HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 8:04 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
The RapidBus project really sounds great on paper, but you know, transit on highways is not that effective and has been proven in many cities in North America. I don't think the RapidBus will be THAT big of a success. For sure you'll have a lot of commuters boarding at the 157th Park and Ride.
It's not just the rapid bus though. There are plans to actually have just plain regular bus service between the two cities. Again there is not right now. Rapid bus is just the fancy part of the transit plan that gets the most push.

I would agree that in the short term, I don't think it will be THAT big of a success either mainly because of the opinion a lot of people in the southern region have of our bus service.

Quote:
Yes I do want to see other components of the gateway such as the addition of HOV lane and HOV priority exists. Any form of road infrastructure that includes HOV and transit is good. I just think we need to lower the number of single vehicles commuting across the region.
Absolutely. Unfortunately it would probably take about $60 billion in additional transit expansion to make that a reality. Unfortunately for the bulk majority of people south of the Fraser, taking transit or getting out of our cars / carpooling, is just completely out of the question. And people can argue until they are blue in the face about bad planning on the part of Surrey, Langley, whatever., but that's the past and that doesn't change the now. We have to deal with the now. The region as a whole made mistakes but not doing something and instead crying about those past mistakes, won't get us anywhere.

Many cities are doing commuter challenge like projects over the next little while to encourate people to be "Green." I will be riding with several co-workers next week carpooling to help support that initiative. Unfortunately it is adding about 2 hours to our commute (combined) due to where we all live and having to coordinate "Well you pick me up you pick them up" and so on.

I also looked into busses. I don't work in an area with 2 employees. For me to take the bus to work required 4 full transfers and over 2 hours of travel time since none of those 4 transfers are in time sync. That means 2 hours 1 way, 2 hours the other. I work an 8 hour day so now my day is 12 hours long and means I would get home every day between 7 and 8pm. Getting home at 8pm having to do house work, get ready for the next day, or heck just enjoying life is quite difficult to do when you do that 5 out of 7 days.

I'll also point out that driving it takes me 25 minutes to get to work, even in rush-hour. So 2 hours via bus vs 25 minutes via car. What would you pick?

I do agree that we need to get people out of cars but like I said, it would take a lot more money to accomplish that and I doubt anyone would back a $60 billion transit plan.
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2008, 3:17 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
We are also forgetting that certain components of Gateway have already started to be built.

The 192nd Street on/offramps are finished and the 156th Street underpass with dedicated bus ramps has just started construction.

Not to mention land expropriation and demolition has already started on the SFPR in the Bridgeview area of Surrey.
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2008, 12:13 AM
Bert Bert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 411
What will Gateway solve? I don't believe it's the best solution for anything - neither business growth, nor commuting.

Business Growth
If it's about encouraging business growth, we have to ask ourselves whether we're spending billions to attract a worthwhile industry - transportation. Up until last year, I was in the transportation/logistics industry. I’ve worked in both small, local logistics firms and one of the largest ones in the world here. Yet, personally, I haven't found enough good in this industry that you'd want to encourage its growth. It’s a low margin, low productivity industry overall. Trucks are too often unsafe in some way, and they're, of course, a major source of pollution and a contributor to congestion. Vancouver has also lost a lot of its geographical competitive advantage recently to Prince Rupert’s new terminal.

Also, I think Port Mann Highway 1 (PMH1) will cause some sectors of our economy to stagnate. As a result of increased sprawl after the completion of the bridge, I believe that the higher-density residential development, real estate, and construction industries will feel some pain as a result. At the very least, I expect big developers like Concord, Bosa, Millennium, etc. will experience slower growth than they would without the bridge, and this will also have negative spinoff effects on local architectural firms and others. I expect demand for highrises to dry up considerably.

Alternatives? Here's mine: I'd rather see the $1.5+ billion for PMH1 spent on Internet infrastructure in BC. For a fraction of that amount of money, we would have the fastest network in North America (based on this article pointing to a government report saying we'd need $1.8-$2.5 billion to boost up all of Canada). Our major cities would then rival Japan's in speed (i.e. 30x faster than today) and, hopefully, price too. That, to me, would be a true competitive advantage for our Province in the North American market.

