Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

@ logan: the city won't do anything but the province could upzone the broadway corridor (or anything else it wanted). there's a great misapprehension among almost everyone, including many on this very board, that the vancouver charter or some imaginary constitution precludes that sort of action, but it doesn't. people are imputing american constitutional norms to canada. in fact (and, of course, at law), the city is a creation of the province and the legislature could do anything it desires, as vancouverites saw with how the province replaced the school board. that includes upzoning the city of vancouver at will. so, if the city situation looks hopeless because the NIMBYs and city property value mafia command the politicians' attention, there's still a path forward: the province. but even there, it's not all that likely, since the NDP won pretty much the entire broadway corridor.

You are living in a fantasy land.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Any ideas on where they're going to put the Main or Granville stations? There isn't much room left on either street...

They own the parking lot on the SE side of Main/Broadway up to the Bean around the World. And they own some lots mid-block on the north side between Granville and Hemlock.

They also own that little lot next to the new A&W at Cambie/Broadway if they wanted another entrance.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You are living in a fantasy land.

something has to give. the development policies of the COV that force all development into a small portion (~25%) of the city's landmass, so as to protect the property investments of voting single family homeowners is knee-capping regional, provincial and national development. it's immiserating young people, who are already suffering under student loans and underemployment, and it's clearing out fairly important swathes of the city, as speculators hold land empty for years at a time. population is literally declining in multiple neighborhoods, amid a housing crisis. and the answer isn't more taxes or restrictions to try to reduce demand.

sure, you haven't seen major provincial interventions in BC zoning in recent history, but there's nothing to stop the provincial government from acting, aside from fear of backlash. and if california can start taking back the reins from civic mismanagement and rent-seeking, then surely BC can.

which is not to say they will. but activists should work hard to convince the NDP, because they might actually listen. if it can (start to) happen in california, possibly the greatest NIMBY/planning department-captured state in the US, which surely puts it up there in the world rankings, then definitely you can find some MLAs up there who will get the problem, understand the solution, and lobby their colleagues until it gets to horgan. and interestingly, it crosses the left/right divide - the really free market right wingers from places like prince george will agree because of their property rights focus, and your david eby types will agree because the data is completely infallible on how majorly increasing supply will reduce housing costs.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

ahh being a creature of the province. that means the BC Government can do whatever the f they want. if they truly wanted to. would it happen in the real world? nahh that would be political suicide. Municipals governments do have 0 rights, a very long weekend is right. but it would never happen, especially with this broken GreeNDP government.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

people are imputing american constitutional norms to canada.

Fun Fact: the US constitution makes hardly a reference to local government.

The overall situation is the same - cities and local governments are creatures of State power, and their powers can be modified or pre-empted

But the same reticence holds - the notion that local government is 'closer to the people' (when they see much lower voter turnout) or that pushing them around is politically unwise.

[a very long weekend]

^ that's not a very fun fact, because we're not talking US constitution (although even there you have the US supreme court and federal court system as yet another lever/veto point for US cities to block state power). we're talking state constitutions. the canadian provincial 'constitutions' make provincial governments pretty must all powerful. the bc government could split vancouver in two or append burnaby to it by act of the legislature if they wanted! state constitutions in every state i'm familiar with but certainly in california make incorporated cities full levels of government with rights under the state constitution that can't be taken away, except by voter-approved constitutional amendment. it's a totally different system, but i think many canadians (including you, it appears!) assume that because of conventional deference to local policy-making in canadian provinces, the canadian citites have a constitutionally-protected status equivalent to that reserved to american cities.

but they don't! and when policy-making at the local level gets hopelessly captured to the point of actually harming the provincial economy like it has in vancouver, the province has every power to step in and fix it. upzoning the super lowrise areas along the broadway line corridor to maximize the value of the rapid transit investment is a great example of a situation where the province should act!

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

^ that's not a very fun fact, because we're not talking US constitution (although even there you have the US supreme court and federal court system as yet another lever/veto point for US cities to block state power). we're talking state constitutions. the canadian provincial 'constitutions' make provincial governments pretty must all powerful. the bc government could split vancouver in two or append burnaby to it by act of the legislature if they wanted! state constitutions in every state i'm familiar with but certainly in california make incorporated cities full levels of government with rights under the state constitution that can't be taken away, except by voter-approved constitutional amendment. it's a totally different system, but i think many canadians (including you, it appears!) assume that because of conventional deference to local policy-making in canadian provinces, the canadian citites have a constitutionally-protected status equivalent to that reserved to american cities.

but they don't! and when policy-making at the local level gets hopelessly captured to the point of actually harming the provincial economy like it has in vancouver, the province has every power to step in and fix it. upzoning the super lowrise areas along the broadway line corridor to maximize the value of the rapid transit investment is a great example of a situation where the province should act!

The various statements about cities in BC being creatures of the provincial government is correct. The BC gov does have near absolute powers over them.

BUT to go in and override local political authorities would destroy the illusion of most people that they can assert some real control over their lives by working with the only politicians whom they can meet on a regular basis - city government.

That illusion is the one that most sensible governments would go to some lengths to preserve.

[casper]

The province taking over the city government is a non-starter. Why would provincial politicians want to own all the problems the city of Vancouver politicians are struggling with.

Speaking of living in a fantasy land, what would be, cool and have a positive impact on the entire skytrain system is a spur line from VVC clark down to terminal avenue that interconnects somewhere between Main St and Broadway.

That potentially would permit the creation of a new line from waterfront to Main St, then cross over to VCC and potentially runs as far Bentwood. As we start to push sky train out to places in the suburbs it starts to make sense to have some addition shorter lines that (potentially running on the same track) permit higher frequency in the more built up areas of the city. The cost of adding that as part of the Broadway expansion would potentially make the most sense.

