[Burnaby] Gilmore Place | 214.8m | 64fl | Phase 1 Completed

[officedweller]

Just because someone has a car doesn't mean that they drive it to work or during rush hours, or even drive it every day.

*******

The subsidence is probably expected.
It may be that the City needs to start a lawsuit in order for the developer's insurance to accept a claim.
Just be glad that there isn't a leaning tower.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Just because someone has a car doesn't mean that they drive it to work or during rush hours, or even drive it every day.

Or even drive it ever. I've seen some incredibly dust covered cars in parkades.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Just because someone has a car doesn't mean that they drive it to work or during rush hours, or even drive it every day.

Yup, constrained roadways is the best way to get people to switch when they drive, where they drive, and if they drive at all. I feel like a statistical study would show that wider roads negatively correlate with transit ridership and active transportation mode share.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I feel like a statistical study would show that wider roads negatively correlate with transit ridership and active transportation mode share.

And positively correlate with driver + pedestrian + cyclist fatalities.

[RabidMoose]

Originally Posted by madog222

^
Very poor ground conditions in the area...

Thanks for these photos. The settlement over the last two years has been significantly worse than before. It's particularly bad by the Starbucks which just has a permanent lake now.



City of Burnaby has put cones around this puddle LOL.

I'm glad they're taking action. The Skytrain entrance has so much slope that creates accessibility issues.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by mcj

...you're a carbrain

someone uses reddit. blehh.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Yup, constrained roadways is the best way to get people to switch when they drive, where they drive, and if they drive at all. I feel like a statistical study would show that wider roads negatively correlate with transit ridership and active transportation mode share.

Not necessarily. Ease of walking to the office and the cost of parking downtown are the big deterrants for me wrt getting to work.
For other activities, like grocery shopping, the ability to carry 6+ bags of groceries in the trunk from different stores
where I load up on sale items speaks to convenience that won't ever be overcome using transit or riding a bike.

... like at this sale at No Frills last weekend:

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by mcj

Just don't mind all the pesky science and data that might refute any of that...

You can fool yourself as much as you like, but the fact remains that Highway 1 is packed to the limit every single rush hour, whereas a toy SkyTrain is sufficient to operate on the Millennium Line. Most people in the Metro prefer driving for its convenience and speed, even when it is as horrible as it is in this small town. Our transit is only somewhat competitive when Downtown-bound from few selected town centres.

And yes, one more extra long join/exit lane on Highway 1 between each intersection would solve all the congestion.

[seamusmcduff]

I think you just proved everyone's point. One train can carry just as many people as close to 100 cars and probably half a km of packed 3 lane highway, why would we continue to focus on literally the least efficient way of moving people? The pure expense of dedicating enough land for another lane of highway or road could pay for transit improvements to move exponentially more people.

Also as has been shown by study after study, you can't build your way out of congestion for a City the size of Vancouver. Sure you can make the improvements you ask for, and more people will be able to drive (at the expense of transit ridership), but it won't get you anywhere any faster.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Most people in the Metro prefer driving for its convenience and speed, even when it is as horrible as it is in this small town.

And even more people would choose to drive if we widened the TCH, plowed a freeway through to DT Vancouver, widened Kingsway to four through lanes, etc. and suddenly you'd be stuck in traffic all over again.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Not necessarily. Ease of walking to the office and the cost of parking downtown are the big deterrants for me wrt getting to work.
For other activities, like grocery shopping, the ability to carry 6+ bags of groceries in the trunk from different stores
where I load up on sale items speaks to convenience that won't ever be overcome using transit or riding a bike.]

We can each provide our own anecdotes.

When I grab groceries I typically stop at a Persian market for the cheap produce and canned goods, Safeway for the wider selection, a bakery for some fresh bread, and a liquor store for booze. And that grocery run takes me about 30 minutes because all of those stores are within a four-block radius of my apartment. That's about the same time or less it used to take when I would (lazily) drive from my apartment on Beresford to the Save-On on Kingsway, find parking, walk into the store, shop, walk out of the store, and drive home. And my drive was shorter than most!

I will admit I can't carry nearly as much in my arms as I could in a car's trunk. But I don't need to because I can pop into the grocery store on my way home from work, as I walk right by one on my regular commute. It literally adds five minutes to my commute.