With free trade with South Korea (another high speed Internet mecca) on the horizon, Vancouver with its high speed networks would then be a natural place for South Korean businesses to set up their Canadian or North American outpost, given our ability to communicate information at a high speed, as well as our geography (closer for business meetings), and Canada's immigration laws. Personally, I think that high speed Internet would boost international business by at least as much as Gateway could, and I’d personally prefer more of the trade deals side of international business in Vancouver rather than the actual goods transportation side, which Gateway promises.

Let’s not even forget that high speed networks are very useful for a wide variety of businesses, such as finance, high-tech research, health, education, software development, and IT services – several of which are higher productivity industries, and all of which have fewer associated negatives, than transportation.

High speed networks would also let more people here telecommute, so this alone will do more to alleviate congestion in the long term than the PMH1 project, without all the environmental negatives of increased vehicle count and increased asphalt coverage.

But even if we did want to continue pandering to the transportation industry, I'd say subsidizing our rail rather than road infrastructure would be a better investment, given high and rising fuel prices, congestion, pollution, etc.

Commuting
I drive the Port Mann 10 times a week! I know how bad it is. Still, from the erratic amounts of traffic at different times of the year (even when there are no accidents), I have to figure that there are an awful lot of non-commuters using the bridge. A time-based toll alone would get rid of a lot of non-essential trip traffic at peak times.

Still, I see some of you are confused that that's all I'm calling for - a toll on the bridge. No, it isn’t. I'd like the MoT to at least study system-wide tolling of all bridges or more in conjunction with transit improvements worth $1.5+ billion, with perhaps just a few road improvements thrown in, such as making the centre lane of the Port Mann reversible and extending the HOV lanes south of the Fraser, but that's all (no twin, no further widening)!

With system-wide tolling, congestion could be controlled well into the future, as Stockholm and other cities have shown us - they have seen real results (25% reduction in traffic, and corresponding reduction in pollution; London also successfully reduced congestion and shifted 4% of commuters to transit). Cities like LA have shown us, time-after-time, what not to do to relieve congestion in the long-term - building more freeways. It hasn't really worked out for them, has it? They fill up as fast as they're built.

And, yes, I acknowledge that many people do have decentralized commuting patterns, but I also see potential for 3 light rail lines (with high average speed and full traffic priority) radiating out from Surrey Central that could make a world of difference: a Fraser Highway line, King George line, and another eastbound line on 104 Ave. then 96 Ave. past the freeway. There is a lot of existing or potential residential population in places like Walnut Grove, Cloverdale, Newton, and Guildford Town Centre that could then quickly and easily be taken to the SkyTrain to go northwest. You would also take many "reverse" commuters, like me, out of cars who are coming from North of the Fraser to office parks along King George, the Port Kells industrial area, or toward Langley Centre.

However, if you put the highway in first (if at all), then these South of Fraser nodes will have their growth forever stunted. Why? Without congestion, transit is not competitive with the car, and that means people choose low density living, which only compounds the congestion and sustainability problem in the long term.

To illustrate, here is a neat little (extremely parsimonious) utility function for commuting preferences I stumbled across. It’s from Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel McFadden and Thomas Domenich. It apparently described 93% of auto vs. transit choices for 1967 commuters (yes, I realize that is not very recent, and consumer preferences may change over time, and I do intend to find more modern functions when I have time, but this one still works for me today, anyway). Here it is:

U = -0.147W - 0.0411T - 0.32C
where
U = utility (basically, your satisfaction, or lack thereof when negative)
W = total walking time to and from bus or car in minutes
T = total time of trip in minutes (excluding walking)
C = total cost of trip in dollars*

What the formula is saying is people don't enjoy commuting - that is, we get negative utility/satisfaction (U will always be negative) out of the basic factors of commuting: time spent walking to the car/bus/train (W), time spent driving/riding to work (T), and money paid for gas/maintenance/insurance or a bus pass (C).

I encourage everyone to try plugging in your trip’s numbers for 1) car transportation, then 2) transit. See which U number is less negative. For most people (assuming the equation hasn't become too outdated), that should correspond to your mode of choice, since this is a calculation you’ve already made, whether partly consciously or subconsciously.

