North Shore Updates

[Vin]

delete

[officedweller]

1220 St. Georges Avenue

The proposal for the site is a new 6-storey rental building that includes:

58 units;
17 studios, 23 one-bedrooms, 12 two-bedrooms & 6 three-bedrooms;
a total density of 2.59 FSR;
a rooftop amenity deck;
a building height of 59 ft.;
32 underground parking stalls.

https://vancouvermarket.ca/2021/07/15/58-unit-rental-project-slated-for-central-lonsdale-site/


https://vancouvermarket.ca/2021/07/15/58-unit-rental-project-slated-for-central-lonsdale-site/


https://vancouvermarket.ca/2021/07/15/58-unit-rental-project-slated-for-central-lonsdale-site/


https://vancouvermarket.ca/2021/07/15/58-unit-rental-project-slated-for-central-lonsdale-site/

[officedweller]

Squamish First Nation set to decide on building over 400 affordable rental homes

... next to Phibbs Exchange


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/squamish-first-nation-housing-referendum

[Tvisforme]

Does anyone here have insight into pilot programs for bike lanes in the District? There was one person on Reddit who mentioned a plan to temporarily convert a portion of upper Mountain Highway to one-way vehicle traffic downhill to allow for a bike lane, with Dempsey going one-way for uphill. That doesn't even make sense logistically, so I am wondering if perhaps they misunderstood and the proposal is to removing parking and make one-way bike lanes on those streets. I found a mention of a future bike lane on MH on the District's website, but it did not have details. There is a pilot underway on Lynn Valley Road for an uphill bike lane IIRC.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Does anyone here have insight into pilot programs for bike lanes in the District? There was one person on Reddit who mentioned a plan to temporarily convert a portion of upper Mountain Highway to one-way vehicle traffic downhill to allow for a bike lane, with Dempsey going one-way for uphill. That doesn't even make sense logistically, so I am wondering if perhaps they misunderstood and the proposal is to removing parking and make one-way bike lanes on those streets. I found a mention of a future bike lane on MH on the District's website, but it did not have details. There is a pilot underway on Lynn Valley Road for an uphill bike lane IIRC.

I assume that stretch with 3 lanes would go down to 2.

Mountain Highway route
The Mountain Highway route will be done later, as it involves removing a climbing lane along a main artery, and will need to be separated from traffic.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/79105122352f458d81ccac2d218165cd

Vancouver bicycle lanes are somewhat plausible with the density and certain areas that aren't as terrain challenged. But some of these plans seem pie in the sky unless e-bike prices drop a lot.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Vancouver bicycle lanes are somewhat plausible with the density and certain areas that aren't as terrain challenged. But some of these plans seem pie in the sky unless e-bike prices drop a lot.

Taking out a climbing lane seems terrible. However, North Van does have an e-bike share now thanks to Lime.

Is there a reason they couldn't just add-on a bike lane?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Vancouver bicycle lanes are somewhat plausible with the density and certain areas that aren't as terrain challenged. But some of these plans seem pie in the sky unless e-bike prices drop a lot.

You don't have to own an e-bike on the North Shore; there are Lime e-bike rentals now.

[Klazu]

"Removing a climbing lane along a main artery."

Bicycle Nazism is strong on the North Shore. With traffic having become a daily gridlock throughout North Shore, you would think that someone would say enough is enough.

Why is it that no new bicycle infrastructure can be created without taking away from the already lacking car infrastructure? I think owning a bicycle should also come with its own annual road tax to help fund these projects. Currently it's the car owners funding much of this through their billions of dollars in gas taxes.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Taking out a climbing lane seems terrible. However, North Van does have an e-bike share now thanks to Lime.

Is there a reason they couldn't just add-on a bike lane?

It's too narrow most of the area is already parking restricted. Unless they wait for redevelopment and do piecemeal changes on one side of the road.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Klazu

"Removing a climbing lane along a main artery."

Bicycle Nazism is strong on the North Shore. With traffic having become a daily gridlock throughout North Shore, you would think that someone would say enough is enough.