When my wife and I have picked out our last three apartments we planned our lives around transit and walking, not driving. In Kamloops we lived on a bus route that went directly downtown. In Metrotown we lived on Beresford across from the Skytrain station. In Vancouver we live walking distance from both our workplaces. It's really all about personal choice, and I'm glad we both you and I live somewhere where you can choose to drive your car or I can choose not to. There's not a lot of choice in Saskatoon where I grew up.

[officedweller]

Yeah, and if you minimize the amount of driving, say, by combining trips, that works too.
I think you're doing well of you get the ICBC discount for being under 5,000km/year (and that includes road trips!).
It seems like there's a new discount for less than 10,000km/year.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Klazu

You can fool yourself as much as you like, but the fact remains that Highway 1 is packed to the limit every single rush hour, whereas a toy SkyTrain is sufficient to operate on the Millennium Line. Most people in the Metro prefer driving for its convenience and speed, even when it is as horrible as it is in this small town. Our transit is only somewhat competitive when Downtown-bound from few selected town centres.

And yes, one more extra long join/exit lane on Highway 1 between each intersection would solve all the congestion.

As per usual, you're not understanding that dense housing (like you live in) and freeway/stroad dominant transportation are more-or-less mutually exclusive.

Freeways and large roads take up huge amounts of valuable land, and are only cost effective among lower built densities. Freeway infrastructure in dense areas is astronomically expensive, especially compared to a train line. A single Skytrain line can soak up as many passengers as the Port Mann Bridge without breaking a sweat, and is generally much cheaper to build.

Several subway lines move in excess of 1M passengers per day within a width of 2 buried tracks. Meanwhile, the 401 in Toronto has a with of over 150 m in some places (that's like 2 Vancouver blocks) and can barely move half that number of vehicles.

LeCorbusier's dream of towers in parks connected by freeways was absolutely moronic. The costs simply never would have worked out.

If you compare LA to Tokyo, you'll find that one works amazingly well and the other is freaking awful. Unsurprisingly it's not that one that pissed it's money away on freeways.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

You can fool yourself as much as you like, but the fact remains that Highway 1 is packed to the limit every single rush hour, whereas a toy SkyTrain is sufficient to operate on the Millennium Line. Most people in the Metro prefer driving for its convenience and speed, even when it is as horrible as it is in this small town. Our transit is only somewhat competitive when Downtown-bound from few selected town centres.

And yes, one more extra long join/exit lane on Highway 1 between each intersection would solve all the congestion.

Sorry but your thesis is that Skytrain isn't competitive with driving, but also that driving is extremely congested? Do I have that right?

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The master plan doesn't mention any relaxation of the parking requirements.



https://pub-burnaby.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=35315

Changing City posted these numbers last year



https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=214585&page=71

I heard it from a City staff in Planning Department. This can be a wrong information. I read zoning Bylaw and the minimum requirement I saw was 1 stall per unit and the most was 1.6. Usually units with 2, 3 or more bedrooms included with more than 1 parking stall. So this is very limited regardless of what zoning demands.
In my newly build co-op they definitely cut the parking requirements, as I’m on. A waiting list for a stall and they told me it’s minimum 1 year wait and once I get it is $100/month. Likely street parking is OK for now…

[Lexus]

In defence of Klazu I still adamant that you must have a car in this region. I use all modes of transportation to get to work: car, transit and bike. I need to take 3 buses to get from my place to COB city hall. And it takes 1 hour. By car I’m the AM it takes me 18-20 mins. Bike - 25-30 mins. Then if I want to go to Whistler or Caltus Lake or take my parent to family doctor from Coquitlam to Maple Ridge I definitely need a car. I thin the best part is to have options to choose from. And the more Skytrain we have the less cars we’ll have on the highway, same goes to when I bike to work- it’s minus a car on the road that day.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Lexus

In defence of Klazu I still adamant that you must have a car in this region. I use all modes of transportation to get to work: car, transit and bike. I need to take 3 buses to get from my place to COB city hall. And it takes 1 hour. By car I’m the AM it takes me 18-20 mins. Bike - 25-30 mins. Then if I want to go to Whistler or Caltus Lake or take my parent to family doctor from Coquitlam to Maple Ridge I definitely need a car. I thin the best part is to have options to choose from. And the more Skytrain we have the less cars we’ll have on the highway, same goes to when I bike to work- it’s minus a car on the road that day.