For me, the driving U number is quite a bit less negative than the transit U number, despite all the congestion on the Port Mann and the fact that I live a 10 minute walk from SkyTrain. My workplace in Port Kells is unfortunately underserved by transit with no traffic priority, and that incompleteness of the transit network totally negates any advantage of me living close to SkyTrain. So I drive, as, even though I don't like it, it makes me lose less utility than the transit alternative.

What this suggests to me is, even for someone with a moderately node-to-node commuting pattern like myself (residential centre to industrial centre), road infrastructure in our region is still light years ahead of transit. Now, if we want people to have a choice in commuting, want to move more people more efficiently, want to curb sprawl, want to live in a more sustainable region with more sustainable types of business, and want more highrises and walkable neighbourhoods, then we desperately need to fully prioritize transit ahead of roads for many decades to come.

If we twin the Port Mann, we'll have maybe a decade or more of significantly less congestion. Without congestion, even the 3 LRT lines I talked about would probably still fare worse than driving when people compare them by “plugging in the numbers” to their own "utility functions". That means that future population growth in our region will bring about a perpetual cycle of unsustainable, low-density sprawl, rather than building up high-density, transit-serviceable nodes South of the Fraser. That’s why I think it’s so important to do transit first. With the construction of PMH1, transit will not be a realistic option for many people crossing the Fraser for the foreseeable future.

* Note that the original C coefficient was 2.24 rather than 0.32, but I adjusted it for wage increases based on an average GVRD wage of roughly $20/h in comparison to the original study's $2.85/h in 1967. That is 2.24 C * ($2.85/$20) = 0.3192. This brings the implied cost of commuting to about $8/hour, which is on par with some modern transportation studies I've seen; that is: [0.0411 T/ 0.32 C *60 minutes/h = $7.71/h]
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2008, 1:54 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,756
^Great post.
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2008, 4:01 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,756
I think your post Bert has some good points. While I don't agree 100% on it all, I do think high-speed infrastructure in today's economy is as important as physical infrastructure though where we would disagree is that you should have 1 instead of the other or BOTH.

I'll also point out that telecom infrastructure is private not public in this country currently so i don't see how our tax money would go to a highspeed infrastructure unless the government decided to in essence re-invent the wheel. I think you raise some good points though.

I will devil's advocate the following though:

Quote:
And, yes, I acknowledge that many people do have decentralized commuting patterns, but I also see potential for 3 light rail lines (with high average speed and full traffic priority) radiating out from Surrey Central that could make a world of difference: a Fraser Highway line, King George line, and another eastbound line on 104 Ave. then 96 Ave. past the freeway. There is a lot of existing or potential residential population in places like Walnut Grove, Cloverdale, Newton, and Guildford Town Centre that could then quickly and easily be taken to the SkyTrain to go northwest. You would also take many "reverse" commuters, like me, out of cars who are coming from North of the Fraser to office parks along King George, the Port Kells industrial area, or toward Langley Centre.
1 of those lines is already going to be addressed in the Gateway program (the transit portion of it) in the extension of Expo line. It will travel down to 104th then up 152nd finally traveling down Fraser Highway to 168th.

A line down 96th Avenue as I discussed in detail in another post a while back would be pointless. Completely. For one, there isn't anything important down 96th Avenue so to convince anyone to put a line down there would be the same as those that tried to get an Arbutus line done. Won't happen. If you'd like me to explain again why not let me know.

Also a line down Fraser Highway directly is also pointless if they are to construct one down 104th, up 152nd, then down Fraser Highway. The portion of Fraser Highway from KGH to 152nd again contains nothing but trees. Trust me, only trees. Not to mention it has taken over 5 years just to get through the process of widening Fraser Highway through Green Timbers and they still aren't done or even started the widening due to environmental issues. Adding a SkyTrain or alternate LRT line could take a decade worth of fighting the public.

So right there that one line that IS included in the Gateway Transit plan extending the Expo line knocks out those two ideas from yours as they are already being included.

Next your idea for a run out to Langley. That's being included as a rapid bus line out to Langley center from the 168th terminus of the Expo extension. Also the King George Highway route is being handled by a rapid bus line with dedicated lanes up KGH. Now I am behind your argument (if it was an argument) for making those LRT right from the get-go rather than buses, but I'm not too sure if other portions of Gateway should be taken away in order to accomplish that. For one there is no density in those areas and Surrey has already comitted to densification focus in Surrey Central.