Why is it that no new bicycle infrastructure can be created without taking away from the already lacking car infrastructure? I think owning a bicycle should also come with its own annual road tax to help fund these projects. Currently it's the car owners funding much of this through their billions of dollars in gas taxes.

Can you link to where gas taxes pay for bike infrastructure? I thought municipalities pay for it from their tax revenue, so everybody who pays local taxes (directly as owners, or indirectly as renters) pays for it. That means cyclists are paying for it as well.

And as you know, as a minority of you trips are by car, according to your earlier statements, drivers are often cyclists too, so it's not like they don't potentially benefit.

There's apparently a lot more bike lanes coming to the North Shore, so I suspect you are going to get increasingly unhappy. "Council approved the Priority Corridors for All Ages and Abilities (AAA) in the fall of 2019, prioritizing key corridors for infrastructure upgrades across the City. The creation of AAA mobility lanes is a Council priority, and the City is moving forward with priority corridors for All Ages and Abilities mobility lanes. In addition to creating more protected bike lanes and off-street pathways, these priority lanes will connect key destinations in the City making it easier for people to choose alternate forms of transportation." Source

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You don't have to own an e-bike on the North Shore; there are Lime e-bike rentals now.

Just compared to the density/geographics of Mobi in Vancouver I think they'll struggle at $0.30/minute + tax on the North Shore. They were better off with a scooter based program for the in between walking trips than e-bikes.

[Tvisforme]

I've managed to find a bit more info; there are plans for (among others) a bike lane on the upper stretches of Mountain Highway (eg above central Lynn Valley) but no concrete details at present. As best I can tell, what the person on Reddit was referring to is probably the short-term pilot project to convert Lynn Valley Road to one-way traffic between Kilmer and Dempsey, along with the easternmost block of Dempsey. That's the area adjacent to the End of the Line Café and the access to Lynn Headwaters Park. The one-way road is to allow for a two-way bike path while retaining street parking in those blocks.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Klazu

"Removing a climbing lane along a main artery."

Bicycle Nazism is strong on the North Shore. With traffic having become a daily gridlock throughout North Shore, you would think that someone would say enough is enough.

Why is it that no new bicycle infrastructure can be created without taking away from the already lacking car infrastructure? I think owning a bicycle should also come with its own annual road tax to help fund these projects. Currently it's the car owners funding much of this through their billions of dollars in gas taxes.

Not the hill I want to die on, but it's been detailed many times that even with the current fees, the costs associated with commuter car infrastructure are still a net loss for society.


https://thediscourse.ca/scarborough/full-cost-commute

On a sillier note, with Godwin's Law violated, do we have to lock the North Shore thread, and start a new one?

[osirisboy]

But a lot of the infrastructure that cars use would have to be there regardless if anyone drove or not. Unless society doesn’t want fire/ambulance etc to move around and other goods and services.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

But a lot of the infrastructure that cars use would have to be there regardless if anyone drove or not. Unless society doesn’t want fire/ambulance etc to move around and other goods and services.

There are many cities in Europe that have severely limited non-local traffic. One example is Barcelona's superblocks and another is Oslo's city centre. Delivery vehicles are allowed during certain hours and obviously emergency vehicles are permitted.

The idea that "infrastructure that cars use" would still be there without North America's car dependent life style is ridiculous. The Ironworkers Bridge project was initially budgeted at almost $200 million. If the only vehicles that needed to cross the Burrard Inlet were emergency and transportation vehicles, do you really think that project would be necessary?

[Changing City]

Here's a quote from Peter Ladner, in Business in Vancouver. "Cyclists subsidize car drivers. Local roads and bike lanes are almost exclusively paid for by local property taxes, not fuel taxes. Yes, some city hall revenue comes from parking fees, but those fees don’t begin to cover the opportunity and maintenance costs of the 30% of the city’s land base that is used for cars, especially for “free” on-street parking. The amount of roadway in Vancouver dedicated to cars is 10 times that dedicated to bicycles, which usually park off-road. Property taxes are paid by everyone who lives in the city, whether they rent or own. Cyclists are more likely to live in the city, since they stay closer to home than motorists who come into Vancouver from all over the region. Cyclists also subsidize motorists when they live in buildings or buy groceries that cost more because of legislated off-street parking spaces they don’t use."

