policies that municipalities have, dictates where significant growth can go. In most places, up to now that has been certain selected centres near transit stations (Marine Drive, Oakridge, Brentwood, Metrotown and Surrey Central and King George for example). What the legislation says is municipalities can't ignore the other stations like 29th Avenue or Royal Oak or Sapperton, where there are pockets of low density homes very close to the station, and limited policies to allow much more.

Similarly, there are some major arterials with frequent buses where there are still low density homes, and no policy to allow more. In some municipalities (like Vancouver) there are recent policies that allow those to develop to higher densities for rental buildings, but that's not in all municipalities. The new legislation changes that - not to dramatic differences from today's homes, but to quite a bit more density permitted over a wide catchment.

None of the permitted increased density you would find in current zoning is being removed, but the possibility of more development will now exist over a wider area, particularly where there's proximity to transit. So it's really not limiting development to a few locations - that's what we have today. It's increasing the places that more density can be built - whether as 4-plexes replacing a single home, or 4-storey woodframe apartments, or 20 storey concrete towers much closer to stations. The multi-family option is a huge change - Vancouver changed their zoning across the entire city before the provincial legislation, and Burnaby has responded to the provincial requirements to do the same.

Nobody who owns a house, or an existing apartment building, is forced to sell it. As developers buy up properties the valuation of existing properties may go up, and their tax bill could go up as a result, but homeowners over 55 can defer their taxes, and if they sell they'll almost certainly get well over the assessed value and can almost certainly buy something similar for less that isn't as close to transit, if they still want an SFD.

[jollyburger]

Surprise surprise West Vancouver isn't meeting the targets

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/we...argets-8728498

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Surprise surprise West Vancouver isn't meeting the targets

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/we...argets-8728498

Neither is Vancouver, or Delta, Saanich or Oak Bay. As we're only half way to the one year target, it's not necessarily the case that the target won't be met, but there's absolutely nothing that municipalities can do to meet those one year targets. The provincial targets are for completions, so all the homes that help meet the target will have been under construction already, and for larger projects will have started construction several years ago.

Obviously the five year target is a different story, but there are thousands of approved units that aren't being built for a variety of reasons (including projects waiting for promised BC Housing funding to be released.) With condo projects failing to sell enough units to get financing, and less experienced or well funded developers declaring bankruptcy, or facing court ordered sales of their sites, the development industry isn't as robust as it might be, and the current interest rate doesn't help the situation for project financing. Fortunately some pension funded developers like GWL seem to be stepping up for new rental projects, and developers like MetCap and Gracorp are new to Vancouver and pursuing rental schemes too.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Neither is Vancouver, or Delta, Saanich or Oak Bay. As we're only half way to the one year target, it's not necessarily the case that the target won't be met, but there's absolutely nothing that municipalities can do to meet those one year targets. The provincial targets are for completions, so all the homes that help meet the target will have been under construction already, and for larger projects will have started construction several years ago.

That's nonsense, West Vancouver could cut their secondary suite fees and legalize two secondary suites per house and meet that target with ease if they wanted to (they would probably meet it overnight, but that would just be registering existing "black market" units).

It doesn't take a year to construct a secondary suite.

That's just one solution, let's not carry water for municipalities claiming they cannot meet housing targets. Clearly the province thinks they could if they wanted to.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

That's nonsense, West Vancouver could cut their secondary suite fees and legalize two secondary suites per house and meet that target with ease if they wanted to (they would probably meet it overnight, but that would just be registering existing "black market" units).

It doesn't take a year to construct a secondary suite.

That's just one solution, let's not carry water for municipalities claiming they cannot meet housing targets. Clearly the province thinks they could if they wanted to.

You think that West Vancouver residents of single family homes would be constructing enough secondary suites to meet the municipal target, but aren't doing so because of the fees?

I would think that any that want to add a suite (and you can't convince me there are a lot of them) might be more put off by the requirement to meet the BC building code which requires, among other things, a separate heating system for the suite, and the addition or alteration of a sprinkler system, and a 45 minute fire separation between the suite and dwelling, and potentially increasing the width of the exit stairs or corridors to the suite.

Those items would all take a while, be quite disruptive to the home owners, and cost a lot more than any associated permits.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You think that West Vancouver residents of single family homes would be constructing enough secondary suites to meet the municipal target, but aren't doing so because of the fees?

I would think that any that want to add a suite (and you can't convince me there are a lot of them) might be more put off by the requirement to meet the BC building code which requires, among other things, a separate heating system for the suite, and the addition or alteration of a sprinkler system, and a 45 minute fire separation between the suite and dwelling, and potentially increasing the width of the exit stairs or corridors to the suite.

Those items would all take a while, be quite disruptive to the home owners, and cost a lot more than any associated permits.

For 50 units in the entirety of West Vancouver? Yes, obviously. It's not like the building code is any different in West Vancouver than in any other municipality.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

For 50 units in the entirety of West Vancouver? Yes, obviously. It's not like the building code is any different in West Vancouver than in any other municipality.

The City of Vancouver has its own Building Code; the requirements for secondary suites don't include sprinklers, for example, only a hard-wired alarm. That's a benefit of the Vancouver Charter.

The West Vancouver report confirms that "Legalizing existing unpermitted housing units does not count towards completions".