Surrey could benefit more with greater bus service imho added to the current plans. But really we're both splitting hairs. I just am not sure why we can't have 1 with the other.

Quote:
However, if you put the highway in first (if at all), then these South of Fraser nodes will have their growth forever stunted. Why? Without congestion, transit is not competitive with the car, and that means people choose low density living, which only compounds the congestion and sustainability problem in the long term.
Vancouver is never going to be Hong Kong. If you study how cities are built in regions, density is typically NOT a result of congestion of infrastructure. Density is typically a result of congestion of land. Hong Kong build up why? Not because their roads are full. No it's because there is no more land to build on so they have to go up.

Vancouver downtown is densifying why? Because Vancouver has 0 land left. Congestion remaining as it is, it won't slow or stop any sprawl or single house construction in the suburbs for one simple reason, they all still have land. What _will_ happen is as things get more difficult traffic wise, companies will relocate to where the bulk of their workers are located. You are already seeing it and have for the last 5 years with transportation companies. Vitran, Van Kam, and many others of the type are or have relocated out to Surrey and surrounding areas out of Vancouver because logistically it makes more sense for them and the bulk of their workers are out this way. That reduces commute times and it also actually reduced truck trip times.

You're never going to get rid of the need for transportation. All of the items sold in retail locations from downtown Vancouver to Langley get to those locations via truck. No transit or train system will ever replace that ever.

What people are missing with Gateway is that it overall is de-centralizing the region and focussing the region on South of the Fraser. People may argue against urban sprawl but it's already done for the most part. While it does continue, you aren't going to reverse the sprawl already out here in the South of Fraser area. So Gateway both the road network portion and transit portions are going to help focus Surrey Central as a downtown hub where a second densification can be done.

And don't expect it to slow out here. With YXX growing in services and a lot of businesses reliant on air travel moving towards Abbotsford because there is no land or the land is far to expensive around YVR, the workers for those businesses will want to or already are relocating this direction. That means the region really needs to encourage growth around Surrey now along with the continued densification in Vancouver, Richmond, and Burnaby.

So while I don't 100% agree with all your points Bert, I do agree with the fact that more money if not some of the Gateway money could benefit transit out here. Honestly I think we just need Gateway because let's face it, our population is continuing to grow and congestion = more fuel usage and higher impact on the environment.

When we're talking trucks and cargo moving around, the less congestion for them, the better, since we can't get rid of the trucks. Cars, well it will encourage some to get back in their cars rather than take transit, but I think it will be far less people than most seem to think.

It's always good to see all the sides though of a project.


Oh and while we're at it.. given all the above and Bert's full post, how many people still think a UBC line should be a regional priority? Hmmm? ;-)
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2008, 1:31 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 301
Bert, you make some good points, however I strongly disagree that the demand for high density housing will decrease with Gateway.

Sky high real estate prices is what's driven our densification - not congestion. If anything, Gateway will increase the price of suburban housing and make it out of reach for even more people, thus increasing demand for higher densities.
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2008, 6:42 PM
b5baxter b5baxter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
1 of those lines is already going to be addressed in the Gateway program (the transit portion of it) in the extension of Expo line.
This isn't technically part of the Gateway program is it? It is part of a separate program which might (subject to funding) be implemented years after the highway expansion project.

Given our climate change goals, rising fuel prices, rising asthma rates, etc. it seems to me that the the transit expansion should happen before the highway expansion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
from downtown Vancouver to Langley get to those locations via truck. No transit or train system will ever replace that ever.

But only 8% of the traffic on the Port Mann is truck traffic. The current bridge has excess capacity for truck traffic. If we give SOV drivers an alternative (transit).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Honestly I think we just need Gateway because let's face it, our population is continuing to grow and congestion = more fuel usage and higher impact on the environment.
But doesn't the overwhelming evidence suggest that highway expansion will just lead to more congestion?
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2008, 7:35 PM
nickinacan's Avatar
nickinacan nickinacan is offline
Traveller Extraodinaire
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by b5baxter View Post
This isn't technically part of the Gateway program is it? It is part of a separate program which might (subject to funding) be implemented years after the highway expansion project.
You are correct. This was part of the plan that the province announced along with the Carbon Tax. This will have own funding, although most of it just sounds like loose goals, rather than a specific time line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b5baxter View Post
Given our climate change goals, rising fuel prices, rising asthma rates, etc. it seems to me that the the transit expansion should happen before the highway expansion.

