Canada Line | Completed

[metroXpress]

In case of emergency..people can just hop off the train and land on this bridge

[mezzanine]

I agree with lightrail. For sure, translink is guilty of a crappy public consultation process but IMO the judgement is especially punitive for that. I really do think this judgement ignores the greater good.

IMo I want less barriers to build public transit infrastructure, not more. This ruling, for all its merits and faults, will embolden NIMBYs and will make local govt here in metro vancouver more gun-shy about building rail infrastructure.

[SpongeG]

the public consultation process - if its anything like BC voters it would be pretty bad - its up to the people to show up and voice their opinions and weel voting shows us that doesn't happen - people just complain afterwards

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Allen

In case of emergency..people can just hop off the train and land on this bridge

HAHA..I'm not sure about that Looking at that picture, though, I must say, the bike lane on the bridge does seem really close to the train guideway. This will cause problems down the road O.o

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

I appreciate that others have agreed that the needless lashing out at the merchant are uncalled for . . . that's what really bothered me. I appreciate that there could be legitimate disagreement with the ruling itself. So thanks for that feedback.

I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but my understanding is she had to take out a second mortgage on her home and racked up over $100,000 plus in credit card debt after the construction began. Earning revenue and making a profit are two different things. My sense from everything I read was she went from having a profitable business to one running in the red during the construction. I thought the business might have even folded since that time . . . I thought the shop was sitting empty when I drove by the other day. Even if not, nothing I ever read indicated she was still making a profit after the construction began. Making revenue, perhaps, but again that is not the same as making a profit.

All of that was thoroughly hashed in the trial, so in the end it doesn't matter.

Bottom line is I think it's fine if folks disagree with the verdict. But I just think it's unseemly to attack her personally. It almost seems a little like blaming the victim, especially as it continues on - even more comments today. Just let the personal aspect go. it's really disrespectful.

Exactly (the bolded part). Not a single one of us knows anywhere close to all of the facts and one has to assume that the judge asked for (and received) pertinent documents such as financial statements, and based his decision on these.

[johnjimbc]

I find it somewhat interesting that most everyone agrees the project could have been handled better to minimize impacts on the small, mostly locally owned businesses yet so many think it's just fine that translink opted not to. If you think that is how most major projects are managed in cities, you should expand your horizons. I've observed and studied major construction projects in many cities and never saw one handled as poorly as this one with regards to the business corridor that lay in its path. When they built the new convention center in Washington, DC, which basically meant digging a huge "quary-like" hole covering 3 straight city blocks, closing 2 cross-streets and undertaking major construction for nearly 2 years, the city provided low interest loans to the surrounding businesses during construction and funded facade enhancements for the retailers to launch a fresh look to coincide with the new convention center opening.

I for one hope the outcome WILL lead translink to handle projects with a bit more care in the future. If we were going for the cheapest option on all the projects in Vancouver, it would be a sad looking little provincial town. That seawall everyone flocks to is a complete waste of space and valuable property from that perspective. And what's with all this glass, plantings, and pretty brickwork around the skytrain? Talk about a waste of tax dollars. As some of you have advocated, it is all about miles of track, after all, not quality of life for anyone along the way.

Here's a suggestion. Fund projects in a way that does seek to minimize or at least partially offset the impact on business and residents. No one here, and certainly not me, has advocated there will be NO impacts when major projects are undertaken. But a bit of forethought and planning can result in legitimate efforts to minimize the impacts (magnitude of impact and/or length of impact) and innovative ways to assist those businesses that are directly impacted. It can be done. And how can that be a bad thing? For a fraction of the savings made in changing from tunneling to dig and cover along that corridor, translink could have provided a much more robust consideration of impacts to the merchants in Cambie Village. If they had, perhaps the judge would have found no merit in the case . . . or perhaps there wouldn't have been a lawsuit at all. However, they appear to have done little, and instead we got the outcome we did. Unless you truly believe this business owner shouldn't have had the right to sue (which is a really scary thought), then you should at least respect her right to do so knowing the risks involved. I haven't met any business owners who make such decisions lightly so I'm willing to bet there were some sleepless nights involved in such a decision, and a fair degree of frustration leading to the point of being willing to take that step in the first place. It's not hard to imagine a cavalier attitude from an agency might tip the scale in such instances, which are truly personal and emotional. This ruling is the kind that might temper such attitude in the future.

