Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How much did the Richards St. bike lane cost?

How much did the seismic upgrade to Granville Bridge cost?

Granville Street Bridge is an important route for transit and commercial vehicles.

[GenWhy?]

Both road projects are very different.

$13.4 million for 2km of bike lane, boulevard trees, sidewalks and gutters, and sewer/water replacement.

$34 million for only the current bridge seismic upgrade, bridge is about 1km.

Both were necessary.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Granville Street Bridge is an important route for transit and commercial vehicles.

Richards St is an important North-South route for safe cycling.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Both road projects are very different.

$13.4 million for 2km of bike lane, boulevard trees, sidewalks and gutters, and sewer/water replacement.

$34 million for only the current bridge seismic upgrade, bridge is about 1km.

Both were necessary.

Of course. Just tired of people complaining that somehow bike lanes add up to more than a rounding error on the city's budget.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Richards St is an important North-South route for safe cycling.

Really? You should have told that to all the riders who never used its first iteration.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Well, things are not going well for Downtown businesses... I don't remember the last time I have spent money in Downtown and this is before COVID. If I really need to go shopping, i drive to Tsawwassen Mills as parking is free and there is space in the stores. This, even with Metropolis just next door to me. There is a reason why Tsawwassen Mills keeps going despite the location.

So nobody goes downtown... because it's too crowded? Not hating, just pointing out an inconsistency.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by idunno

Tsawwassen Mills is successful? I thought their sales/sf rate was a fraction of McArthur Glen.

I would lump both in the suburban mall category although they play to different strenghts. Both are nice and for both the vast majority of customers come by car. Free parking is essential for McArthur Glenn and always full.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Your anecdotes don't mean much.

How about the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade statistics I had on the quickly dwindling number of businesses in Vancouver while suburbs are seeing double-digit growth? You conveniently left that out... of course.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The city created the problem and now they think they can create the solution. Neighbourhood streets are clogged because practically ever house has two basement suites, and in some cases a laneway too. Since they've rented out their basements they use their garage for additional storage so every car is now fighting for the 33ft in front of that house to park their car and streets are littered with milk crates and bins guarding their spots. And all this not so hidden density has jacked up the prices of sfhs as now the home purchaser can afford a larger mortgage with the rental income.

So the problem is created by the "soft density" initiative trying to squeeze people in without accompanying on-site underground parking (as would be the case if the houses were redeveloped with whatever form of newer multi-family buildings). I suppose those who built laneway houses and eliminated on-site parking are regretting their decision?

[Klazu]

I think jlousa has an excellent point. I think all the problems we have go back to unaffordability. More people cramming into the same household and more and more people living in far-flung suburbs serviced only by car. Add to that no real road infrastructure investment beyond the Gateway Project and taking away lanes in Vancouver. That's why there are so many cars and congestion everywhere, all the time.

It's not really all that complicated and we either need to invest into our infrastructure or limit the number of people coming in. These are both just as viable political decisions, but strong ideology prevents crucial decisions on both.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Klazu

It's not really all that complicated and we either need to invest into our infrastructure or limit the number of people coming in. These are both just as viable political decisions, but strong ideology prevents crucial decisions on both.

That's what the Langley extension and Trans-Canada widening at Abbotsford is for. Going full Bernier seems both ridiculous and unnecessary at this point.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's what the Langley extension and Trans-Canada widening at Abbotsford is for. Going full Bernier seems both ridiculous and unnecessary at this point.

Too little and way too late. Langley SkyTrain is still 5 years away and six lanes to Abbotsford is 10 years away!

We are always playing catch up and what gets built is immediately under-built. Gateway Project was amazing boost but the western half is congested every single day, just few years after completion.

And why would immigration need to be all or nothing? It is a simple number that is set by the government. The population of Canada has increased by 5.5 million (the entire population of Finland!) in the last 9 years I have been here. That's crazy!

I know that we are the second largest county on the planet but do we need 50 million people? Is that or 100 million people going to make our lives better somehow? What it for sure will do is grow our carbon footprint, congest our cities and fill the pockets of construction companies, but it does very little for everyone else. I have never heard a compelling business case for this.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Too little and way too late. Langley SkyTrain is still 5 years away and six lanes to Abbotsford is 10 years away!

We are always playing catch up and what gets built is immediately under-built. Gateway Project was amazing boost but the western half is congested every single day, just few years after completion.

That's the story of pretty much every Western democracy though - just ask New York about the subways or Berlin about the airport.