But only 8% of the traffic on the Port Mann is truck traffic. The current bridge has excess capacity for truck traffic. If we give SOV drivers an alternative (transit).

But doesn't the overwhelming evidence suggest that highway expansion will just lead to more congestion?
All this can be lumped up into one statement. There can't be one option or the other, there needs to be both. There has been very heavy investment into our mass transit systems, but very little in terms of the transportation network. Most of the highway, especially South of the Fraser, dates back to the 70's, which is very insufficient considering that nearly half of the population of the lower mainland now lives South of the Fraser, and this number will eventually surpass the population of the rest of the Lower Mainland. The highway needs to be modernized to fit the needs of commuters of Tomorrow, not the commuters of the 70's.

Even though this needs to happen, there needs to be more investment into mass transit. Again the focus of this needs to happen South of the Fraser. The first stage is the rapid bus, which will draw people into the Surrey City Centre area. This area is going to grow rapidly, not to mention that it is planned to become the second downtown of the Lower Mainland as per Metro Vancouver. This will take some of the commuting pressure off of the city street and highway networks, and funnel it into the mass transit system.

As for the UBC line, I have a suggestion that very few people have probably thought about. Why doesn't UBC just build another campus South of the Fraser? It can be located around the SFU Surrey Campus in the Surrey City Centre area and would already have access to skytrain already built. This would most certainly be cheaper than building skytrain or any other type of mass transit out to UBC. Any thoughts on this?
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2008, 10:22 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,810
It would be an expansion... not a replacement. You still have to serve 40,000 students at the current campus and lest we forget the Broadway Corridor.

People are making a bigger deal out of UBC than it really is. Sure UBC gives a Steady stream of students to transit, but lest we forget that most of the riders will be going to:
The Rav Line
The Broadway Corridor
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 12:36 AM
b5baxter b5baxter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickinacan View Post
There has been very heavy investment into our mass transit systems,...
I am not sure I can agree with that. Metro Vancouver is way behind many other world class cities when it comes to transit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickinacan View Post
The highway needs to be modernized to fit the needs of commuters of Tomorrow, not the commuters of the 70's.
The modern approach is to not build highways or to actually remove highways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickinacan View Post
Why doesn't UBC just build another campus South of the Fraser?
Interesting idea!
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 12:47 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,805
Like tintinium said, a south of Fraser UBC campus wouldn't be a replacement of the existing academic spaces at UBC Point Grey especially when there's such a high demand for academic spaces.

If anything, a south of Fraser campus would be an expansion campus......similar to UBC Robson Square and UBC Okanagan.
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 1:39 AM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kamloops
Posts: 5,324
^ In time I could see UBC and even BCIT building satellite campuses in downtown Surrey in the same general precinct as SFU Surrey.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 1:52 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickinacan View Post
As for the UBC line, I have a suggestion that very few people have probably thought about. Why doesn't UBC just build another campus South of the Fraser? It can be located around the SFU Surrey Campus in the Surrey City Centre area and would already have access to skytrain already built. This would most certainly be cheaper than building skytrain or any other type of mass transit out to UBC. Any thoughts on this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tintinium View Post
It would be an expansion... not a replacement. You still have to serve 40,000 students at the current campus and lest we forget the Broadway Corridor.
Exactly. The bulk of the people who would be using the M-Line aren't necessarily going to UBC. Note that the Broadway corridor is sort of becoming like an extended Downtown, with so many jobs and residents in several areas. The M-Line extension would connect these communities with rapid transit, and thereby, connecting with the rest of the region.

But another UBC campus would be a great idea. SFU Central City has been such a big success actually, and they weren't expecting that. Maybe they should build it in another regional centre/municipal centre just to expand other areas: Guildford? Langley? Newton perhaps? Like Mr. X and SFUVancouver said, it wouldn't be a replacement.
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 3:14 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
But another UBC campus would be a great idea. SFU Central City has been such a big success actually, and they weren't expecting that. Maybe they should build it in another regional centre/municipal centre just to expand other areas: Guildford? Langley? Newton perhaps? Like Mr. X and SFUVancouver said, it wouldn't be a replacement.
Ideally, any future satellite campuses should be next to SkyTrain and amenities (Surrey's Central City mall is perfect for SFU).

