The latest from “Analysis:”
.
The Next 10 Years
.
Over the next 10 years Metro Vancouver’s population is expected to increase by 360,000.
The high density development pattern would occupy the smaller area on Sea Island, while the low density development pattern would occupy all of the highlighted area.
.
.
.
For the details and more information, go here.
Not everyone likes high density. Urban politics needs to keep in mind that a range of housing options needs to be provided, from high end acreages to townhouses to high density micro lofts and everything in between.
We should price land and thus car use of it higher, far higher. The expectation that driving ( and parking ) is free on any road, besides your gasoline cost, needs to change. Then, and only then, will we find the required money to build more rapid transit. Look to Singapore, for example, where driving is very expensive and rapid transit is well built. That is what we need here in MetroVancouver, the rest is just a band aid, especially more buses.
I don’t want to give the impression that I am saying everyone needs to live in ultra high density. It is just a hypothetical example to articulate a few points:
1) Metro Vancouver is growing at a very quick rate. That will take some combination of allowing relatively small (although still very substantial) areas to progress to very high densities, allowing considerable portions our cities to progress to medium density, or opening large tracts of new land up for new low density development.
2) A year of population growth in Metro Vancouver could use up the capacity on a new 6-lane freeway corridor. So if we plan to accommodate the new growth primarily on our road network, we will need a lot of expansion.
3) When people compare the costs of providing mobility through road vs. transit expansion they are often not doing a full accounting. Benefiting from the mobility provided by freeways requires having a vehicle to operate on it and having a parking space available on either end of the trip which somebody is paying for. These costs are considerable and often ignored. If you could take a magic wand and have all the money spent on roads, vehicles, and parking in our region over 30 years, you could have a more expansive network of rapid transit that we could possibly use. Once again that is just a hypothetical thought to illustrate a point, but it is worth thinking about when considering spending priorities.
Hey Thomas do you mind re-posting this on my site so I can respond to it there?
I think the $6.0 billion is probably pretty wildly optimistic for providing higher capacity rapid transit to replace $32-odd billion of road infrastructure, but general point taken.
That’s $6 billion in transit infrastructure vs $12 billion in road infrastructure. If anything was wildly optimistic it’s plowing 10 lane freeways into Vancouver proper for $2 billion a piece.
Where is a 10 lane freeway ?
We need more roads, bridge & tunnels AND more transit. It is not one or the other. Ports need roads, pipelines or rail .. for goods movement. People movement needs roads and transit, especially RAPID transit, not a socialist bus based system that is slower than a car, less convenient, more wobbly and not as flexible.
Take, for example, Lionsgate bridge. Built in the 1930’s .. with two lanes of traffic for a then tiny tiny Vancouver & W-Van. Never widened. It needs to be at minimum 5 lanes, perhaps 6 lanes PLUS a rail in the middle and a bike lane on it and a ped lane. Toll the car lanes. Then complete that rail link to downtown with a subway along Hastings (remember: viaducts will come out soon) to Second Narrows, looping back under Marine Drive. THAT would actually be used. Yes, that costs a lot of money – a few billion, but it would be a real game changer and worthy of enhanced taxation, as both car users and non-car users would benefit.
People do not mind paying for what is perceived of value, like a fast car lane or a RAPID train to downtown or airport. Buses are for the lower and low lower middle class and/or folks that do not value their time (students, seniors, disabled, unemployed, low wage earners). Trains and subways will be used by all. Buses will not. Roads must be tolled. Until that is understood by transit planners nothing much can get accomplished.
Who said anything about plowing freeways into Vancouver? That’s not how this was represented at all. The post seemed to be referring to transportation investments within a new growth area, not buying up swathes of the west side.
Me.
“We will assume that each morning trip crosses into vancouver, and that these will be provided by 10 lane freeways that each cost $2 billion to construct including the associated interchanges and fraser river crossings”
It’s optimistic because in order to get that morning traffic to work you can’t just place it on Vancouver’s already congested road network. You would need to create additional capacity which would require appropriating land.
“Buses are for the lower and low lower middle class and/or folks that do not value their time (students, seniors, disabled, unemployed, low wage earners). Trains and subways will be used by all. Buses will not.”
This is a pretty ridiculous statement, unless of course you have evidence to back it up?
I am a student of life. People who value their time take a car, or RAPID transit. Not slow transit. if it takes me 20 minutes to get to downtown by car, but 50 by bus, 2x/day that is an hour saved. Times $10/h I might take the bus as it is indeed cheaper. If my time is worth $30/h or more I will take the car, for sure, especially if I have one anyway.
The issue that needs to be addressed by public transit is TIME SAVINGS. Therefor the current transit plan is weak: it does not give any incentives to not use the car. Car users will not take a bus, unless the car costs are extremely high or the bus is far faster. The proposed solution does not do either. Only if RAPID transit solutions are offered, AND cars cost more to use will people switch from cars. It is just plain common sense.
Open your eyes. These (bus riding) people are also more likely to vote NDP, not 100% .. but perhaps 70-80%. That is why buses get little provincial funding. People do not mind paying for what they value. If this plan offered s.th. of value to me, i.e. time savings, I’d vote for it. But it does not.
The people who willingly drive an extra 5 miles per day to avoid bridge tolls are proof that people do NOT value their commuting time at $10/hr. By that measure some of them value it at zero.