Originally Posted by Klazu

And why would immigration need to be all or nothing? It is a simple number that is set by the government. The population of Canada has increased by 5.5 million (the entire population of Finland!) in the last 9 years I have been here. That's crazy!

I know that we are the second largest county on the planet but do we need 50 million people? Is that or 100 million people going to make our lives better somehow? What it for sure will do is grow our carbon footprint, congest our cities and fill the pockets of construction companies, but it does very little for everyone else. I have never heard a compelling business case for this.

The second-largest country, and the most empty in the G20: 4 people per square klick. Even Russia is denser!

Our existing population is actually shrinking - growth comes from new arrivals. By all means, limit foreign speculating and ownership, but without full immigration (or a serious uptick in baby-making) we'd practically disappear.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Klazu

How about the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade statistics I had on the quickly dwindling number of businesses in Vancouver while suburbs are seeing double-digit growth? You conveniently left that out... of course.

"Someone at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade said" isn't a great source. The problem with that 'declining number of businesses' narrative is that the GVBOT rep doesn't say where the numbers come from, and it doesn't appear in any of their publications.

Here's a source of data - the Number of Businesses and Employees by Municipality (CSD) on the BC Stats website.

The GVBOT president doesn't say which years are covered by 'the eight previous years' that Vancouver supposedly lost businesses, but as she was quoted in November 2020 let's assume it was 2011 to 2019. (It doesn't actually matter which eight years were referenced, as you'll see).

The Government numbers show the numbers of businesses in Surrey increased from 60,998 to 111,604 between 2011 and 2019 - so an additional 50,000 businesses. Over the same period the number of businesses in the City of Vancouver went from 120,274 to 211,119 - an increase of over 90,000 businesses. As far as I can see the number of businesses increases year-on-year in both municipalities, with no obvious drop in the past decade.

Here's a factsheet from the City of Vancouver also showing the number of businesses increasing from 2007 to 2017, so it's consistent.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's the story of pretty much every Western democracy though - just ask New York about the subways or Berlin about the airport.

Yup and we should demand our leaders to be better than in those cities and think forward for our well-being instead of pandering to very small special interest groups. Our leaders are constantly distracted by whatever the media chooses to report and not many real decisions get made. I also don't have any idea what the 2050 vision for Vancouver is being except MORE PEOPLE and the Greenest City on Earth(TM) at any means necessary.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The second-largest country, and the most empty in the G20: 4 people per square klick. Even Russia is denser! Our existing population is actually shrinking - growth comes from new arrivals. By all means, limit foreign speculating and ownership, but without full immigration (or a serious uptick in baby-making) we'd practically disappear.

I have serious trouble believing that we would run out of people or employees in one hundred years, considering how high our unemployment has always been. There is a huge under-utilized reserve. And even if we lost those 5.5 million people we have gained, what would be different? Housing prices and daily traffic for sure.

Population density across the entire land is also not a meaningful data point when there is never going to be a new city being established in the vastness of this country. 90% of the newcomers will always settle in the same 10 largest cities less than 200 kilometres from the border. If people would spread equally in the country, there would be no problems even if we would have 100 million people, but that just won't happen.

Anyways, we should move onto other topics. I know I have a Burnaby road rant I have been saving for the right moment.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Klazu

How about the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade statistics I had on the quickly dwindling number of businesses in Vancouver while suburbs are seeing double-digit growth? You conveniently left that out... of course.

Ya know, this would not be a terrible thing, and it would be a natural reaction to the insane affordability issues in the City for both businesses and residents alike. Redistribution of jobs to the suburbs would reduce demand, lower prices, and lessen commutes. I find it a bit hard to criticize something that would lead to those kinds of benefits.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Yup and we should demand our leaders to be better than in those cities and think forward for our well-being instead of pandering to very small special interest groups. Our leaders are constantly distracted by whatever the media chooses to report and not many real decisions get made. I also don't have any idea what the 2050 vision for Vancouver is being except MORE PEOPLE and the Greenest City on Earth(TM) at any means necessary.

For BC, it's Victoria that runs our infrastructure, not Vancouver - all City Hall can do is raise more money (which is pretty much what they're already doing with this).

So you've got a choice between a party that'll maybe fund the SkyTrain and highway, the party that'll only fund the highway, or the party that wants everybody to bike in from Langley. Pick your poison.

Originally Posted by Klazu

I have serious trouble believing that we would run out of people or employees in one hundred years, considering how high our unemployment has always been. There is a huge under-utilized reserve. And even if we lost those 5.5 million people we have gained, what would be different? Housing prices and daily traffic for sure.