I'd say Guildford near/at the mall, with the SkyTrain expansion there by 2020.
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 5:40 AM
nickinacan's Avatar
nickinacan nickinacan is offline
Traveller Extraodinaire
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by tintinium View Post
It would be an expansion... not a replacement. You still have to serve 40,000 students at the current campus and lest we forget the Broadway Corridor.

People are making a bigger deal out of UBC than it really is. Sure UBC gives a Steady stream of students to transit, but lest we forget that most of the riders will be going to:
The Rav Line
The Broadway Corridor
I agree with your logic. I think that putting anything down the Broadway Corridor would be a disaster. Not to mention that the density drops off pretty quickly while you head out west. I think the RAV line and the B Line would be the best solution for this area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b5baxter View Post
I am not sure I can agree with that. Metro Vancouver is way behind many other world class cities when it comes to transit.

The modern approach is to not build highways or to actually remove highways.
Of course Metro Vancouver is behind in many aspects of mass transit, but that's because Vancouver is a relatively new and small city on a worldwide scale. Not to mention that most of the growth in the Metro Vancouver area is very recent, within the last 20 years. You definitely can't compare Vancouver to the big 4 (London, Paris, New York, Tokyo), but it actually does compare favourably to many cities of the same size.

It may be the modern approach to remove highways, but this is because many of these cities were originally car centric. When you look at many American cities, they have a vast amount of freeways running throughout the city. Vancouver doesn't have a huge highway network and instead has kept it to a minimum. I can't name a single highway in Vancouver that is underutilized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
Like tintinium said, a south of Fraser UBC campus wouldn't be a replacement of the existing academic spaces at UBC Point Grey especially when there's such a high demand for academic spaces.

If anything, a south of Fraser campus would be an expansion campus......similar to UBC Robson Square and UBC Okanagan.
Definitely. It would be ridiculous to think that UBC would just pack up and leave the endowment lands. I envision the UBC Surrey Campus as being much like SFU Surrey is, located in a high rise building with convenient skytrain/bus access. I think it would be much more like UBC Okanagan, rather than Robson square.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFUVancouver View Post
^ In time I could see UBC and even BCIT building satellite campuses in downtown Surrey in the same general precinct as SFU Surrey.
Couldn't agree with you more, not to mention that a most of the people living South of the Fraser are young families, and Surrey currently has the largest school district in the province.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
But another UBC campus would be a great idea. SFU Central City has been such a big success actually, and they weren't expecting that. Maybe they should build it in another regional centre/municipal centre just to expand other areas: Guildford? Langley? Newton perhaps? Like Mr. X and SFUVancouver said, it wouldn't be a replacement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
Ideally, any future satellite campuses should be next to SkyTrain and amenities (Surrey's Central City mall is perfect for SFU).

I'd say Guildford near/at the mall, with the SkyTrain expansion there by 2020.
I honestly think it would be best to keep it in the City Centre area. The capacity is already there with skytrain, not to mention the RapidBus that will run to South Surrey/White Rock and Guildford/Fleetwood/Langley. In addition, the zoning in the area permits very high density developments that would allow a development like this to take place utilizing a smaller piece of land. This is SSP after all, we like our highrises.
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 5:05 PM
eduardo88 eduardo88 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Berlin + Madrid
Posts: 1,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickinacan View Post
I agree with your logic. I think that putting anything down the Broadway Corridor would be a disaster. Not to mention that the density drops off pretty quickly while you head out west. I think the RAV line and the B Line would be the best solution for this area.
The Canada Line doesn't serve the Broadway Corridor, it's a North-South line, which will also add to transit use along the Broadway Corridor. The B-Line is up to capacity, it would be a disaster to leave things the way they are. With regards to density out west, that is slowly changing, I can see that with the extension to UBC, within 10 years of that being complete the entire Broadway/10th corridor should be at the very least mid-density buildings of 4+ stories, with much larger buildings around every station.
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 5:09 PM
b5baxter b5baxter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickinacan View Post
Of course Metro Vancouver is behind in many aspects of mass transit, but that's because Vancouver is a relatively new and small city on a worldwide scale. Not to mention that most of the growth in the Metro Vancouver area is very recent, within the last 20 years. You definitely can't compare Vancouver to the big 4 (London, Paris, New York, Tokyo), but it actually does compare favourably to many cities of the same size.:
But I am comparing it on a per-capita / percentage basis not based on absolute numbers. More specifically...

