General Infrastructure Discussion - Page 11

Migrant_Coconut · #**201** Posted **Jul 9, 2020, 11:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Basically he thinks he scored one point in a two hour long game and wants to go take his ball home because he's right and will always be right.

This. People are working from home, people are driving, this summer. Nobody's contesting that at all, nor the idea that a small minority might make it permanent.

And from that, we have one dude going "offices are dead, transit is history, cars and shut-ins are the future, the world will never be the same again" and acting like everybody else are the ones being ridiculous.

chowhou · #**202** Posted **Jul 10, 2020, 12:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This. People are working from home, people are driving, this summer. Nobody's contesting that at all, nor the idea that a small minority might make it permanent.

And from that, we have one dude going "offices are dead, transit is history, cars and shut-ins are the future, the world will never be the same again" and acting like everybody else are the ones being ridiculous.

I'm sure for a while we'll see some lingering effects, but it's not necessarily the pearl-clutching panic response being put fodward.

Like I've said before on this forum, in 2001 everyone thought the era of the skyscraper was over. It turns out it was actually the beginning of the era of the locked down airport. In 1979 people thought driving was going to become a thing of the past. It turns out that in reality, oil production in North America became more profitable, cars became more fuel efficient, and alternative energy began to look viable.

I wouldn't be surprised if we do actually see some long term shifts, but so far the permanent home office doesn't seem to be one of those shifts. Transit usage is still way down as far as I know, so it will be interesting to see how Translink ends up in 5 years. I still see people on almost every bus I see.

giallo · #**203** Posted **Jul 10, 2020, 12:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

No actually my view point is shared by the vast majority of society now. It’s the fringe public transit advocates that still think we’ll go back to cramming people on buses like sardines. Lol @ a vaccine. Even when that comes out, it won’t change the public’s perception of riding public transit. It’s a fact numbers are at historic lows and set to stay like that for the foreseeable future. Its strange the same people that said working from home wouldn’t become the norm for many people (and were wrong about that) are the same people saying public transit ridership won’t be affected in the future. If anyone’s living in their own head, it’s you people who are still clinging to the hope that things will go back to normal. Time to face facts

It depends on which society you're talking about. Subway numbers are pretty much back to normal here in Seoul. Everyone wears masks, and sanitizes their hands when entering the station, so that's a societal change, but after a month or two of lower ridership, things have gotten back to normal.

I don't see Vancouver being any different. The societal change will come in the form of precautionary measures before riding the subway.

CanSpice · #**204** Posted **Jul 10, 2020, 2:42 AM**

TransLink announced they've put SeaBus on a 15-minute frequency during peak hours due to increased ridership. I think this is a good indication that ridership is coming back. We probably won't hit the pre-COVID levels within in the next year, but they'll get there, and slowing spending, especially on capital projects to expand the system in five to ten years, would only screw us over in the future.

flipper316 · #**205** Posted **Jul 10, 2020, 4:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

Lots of people on this board had your mindset at the beginning of the pandemic. Most have wisened up and there are only a handful of you left. We will never be “past” the coronavirus. It’s engrained in the public psyche now and has altered how people see public transit forever. The days of people crammed onto a bus are over. At this point, how can you think otherwise?

Dude people will get used to it or just forget. People have bad memories. Remember when people said they'll never work in a skyscraper again after 9/11. People are going to forget about C19. I know I will because I'll probably never get it and I personally don't know anyone that has died from it. We'll be fine. Transit will be busy again because not everyone can afford to drive.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**206** Posted **Jul 10, 2020, 5:29 AM**

i am sure transit ridership will recover, though i do think it may take 1-3yrs to completely recover.

scryer · #**207** Posted **Jul 10, 2020, 3:46 PM**

I think that a more permanent change in society will be completely contingent on the "second wave" of COVID.

aberdeen5698 · #**208** Posted **Jul 10, 2020, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scryer

I think that a more permanent change in society will be completely contingent on the "second wave" of COVID.

The more permanent change will be determined by whether we can find an effective vaccine to prevent people from contracting the disease, or an effective treatment to minimize its effects, particularly the long-lasting debilitating ones as well as actual deaths. If we can get the consequences of the disease somewhere down to the level of the severity of the flu or a bad cold then life will go back to normal.

officedweller · #**209** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 12:02 AM**

Metro Vancouver outlines options for new reservoir dams to increase water supply
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/metr...reservoir-dams

New water supply options for Metro Vancouver. (Metro Vancouver Regional District)
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/metr...reservoir-dams

Migrant_Coconut · #**210** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 12:23 AM**

Good thinking. Just hope they're ready for the angry neo-hippies.

aberdeen5698 · #**211** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 1:47 AM**

Nice to see the forward thinking. I think we're extremely lucky to live in a region with such an ample and pristine water supply. My relatives who lived in Edmonton regaled me with a horror story about how the North Saskatchewan river freezes up over the winter, resulting in several month's worth of industrial effluent getting dumped into the river every spring.

Metro-One · #**212** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 1:58 AM**

Maybe options 1,2,3 or 7?

chowhou · #**213** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 2:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Maybe options 1,2,3 or 7?

The odds of option 3 are effectively zero, I'm surprised it's even considered. It would take a lot of political willpower to flood out the salmon hatchery, spawning channels, and (of course most importantly) recreational trails.

1 and 4 seem like the mostly likely options to me.

officedweller · #**214** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 3:29 AM**

I wouldn't discount Option #5 because the population base is growing in the valley.

If they expand Seymour Reservoir, Coquitlam Reservoir could serve only the Valley, I guess, but is that enough capacity?

Alex Mackinnon · #**215** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 4:04 AM**

These are extremely long term plans. I'd be rather surprised if we see any of these get built within the next 50 years, barring some serious reductions in local rainfall.

The Coquitlam Second Intake is mentioned briefly in that article. That's the next big capacity bump to get built, and it should be pretty significant one. You just have to remember that behind that there's a hydro plant on that lake. It takes water from the Coquitlam Reservoir and dumps it into the ocean.

aberdeen5698 · #**216** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

These are extremely long term plans. I'd be rather surprised if we see any of these get built within the next 50 years, barring some serious reductions in local rainfall.

The reason that these plans are important is that they can provide a guide for which areas and rights of ways need protection from development that could preclude their use down the road.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**217** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 6:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

You just have to remember that behind that there's a hydro plant on that lake. It takes water from the Coquitlam Reservoir and dumps it into the ocean.

what i find funny about that is that BCH, for their tiny little generating station, get a large majority of that water. and GVWD is forced to pay if they take more than their tiny allotment. go figure. old legal agreement; it would be up to the BC Government to do something about that since they control BC Hydro.

L00per · #**218** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 2:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

These are extremely long term plans. I'd be rather surprised if we see any of these get built within the next 50 years, barring some serious reductions in local rainfall.

Some good reservoir and water storage vs rainfall graphs here http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...s/default.aspx

It's not about rainfall, it's about storing that winter rainfall for the summer peak demand when rainfall is lowest.

WarrenC12 · #**219** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 3:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I wouldn't discount Option #5 because the population base is growing in the valley.

If they expand Seymour Reservoir, Coquitlam Reservoir could serve only the Valley, I guess, but is that enough capacity?

I'd agree with Pitt Lake. Why not a new source to diversify the supply? Cost is much higher I'm sure.

chowhou · #**220** Posted **Jul 31, 2020, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd agree with Pitt Lake. Why not a new source to diversify the supply? Cost is much higher I'm sure.

I'm sure there's a difference between alpine water and tidal wetlands water. Will Pitt Lake even be a viable option in 50-100 years when sea levels are higher?