The big highways are managed differently, but they almost never have cycling infrastructure, so that's not really relevant. The everyday streets in a municipality are where cycling infrastructure is starting to be built. Those streets are maintained by local taxes, so if a Burnaby resident drives Downtown, as a Vancouver taxpayer I'm helping pay for that. I'm also paying some of the costs of those new bike lanes too, and I'm not complaining about that - even though I don't ride a bike. There are public services that our system of government decides how they should be developed, and we all pay for them. I barely use transit - maybe half a dozen bus or SkyTrain trips a year, but I pay taxes as part of my property tax, and a levy on my electricity bill, and the fare when I travel. If I buy gas in the Lower Mainland, or pay to park, I contribute a bit more to Translink. As I don't use transit much, those are pretty expensive trips, but I acknowledge the collective benefit of an extensive and efficient transit system - one that needs more investment on the North Shore. (See, we're almost back to the thread title. Almost).

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

There are many cities in Europe that have severely limited non-local traffic. One example is Barcelona's superblocks and another is Oslo's city centre. Delivery vehicles are allowed during certain hours and obviously emergency vehicles are permitted.

The idea that "infrastructure that cars use" would still be there without North America's car dependent life style is ridiculous. The Ironworkers Bridge project was initially budgeted at almost $200 million. If the only vehicles that needed to cross the Burrard Inlet were emergency and transportation vehicles, do you really think that project would be necessary?

Im sorry I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to imply all infrastructure. However, literally every street in metro Vancouver that connects to every single family home or business would still exist, for example. And this isn’t Barcelona or anything close to being built out like a European city so let’s not even get into that

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Im sorry I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to imply all infrastructure. However, literally every street in metro Vancouver that connects to every single family home or business would still exist, for example. And this isn’t Barcelona or anything close to being built out like a European city so let’s not even get into that

You implied that people need to choose between having a firefighter come to the rescue when their house is burning and a street free of private vehicles. I simply pointed out that you can have both. There are examples of cities where cars are banned in certain neighbourhoods yet services are still delivered to those neighbourhoods.

I am not against cars per se, but I am against the myth that life stops if they aren't accommodated. Life may change but people would still be able to purchase groceries, get to work, and rely on emergency services.

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by Klazu

"Removing a climbing lane along a main artery."

Bicycle Nazism is strong on the North Shore. With traffic having become a daily gridlock throughout North Shore, you would think that someone would say enough is enough.

Why is it that no new bicycle infrastructure can be created without taking away from the already lacking car infrastructure? I think owning a bicycle should also come with its own annual road tax to help fund these projects. Currently it's the car owners funding much of this through their billions of dollars in gas taxes.

You can see others on this forum that think the direction of city halls and their planners are somehow set in stone and will simply continue forward despite any opposition from the public.

The seeds of public discontent are planted and growing. It will be interesting to see how many North Shore mayors/councilors and their respective planners' policies get turfed in next year's municipal elections.

Some reading: "He successfully campaigned against rapid transit coming into West Vancouver. Now, he wants to campaign to become the city’s mayor." CBC May 28th, 2021

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

You implied that people need to choose between having a firefighter come to the rescue when their house is burning and a street free of private vehicles. I simply pointed out that you can have both. There are examples of cities where cars are banned in certain neighbourhoods yet services are still delivered to those neighbourhoods.

I am not against cars per se, but I am against the myth that life stops if they aren't accommodated. Life may change but people would still be able to purchase groceries, get to work, and rely on emergency services.

No that’s not what I’m saying at all. Sorry I was still not being clear. The post was mentioning that one negative aspect to cars is the high cost of infrastructure that society has to pay for. And I’m saying that a lot of that infrastructure would still be needed even if car usage fell off a cliff. In other words don’t blame car usage for all the money our society spends on roads.