Transit mode share in Vancouver = 12%

Other cities:
Stockholm = 70 % (peak)
Berlin = 40% (peak) with a goal of 80%.
Paris > 20%
London > 20%.
Utrecht = 40%
Helsinki = 30%
Zurich = 40%
Copenhagen = 31%
Washington = 33%
New York = 53 %

(some of these are smaller than Vancouver)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickinacan View Post
Vancouver doesn't have a huge highway network and instead has kept it to a minimum.
Which is one of the reasons why are city has been ranked so liveable. Why we would want to change that I don't understand.


"We need to redesign Gateway...[if we continue with the current design]...we will have wasted that money...we will have sunk it into a design that was inappropriate."
- Anthony Perl, Professor and SFU Director, Urban Studies Program

Last edited by b5baxter; Jun 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM. Reason: addition
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 5:41 PM
eduardo88 eduardo88 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Berlin + Madrid
Posts: 1,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by b5baxter View Post
(some of these are smaller than Vancouver)
They may be smaller than Vancouver, but European cities are not designed for cars, and are usually alot more dense than Vancouver. For example here in Berlin, you rarely ever see single family homes, except in places like Zehlendorf, which is about a 30 minute drive from the city centre.
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 5:52 PM
nickinacan's Avatar
nickinacan nickinacan is offline
Traveller Extraodinaire
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by b5baxter View Post
But I am comparing it on a per-capita / percentage basis not based on absolute numbers. More specifically...

Transit mode share in Vancouver = 12%

Other cities:
Stockholm = 70 % (peak)
Berlin = 40% (peak) with a goal of 80%.
Paris > 20%
London > 20%.
Utrecht = 40%
Helsinki = 30%
Zurich = 40%
Copenhagen = 31%
Washington = 33%
New York = 53 %

(some of these are smaller than Vancouver)
Again you can't compare Vancouver to any of those cities. European cities are much denser than Canadian cities, and the other cities are much more well established. Not to mention that the number of bike commuters is astronomically higher.

New York and Washington are basically part of the same Megacity and many people commute between the two by train. This area is much denser than the lower mainland.

You can only compare Vancouver to cities such as Seattle, Portland, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg. Vancouver easily comes on top with transit usage and penetration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b5baxter View Post
Which is one of the reasons why are city has been ranked so liveable. Why we would want to change that I don't understand.

"We need to redesign Gateway...[if we continue with the current design]...we will have wasted that money...we will have sunk it into a design that was inappropriate."
- Anthony Perl, Professor and SFU Director, Urban Studies Program
Sure it is livable, but this rank is quickly dropping. Not to mention that these lists should always be taken with a grain of salt.

I do agree with that quote though. I believe that there are many aspects that need to be changed in order to make Gateway a success, and mass transit is one of them. This should be tied into the Gateway program, instead of just hinted at as a possible future project. I definitely do not want to see the Lower Mainland with a concrete 401 scar like Toronto has. What I would like to see is 4 lanes in each direction, with an HOV lane from 200th Street to Hastings. With this project, I would love to see the some sort of commuter rail cross the Port Mann Bridge and join Guildford and Coquitlam. Something else that I would love to see is a West Coast Express that joins the Fraser Valley communities together, much like West Coast Express does from Mission to Downtown Vancouver. I think giving commuters options is more effective than just building a highway by itself.
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2008, 5:53 PM
nickinacan's Avatar
nickinacan nickinacan is offline
Traveller Extraodinaire
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by eduardo88 View Post
They may be smaller than Vancouver, but European cities are not designed for cars, and are usually alot more dense than Vancouver. For example here in Berlin, you rarely ever see single family homes, except in places like Zehlendorf, which is about a 30 minute drive from the city centre.
My point exactly!
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:01 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.