Other cities and public entities find ways to better manage the impacts of projects such as these. Translink needs to as well. That's my opinion, and I say that as a big supporter of transit and infrastructure projects.
_______________________

And with that, I'm sort of done with the topic. I will say I am really thrilled the project is opening next week. I have no doubt I'll use this line more than I do the other sections, and I think it looks great. It looks like they did a good job on the project itself, which is wonderful. I want metro-one and the business owner to both enjoy it immensely . . . maybe they can share a seat and become fast friends since the cars are so sleek and cozy .

[Metro-One]

Fine, Metro One, if your existence requires you to lash out at strangers, have at it. I'd hate to deny you the simple pleasures of your life. I'll be glad to pass along names from articles I find annoying in the paper if that will help, though I suspect you have a lengthy running list if this one woman's lawsuit so personally affects your emotional health. I pity the small child whose bicycle strays into your path on the way to the grand opening of the transit line this coming Monday. Talk about personal . . . I can see the steam now. The nerve of kids these days.

I find it funny that I am a stranger to you, yet you almost seem to be taking it personally yourself. In fact, I do believe this is a personal attack. Does my opinion bother you that much?

In fact I do ask the mods to step in now.

And for the record, a method called constructing an elevated guide-way, which is the cheapest and fastest grade separated option, was floated at first, and i do believe that was rejected by the Cambie street NIMBYs. So chew on that for a while. Oh, and I do believe people knew this line was going to be built long before the first shovel hit the ground, and the locations that have experienced the longest and most disruptive construction period are the stations, which would have been open pits even if a bored tunnel was used. And boring does take longer as well...

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I have sympathy for her and agree that some kind of precedent needs to be set so that such endeavours are less disruptive in the future, but really, who is going to suffer here?
The taxpayer, the transit user, future projects, the environment, etc. I don't see how suing is the right approach, especially when your business has already survived the construction.
Nevertheless, it is a bit of a catch-22 and there are no easy answers, no clear-cut right and wrongs here.

Well said.

If you agree with the courts ruling or not, you can't really fault the business owners for trying. This is a free country, and she felt she was wronged, and went before a judge to prove her case, and won against a very formidable opponent. If there was never any doubt to situations, we wouldn't need the courts at all, we would all just know and agree on every situation.

However, I don't think I agree with the ruling. That's a lot of money for a company to lose, and for the taxpayer to be responsible for while building infrastructure. If the government was responsible for all damages like that, where people had to be compensated for bad planning, then we would be one broke poor province.

I understand the point of the ruling though. It's not really to make the province/Translink responsible for all the businesses losing money, it is meant to encourage them to work closer with businesses in the future to avoid these problems next time. You punish people now to make them think twice next time (example: almost everyone gets a speeding ticket once when they start driving, then shape up and act more responsible).

It's not meant to make infrastructure more expensive and hard to build, it's meant to make the governments take more steps and be more responsible in the future. If next time, the government takes better steps in preventing this and is more upfront about construction methods, and it STILL happens, I don't think the courts would find the government culpable again.

I think a better solution would be to offer tax breaks on provincial and property taxes during construction. We could also offer interest free loans to businesses that were doing well before construction started and need a bit of help adjusting to lower traffic.

And most of the businesses largest overhead is their lease. Landlords have bills too, most have to pay off their mortgages and loans. The province can work with the banks to extend, interest free, the period of the loans for the landlords if the landlords lower their rent during construction (helping everyone). It's a lot cheaper than paying for "lost money", and if that isn't enough to help, then the company should die.

Some companies just aren't meant to carry on. It can be hard to tell the difference between a company that is failing just due to construction, or might be failing due to a combination of factors (like a bad economy, poor management, or because of trends).

And on top of it all, once the line is finished, property values can increase, especially business leases. What happens when a company can't afford the increase in their lease with their landlords? Their rent is going up because we built Skytrain. Are we responsible for that too? or does that take us off the hook for companies that failed during construction?

The province isn't financially responsible for businesses that fail due to increases in taxes... is that next too?

[Metro-One]

Well put BCPhill, my sentiments exactly.

