Suburban Updates - All Other Metro Vancouver Municipalities

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

That's the big difference in the thinking of Americans vis-a-vis the thinking of Canadians. Private or public developers here in the U.S. generally tend to project optimal efficiency/profitability when planning major communications infrastructure. Thus, (for example) here in Los Angeles post World War II roads (whether built publicly or privately) are generally very wide because there is an acute awareness that travel/transportation time, is money cost, and traffic congestion due to inadequately scaled roads adversely impacts both (re: time and money)!

There is big difference in the American way and the Canadian way. American always think big, building bigger wider infrastructure for future, more risk taking...hence their harder landing. Canadian more cost conscious, I am sure the planner have thought about prepping for wider tunnel for possible future Canada Line expansion. But at the time that was all we can afford, now we are stuck if ridership keep on increasing in the Canada Line. Who would have thought about wider Lions Gate bridge at the time of construction, even if they did, there was probably limited funding.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

There is big difference in the American way and the Canadian way. American always think big, building bigger wider infrastructure for future, more risk taking...hence their harder landing. Canadian more cost conscious, I am sure the planner have thought about prepping for wider tunnel for possible future Canada Line expansion. But at the time that was all we can afford, now we are stuck if ridership keep on increasing in the Canada Line. Who would have thought about wider Lions Gate bridge at the time of construction, even if they did, there was probably limited funding.

This is why developers seek either public or other private sector partnerships....precisely because of the need for greater (cost saving) economies of scale and the need to preempt additional future debilitating expansion costs! In such situations effective leadership/vision is key towards avoiding what amounts to wasteful underdevelopment via shortchanged planning!

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

I'm trying to figure out why it is taking so long for "the -powers-that-be" to effectively widen/redevelop the Lion's Gate Bridge! Seems that the original builders lacked urban vision in not constructing at least a six lane structure!

The Lions Gate Bridge is a bit of a complicated issue. First of all it is a heritage landmark that you cannot just widen without significantly altering the appearance of the bridge. Second of all the causeway running through Stanley Park would have to be widened as well which would mean 100s of trees in the city's most loved park would have to be chopped down and park space would be lost. It's not going to happen. A new bridge will have to be built to the east eventually but who knows when that will happen if ever.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by vanman

The Lions Gate Bridge is a bit of a complicated issue. First of all it is a heritage landmark that you cannot just widen without significantly altering the appearance of the bridge. Second of all the causeway running through Stanley Park would have to be widened as well which would mean 100s of trees in the city's most loved park would have to be chopped down and park space would be lost. It's not going to happen. A new bridge will have to be built to the east eventually but who knows when that will happen if ever.

I heard that the proposed causeway widening turned-down by the NDP would have only required 40 trees to come down (which still sparked a major outcry). The windstorm a few years ago brought down over 4000.

[NewWester]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Even on this right-leaning pro-business site we still get a lot of people saying bridges/highways are too wide. I don't understand it either, unless they have an anti-car attitude in general and want to make driving as miserable as possible. I do agree with the "wide roads increase sprawl and then become clogged" argument generally, but not for Vancouver where maximum sprawl is physically limited.

From what I've read the issue with increasing road capacity is that drivership will inevitably expand to fill it. The bigger the roads, the more drivers. So expanding road size is not really as effective a longterm solution to congestion as, say, improving public transit or building smarter, denser cities that reduce trips. I mean, in a world of unlimited money we should build the biggest, best roads we can, but given limited resources I think we can invest in smarter infrastructure. Like, imagine if we spent all that idiotic perimeter road money on light rail to the out-lying suburbs.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by NewWester

From what I've read the issue with increasing road capacity is that drivership will inevitably expand to fill it. The bigger the roads, the more drivers. So expanding road size is not really as effective a longterm solution to congestion as, say, improving public transit or building smarter, denser cities that reduce trips. I mean, in a world of unlimited money we should build the biggest, best roads we can, but given limited resources I think we can invest in smarter infrastructure. Like, imagine if we spent all that idiotic perimeter road money on light rail to the out-lying suburbs.

NewWester, there's a need for a critical mix of EFFECTIVE transportation options. For instance, you can't move large sized home furnishing on mass transit. Big trucks needing to get to get to the North Shore to deliver food/furniture etc. need to be accommodated along with other vehicles (including big public safety ones like fire trucks and mass transit buses etc.) on wider bridges towards promoting smoother traffic flows.

[Pinion]

NewWester, I addressed that argument in the post you quoted. Mountains/ocean/US border/ALR invalidate the sprawl argument for our city. We need better roads and better transit.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Pinion

NewWester, I addressed that argument in the post you quoted. Mountains/ocean/US border/ALR invalidate the sprawl argument for our city. We need better roads and better transit.