Do you live in Brentwood? Google says it's 20 minutes to COB by transit with one transfer.

I agree that having a car for the weekend is really nice. That's why I use Evo, but if you want to own a car that's your choice. If parking minimums in these buildings significantly drive up costs or make development altogether unfeasible then I would have a bigger problem with them but in general I think these developments' target buyer is someone who takes transit to Vancouver for work during the week but is a weekend warrior and needs a car to hike, ski, mountain bike, paddleboard, etc.

But my main disagreement with Klazu is on highway capacity, not parking minimums. Widening the TCH by one lane might "fix" things for a little while, but it wouldn't be a silver bullet. Eventually the congestion would come back and you would have to do the same dance all over again. Meanwhile, if the Millennium Line gets congested you can change the frequencies from 180 seconds to 120 seconds and suddenly you're transporting thousands of additional people per hour. Same thing with Lougheed. If anything, the stretch through Brentwood should have lower speed limits and more pedestrian crossings and not more traffic lanes.

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Do you live in Brentwood? Google says it's 20 minutes to COB by transit with one transfer.

I agree that having a car for the weekend is really nice. That's why I use Evo, but if you want to own a car that's your choice. If parking minimums in these buildings significantly drive up costs or make development altogether unfeasible then I would have a bigger problem with them but in general I think these developments' target buyer is someone who takes transit to Vancouver for work during the week but is a weekend warrior and needs a car to hike, ski, mountain bike, paddleboard, etc.

But my main disagreement with Klazu is on highway capacity, not parking minimums. Widening the TCH by one lane might "fix" things for a little while, but it wouldn't be a silver bullet. Eventually the congestion would come back and you would have to do the same dance all over again. Meanwhile, if the Millennium Line gets congested you can change the frequencies from 180 seconds to 120 seconds and suddenly you're transporting thousands of additional people per hour. Same thing with Lougheed. If anything, the stretch through Brentwood should have lower speed limits and more pedestrian crossings and not more traffic lanes.

I live near River District. It's 9km commute. I need to take bus 100, than 31, than something SFU bound like 144 or 133. There are many more different ways to connect to Metrotown; however all require 3 busses. If is take a bike I'll have to hit that steep hill at Kerr Street. It's like 10 mins of grinding on the lowest gear. And I'm not into e-bikes either.

I think HWY definitely needs widening all the way to Chilliwack, which currently only till 264 St?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

My main disagreement with Klazu is on highway capacity, not parking minimums. Widening the TCH by one lane might "fix" things for a little while, but it wouldn't be a silver bullet. Eventually the congestion would come back and you would have to do the same dance all over again.

It's almost like we did exactly that just over a decade ago on the TCH from Langley to Vancouver, and here we are another decade or so later with the same issue

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Lexus

I heard it from a City staff in Planning Department. This can be a wrong information. I read zoning Bylaw and the minimum requirement I saw was 1 stall per unit and the most was 1.6. Usually units with 2, 3 or more bedrooms included with more than 1 parking stall. So this is very limited regardless of what zoning demands.
In my newly build co-op they definitely cut the parking requirements, as I’m on. A waiting list for a stall and they told me it’s minimum 1 year wait and once I get it is $100/month. Likely street parking is OK for now…

I think the off-street parking bylaw for apartments was 1.6 for each dwelling but everything in RM3/RM4/RM5 reduced it to 1.1.

Notwithstanding subsection (b), for developments
entitled to a supplementary density bonus under
section 203.6(3), 204.6(3) or 205.6(3), the
parking space requirement shall be reduced from
1.6 per dwelling unit to a minimum 1.1 per
dwelling unit in direct proportion to the ratio that
the actual supplementary density incorporated in
that development bears to the maximum
supplementary density that was available (eg. a
development eligible for 50% of the maximum
supplementary density would have a reduced
parking requirement of 1.35 spaces for each
dwelling unit).
(B/L No. 14206-20-10-26)

https://www.burnaby.ca/sites/default/files/acquiadam/2021-07/Off%20Street%20Parking.pdf

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I think the off-street parking bylaw for apartments was 1.6 for each dwelling but everything in RM3/RM4/RM5 reduced it to 1.1.



https://www.burnaby.ca/sites/default/files/acquiadam/2021-07/Off%20Street%20Parking.pdf

Yeah, it is hard to interpret that sections. In any event they went with the minimum requirement of 1.1.