And before this becomes to heated, here is something we can all enjoy....

[GeeCee]

Oh no!! *talks crap about Calgary and panics about swine flu*

[johnjimbc]

Metro One - So do you find it funny or do you find it offensive? I can't tell, though I did remove the remarks you find one or the other.

And you proved my point better than I could ever have. Thanks.

The greatest irony, of course, being that this came from a rather simple request that users of this forum refrain from personally attacking an individual - not a public official - who isn't even here to defend themselves.

[Metro-One]

Oh no!! *talks crap about Calgary and panics about swine flu*

Hehe, it is a nice contrast to have on a newspaper

And johnjimbc, i only caught you being hypocritical, but good job at twisting it in your favor And that is not an attack, it's an applaud

Thats why I could never be in politics, I'm to honest, I speak what I think.

Anyways to get his conversation back on track (pun intended) we only got 4 days to go! I am betting more than a few of us will be attending the opening and I am sure this thread will be saturated with photos beyond belief.

[johnjimbc]

Metro,

I think we both do, which is why we'd both be terrible at it . . . and that is a compliment, really .

[Metro-One]

hehe, now those are some true words!

[djh]

From the Vancouver Courier (http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/story.html?id=10f53e1c-13ca-4380-abd1-82471684303d)
This had been discussed before and raised again recently:

* * *
City mulls housing development near Canada Line station

Councillor notes development opportunities around transit system

Cheryl Rossi, Vancouver Courier

Published: Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Staff recommended against it, but city council unanimously supported a review of potential housing on industrial land adjacent to the new Canada Line station at Southwest Marine Drive, July 28.

Council also asked staff to report back on encouraging green and creative industries in this industrial zone.

In April, PCI Group and architects Busby, Perkins and Will submitted a rezoning application for a 4.8-acre site that includes the new rapid transit line station and a bus loop between Cambie, Yukon and Southwest Marine Drive.
Developers hope to build on a 4.8-acre site that includes the new rapid transit line station and a bus loop between Cambie, Yukon and Southwest Marine Drive.View Larger Image View Larger Image


The companies propose market housing snug to the Canada Line station, an office building close to the bus loop and, potentially, a 23-storey tower containing 245 units of rental housing, a movie theatre, fitness centre and daycare. They say the offices, stores and other retail outlets there would create approximately 2,300 new jobs.

One of the touted benefits was more eyes on transit hubs.

But a city staff report states industrial land prices in Vancouver are the most expensive in the region due to limited land supply and a high demand for locations with easy access to customers, suppliers and workers. Since 1968, Vancouver's industrially zoned land has been reduced from 2,400 acres to 1,677 acres.

Brent Toderian, the city's director of planning, told the Courier in April that residential land generally has four times the value of commercial land, let alone industrial, so he was worried perceived support of residential use would spur land speculation.

Vision Coun. Raymond Louie, who forwarded the recommendation about reviewing housing opportunities at 8430 Cambie St., said the city has made it clear to speculators that the only piece of property where residential would be considered is the chunk with the rapid transit station and bus loop.


[so much for higher density around rapid transit stations - djh]


"It was important for us to take advantage of the $2 billion investment of the Canada Line, that we look to every opportunity to build complete communities where there would be opportunities to live and work and for the creation of [housing] affordability within the area as well," he said.

Louie also forwarded a motion requesting staff to explore green and creative industrial uses, which was promoted by Vision Mayor Gregor Robertson.

Otherwise, council confirmed the importance of retaining existing industrial land in South Vancouver and supporting job intensive uses.

The industrial lands appear to be underutilized at this point. But the staff report states structural shifts in the economy have seen the closure of large-scale operations in the area, particularly those associated with the forestry sector.

"In some cases, the owners of these sites have been awaiting a planning policy review prior to making future plans for their sites," the report says.

Council also supported staff's recommendation to work with the local community and business owners to enhance public access to the Fraser River waterfront while balancing the needs of industry.

Louie said possible future residents would need to know that despite potential odours and noise, industry comes first.

Staff is expected to report back to council on new industrial land uses in six months.

[email protected]


© Vancouver Courier 2009

[MistyMountainHop]

Originally Posted by deasine

Like many have pointed out, she made profit still during the construction. Yes, she probably made less, but she still made money.