[Prometheus]

The province doesn't need to "take over the city government" to impose requirements on cities. Indeed, city governments are the sum of provincially-created powers and requirements. The province can and does revoke or add to them through legislation and cities continue to operate themselves within and according to the parameters set by the province.

From today's Business in Vancouver:

Mike de Jong would legislate quicker housing approvals

By Nelson Bennett | Oct. 27, 2017

Liberal leadership hopeful Mike de Jong said a Liberal government under his leadership would put time limits on municipal governments for making zoning decisions on new housing.

It would also offer municipalities financial incentives to get new housing projects approved.

“Governments are quick to impose timelines on citizens and hold them to account, but they never like to be constrained themselves,” de Jong said in a press release October 27.

“About 120,000 homes are waiting for approval so construction companies can get shovels in the ground,” de Jong said.

De Jong said the typical approval time for new home construction is 10 months. He said the city of Vancouver had the worst record. He said it takes an average of 21 months to get new home consfruction approved from the city of Vancouver.

De Jong is one of eight Liberals vying to be leader of the B.C. Liberal Party. Under his leadership, de Jong said a Liberal government would legislate timelines for cities to make permitting decisions.

The legislation would require housing developments of 50 units or less to get a yes or no answer from municipal governments within 10 months.

Source: https://www.biv.com/article/2017/10/Mike-de-Jong-would-legislate-quicker-housing-appro/

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The province doesn't need to "take over the city government" to impose requirements on cities. Indeed, city governments are the sum of provincially-created powers and requirements. The province can and does revoke or add to them through legislation and cities continue to operate themselves within and according to the parameters set by the province.

From today's Business in Vancouver:



Source: https://www.biv.com/article/2017/10/Mike-de-Jong-would-legislate-quicker-housing-appro/

Good.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Say, any ideas on where they're going to put the Main or Granville stations? There isn't much room left on either street...

the stations will be under broadway, just like the tbm tunnels between the stations.

the entrances at street level and the fare machine concourse level (above the track and platforms level) can be located near the corner of the intersection like cambie/ bway/ city hall in a new structure, or connected to a building like the bay, or connect to existing malls and structures like granville/georgia

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The province doesn't need to "take over the city government" to impose requirements on cities. Indeed, city governments are the sum of provincially-created powers and requirements. The province can and does revoke or add to them through legislation and cities continue to operate themselves within and according to the parameters set by the province.

From today's Business in Vancouver:



Source: https://www.biv.com/article/2017/10/Mike-de-Jong-would-legislate-quicker-housing-appro/

They had 16 years address housing affordability... Now that they're the opposition, they've decided it's a big problem.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

They had 16 years address housing affordability... Now that they're the opposition, it's a big problem.

That is how all political parties act. One need only look how the conservatives act in federal parliament.

[a very long weekend]

Man, no kidding. But whoever this De Jong guy is has exactly the right idea. That said, he needs to go further and promise to legislate to change the structure of decision-making: if there's a 10 month limit but no change, it'll mean just as much discretion but a lot more staff and then automatic rejections when they get near the 10 months, so as to comply with the law. The correct way would be to introduce as-of-right so that planning's role would be to assure compliance with the small things, not whether it gets approved at all. One would hope that the NDP would get this done.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

Man, no kidding. But whoever this De Jong guy is has exactly the right idea. That said, he needs to go further and promise to legislate to change the structure of decision-making: if there's a 10 month limit but no change, it'll mean just as much discretion but a lot more staff and then automatic rejections when they get near the 10 months, so as to comply with the law. The correct way would be to introduce as-of-right so that planning's role would be to assure compliance with the small things, not whether it gets approved at all. One would hope that the NDP would get this done.

You don't know who De Jong is? He literally had the most influence over BC politics for the last decade. If you voted in the last few BC elections without knowing who he is, you're part of the problem.

But don't email him, because he doesn't have email....

[GlassCity]

Project website is up. Pretty barebones so far, no information we didn't already have.

https://broadwayextension.ca/

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Project website is up. Pretty barebones so far, no information we didn't already have.

https://broadwayextension.ca/

I still can’t believe it will take 5 to 6 years to connstruct. That seems obscene for the length and location of such a project.

3 to 4 years would seem much more reasonable.

[waves]

I noticed some interesting things in their website. One image in particular had the breakdown of passengers getting off in each section of the 99 BLine, but they didn't really break down in a fair manner. They just decided to lump together stations they want on the line to increase the percentage points to make the line seem like it makes more sense to terminate at Arbutus. On the flip side, the ones that they didn't want on the line they singled out. Blanca for some reason they decided should get its own percentage point. The BLine doesn't even stop at Blanca, it stops at Sasamat.

What I have done below is estimated what the breakdown is at each of the BLine's stations then mapped that to what each station on the Broadway Line will likely expect. Even with Arbutus at a low 8% estimation versus Cambie at 20% (I could have split them evenly at ~11%) a whopping 60% of all passengers on the Broadway Line will still need to transfer to the 99 BLine at Arbutus.

Also even though Main is less than 1% I would expect that number to drastically increase when connected to the skytrain. My guess is that those getting to Main from commercial broadway and the skytrain will likely hop on a local bus right to where they need to go and without getting passed up rather than waiting in line for the 99 or spending an equivilant amount of time transiting to their work but with more walking.

[waves]

Because you wonder what the response would have been had they framed it this way...

[Migrant_Coconut]

I suspect that "but you 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 voted No in the referendum and shot down the PST increase, so we'll have to stop at Arbutus" wasn't diplomatic enough.