The argument isn't one of sprawl, it's of supply and demand. When you make roads wider and less congested, people on the bus will see that and say "why I am on the bus when driving is fast again?" and will go back to their car even though the bus worked just fine for them before that. By adding supply, you're inducing demand. With excess highway capacity, trips that are viable to take by transit (most trips) might be taken by car instead.

I agree with Caliplanner1: we do need an efficient road system to deliver goods and to accommodate personal trips that would not be possible on transit. I support Gateway, the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the Massey Tunnel/Highway 99 upgrades despite the fact that I don't drive. However, I do think we need to be careful and think critically whenever we discuss these road widenings because it is possible to do too much and unintentionally make the region more car-dependent.

[red-paladin]

Please keep transportation topic to the appropriate threads.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The argument isn't one of sprawl, it's of supply and demand. When you make roads wider and less congested, people on the bus will see that and say "why I am on the bus when driving is fast again?" and will go back to their car even though the bus worked just fine for them before that. By adding supply, you're inducing demand. With excess highway capacity, trips that are viable to take by transit (most trips) might be taken by car instead.

I agree with Caliplanner1: we do need an efficient road system to deliver goods and to accommodate personal trips that would not be possible on transit. I support Gateway, the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the Massey Tunnel/Highway 99 upgrades despite the fact that I don't drive. However, I do think we need to be careful and think critically whenever we discuss these road widenings because it is possible to do too much and unintentionally make the region more car-dependent.

OK well that would be the anti-car/make driving as miserable as possible viewpoint which I also mentioned. This attitude destroys a city rather than "encourages" people to use transit IMO but that's up for debate.

This discussion all came from news of Squamish's expansion plans though which I think most people would agree isn't going to get adequate transit anytime. Burrard inlet crossings have to support that traffic or the economy will suffer more than it is already.

[Sheba]

Does anyone know what's going on at Imperial and Jubilee (Metrotown, just over from Central Blvd and where the Skytrain crosses Imperial)? There's been metal framing up for awhile but there doesn't seem to be any movement on whatever the heck it's supposed to be.

[Tetsuo]

^^^^ Some guy is building commercial space, hasn't seen much traction since they first put the fences up a few years back.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The argument isn't one of sprawl, it's of supply and demand. When you make roads wider and less congested, people on the bus will see that and say "why I am on the bus when driving is fast again?" and will go back to their car even though the bus worked just fine for them before that. By adding supply, you're inducing demand. With excess highway capacity, trips that are viable to take by transit (most trips) might be taken by car instead.

I agree with Caliplanner1: we do need an efficient road system to deliver goods and to accommodate personal trips that would not be possible on transit. I support Gateway, the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the Massey Tunnel/Highway 99 upgrades despite the fact that I don't drive. However, I do think we need to be careful and think critically whenever we discuss these road widenings because it is possible to do too much and unintentionally make the region more car-dependent.

Large agree.

[Olden Retreiver]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Squamish is about to add thousands of units of residential

https://www.biv.com/article/2015/6/residential-development-boom-looms-squamish/



I can't imagine how miserable Lions Gate is going to be in the future. I know lots of Squamish residents don't commute to Vancouver, but it is really turning into another suburb.

I know of multiple persons who commute daily from Squamish to North Van, Downtown, and even 1 to Burnaby. It's amazing what a $Billion highway subsidy can do for a town.

[Olden Retreiver]

The new ONNI Suter Brook office building in Port Moody is coming along nicely. Interestingly, it is going up as steel frame construction, not concrete. Sorry I don't have a photo.
http://www.onni.com/commercial/office/canada/port-moody/port-moody-suter-brook-village/

[Klazu]

Gold House presentation centre in Metrotown is said to open in August. No new renders yet.

There is also another mysterious twin tower proposal in works for the area dubbed currently Silver Avenue Project. Man, that area is going to look amazing.

http://belfordproperties.ca/our-projects/silver-avenue-project/

[officedweller]

Yeah, that's the one between Silver and MetroPlace for which there was neighbourhood opposition - see the Burnaby projects thread.

[urbancanadian]

Not overly interesting, but the third phase of the Concord Gardens project is being marketed as Central Estates.


http://www.concordpacific.com/project.php?project=centralestates

Map of the development, showing the previous phases:



The patch of green in the northwest corner is owned by Pinnacle.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

The patch of green in the northwest corner is owned by Pinnacle.

I am surprised that the two did not come up with some sort of land swap deal

[Homeowner]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Not overly interesting, but the third phase of the Concord Gardens project is being marketed as Central Estates.


http://www.concordpacific.com/project.php?project=centralestates

Map of the development, showing the previous phases:



The patch of green in the northwest corner is owned by Pinnacle.

I drove by the area on Capstan Way & Garden City Rd, there are so many condos being built around that area. It feels as cramped as the Olympic Village area. But the good thing is with more condos, come more retail and that densification will add another skytrain stop on Capstan Way & No 3 Road.