Population density across the entire land is also not a meaningful data point when there is never going to be a new city being established in the vastness of this country. 90% of the newcomers will always settle in the same 10 largest cities less than 200 kilometres from the border. If people would spread equally in the country, there would be no problems even if we would have 100 million people, but that just won't happen.

Stagnation also means no more new highrises to photograph, since everybody's got a home. And 8% unemployment doesn't automatically mean 208.5k new jobs, especially when all the "entry-level" jobs require 2 years' experience and/or a degree.

I would definitely support incentives to redirect some of BC's immigration out to Prince George and the Okanagan (not Abbotsford, that compounds the problem). Until then, the choices are "keep building" or "do nothing and get swamped."

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Ya know, this would not be a terrible thing, and it would be a natural reaction to the insane affordability issues in the City for both businesses and residents alike. Redistribution of jobs to the suburbs would reduce demand, lower prices, and lessen commutes. I find it a bit hard to criticize something that would lead to those kinds of benefits.

Right, except that downtown (among other places) is supposed to attract everybody - not just the people that already live there.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Right, except that downtown (among other places) is supposed to attract everybody - not just the people that already live there.

Over 10 years to 2020 Richmond + Burnaby + Surrey together added 105,000 new businesses, and the City of Vancouver added 95,000, so it looks like it's doing OK at attracting new businesses. (There's no breakdown on where the businesses are located within the city, but we know where all the employment space is being added, almost all in the Metro Core spread between Mount Pleasant, Broadway, Railtown, the False Creek Flats and most of all Downtown).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I also don't have any idea what the 2050 vision for Vancouver is being except MORE PEOPLE and the Greenest City on Earth(TM) at any means necessary.

There are huge reports you could read if you wanted to, but on roads, as that's the thread we're in, the City of Vancouver Transportation Plan runs to 2040, at the moment, although there will be a new Plan to get to 2050 sometime soon. The Plan was approved in 2012; the various changes like the new bike lanes have all taken years to build-out as there isn't one huge dump of cash to pay for everything at once.

Here's the summary graphic of the reason for adding more rapid transit, bus-only lanes, dedicated safe cycling routes, and more pedestrian lights at intersections (for example). The target is to have the same volume of trips in the City by vehicle in 20 years time, and all the additional trips that are anticipated from continued growth by other modes. There's no more road space coming, so the intention is to allocate the space that there is, to allow all those extra trips without any more of them being in vehicles. If there are more business-related vehicles that are needed to keep the city running; deliveries, tradespeople etc, then there has to be a similar reduction in private cars.

It links to land-use too; that's why the City planned new stores at Woodwards, and Coal Harbour, and Concord Yaletown and Vancouver House and the Olympic Village. Those all had a big increase in population, and they all have a grocery store (and most have a drugstore as well). That means residents nearby can all get groceries and basic items without using a car, if they choose. It's also why developers are encouraged to provide car-share rather than a parking space for every unit , for example - fewer cars overall, but still an opportunity to use a car when it's needed or more convenient.

The surveys that are carried out every year to establish how the Plan is working, in terms of trips people are taking, show that there were more trips made without cars than with cars after 2018, so two years ahead of the 2020 target.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Too little and way too late. Langley SkyTrain is still 5 years away and six lanes to Abbotsford is 10 years away!

We are always playing catch up and what gets built is immediately under-built. Gateway Project was amazing boost but the western half is congested every single day, just few years after completion.

And why would immigration need to be all or nothing? It is a simple number that is set by the government. The population of Canada has increased by 5.5 million (the entire population of Finland!) in the last 9 years I have been here. That's crazy!

I know that we are the second largest county on the planet but do we need 50 million people? Is that or 100 million people going to make our lives better somehow? What it for sure will do is grow our carbon footprint, congest our cities and fill the pockets of construction companies, but it does very little for everyone else. I have never heard a compelling business case for this.

It's all part of nation building. The population here is ridiculously low for how much land it has. Idealistically, Canada sort of has a global responsibility to let other members of this planet have access to basic things like clean water and land (commodities that we have in abundance). Pragmatically, we need more and more people in the workforce to pay in to the system. It costs a fortune to take care of the elderly in this country.

Politically, we need more people to protect the country's sovereignty. There's going to be a day when Russia, China, and the US start to make offers we can't refuse. The US has protected Canada for a long time, but there's no guarantee that they will forever. The lands to the north are starting to look increasingly bountiful to other countries. Disputes to what Canada actually has claims to have already started.

There are plenty of reasons for Canada to support of much larger population. We just need to be smart about how we implement the growth.