What about the businesses that did have to close? I miss the Don Don …

[officedweller]

Circulated to Pacific Centre tenants:

Date: August 13, 2009
Attention: Office and Retail Tenants

Canada Line

The Canada Line starts regular operation on Tuesday, August 18, 2009.
Operating hours will be:

Everyday of the Week First Train Last Train
Monday through Thursday 04:36 am 01:27 am

Access to the Vancouver City Centre Station through Pacific Centre will be available through the new Canada Line
corridor located between Sony Style and RW & Co. The corridor will be open:

Monday,Tuesday and Saturday 6:00 am – 8:00 pm
Wednesday – Friday 6:00 am – 10:00 pm
Sunday and Holidays 9:00 am – 7:00 pm

[Metro-One]

IMO this does make the two Granville Stations a transit/underground shopping hub akin to Japan during shopping hours, even if they wish not to think so. Basically, during these hours I will be transferring at Granville instead of dealing with an extra 3 stations to transfer at Waterfront.

[metroXpress]

^ it will be a transfer point and it should be represented as one station in the future

on the map at the Van City Centre station, it shows you that the transfer to Granville Station is about a 2 min walk.

Access to the Vancouver City Centre Station through Pacific Centre will be available through the new Canada Line
corridor located between Sony Style and RW & Co. The corridor will be open:

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

I find it somewhat interesting that most everyone agrees the project could have been handled better to minimize impacts on the small, mostly locally owned businesses yet so many think it's just fine that translink opted not to. If you think that is how most major projects are managed in cities, you should expand your horizons. I've observed and studied major construction projects in many cities and never saw one handled as poorly as this one with regards to the business corridor that lay in its path. When they built the new convention center in Washington, DC, which basically meant digging a huge "quary-like" hole covering 3 straight city blocks, closing 2 cross-streets and undertaking major construction for nearly 2 years, the city provided low interest loans to the surrounding businesses during construction and funded facade enhancements for the retailers to launch a fresh look to coincide with the new convention center opening.

I for one hope the outcome WILL lead translink to handle projects with a bit more care in the future. If we were going for the cheapest option on all the projects in Vancouver, it would be a sad looking little provincial town. That seawall everyone flocks to is a complete waste of space and valuable property from that perspective. And what's with all this glass, plantings, and pretty brickwork around the skytrain? Talk about a waste of tax dollars. As some of you have advocated, it is all about miles of track, after all, not quality of life for anyone along the way.

Here's a suggestion. Fund projects in a way that does seek to minimize or at least partially offset the impact on business and residents. No one here, and certainly not me, has advocated there will be NO impacts when major projects are undertaken. But a bit of forethought and planning can result in legitimate efforts to minimize the impacts (magnitude of impact and/or length of impact) and innovative ways to assist those businesses that are directly impacted. It can be done. And how can that be a bad thing? For a fraction of the savings made in changing from tunneling to dig and cover along that corridor, translink could have provided a much more robust consideration of impacts to the merchants in Cambie Village. If they had, perhaps the judge would have found no merit in the case . . . or perhaps there wouldn't have been a lawsuit at all. However, they appear to have done little, and instead we got the outcome we did. Unless you truly believe this business owner shouldn't have had the right to sue (which is a really scary thought), then you should at least respect her right to do so knowing the risks involved. I haven't met any business owners who make such decisions lightly so I'm willing to bet there were some sleepless nights involved in such a decision, and a fair degree of frustration leading to the point of being willing to take that step in the first place. It's not hard to imagine a cavalier attitude from an agency might tip the scale in such instances, which are truly personal and emotional. This ruling is the kind that might temper such attitude in the future.

Other cities and public entities find ways to better manage the impacts of projects such as these. Translink needs to as well. That's my opinion, and I say that as a big supporter of transit and infrastructure projects.
_______________________

And with that, I'm sort of done with the topic. I will say I am really thrilled the project is opening next week. I have no doubt I'll use this line more than I do the other sections, and I think it looks great. It looks like they did a good job on the project itself, which is wonderful. I want metro-one and the business owner to both enjoy it immensely . . . maybe they can share a seat and become fast friends since the cars are so sleek and cozy .