Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld
With the Massey Bridge, Site C Dam and now this, I find it hard to fathom how the province is so bent on building costly infrastructure we don't need (or at least not at this scale). Are construction companies really that big a special interest group from them?
|
Site C was supposed to reduce imports from thermal plants in the states and increase exports to California to make more $$$.
BC Hydro actually is a net importer due to turning down its hydro plants at night, and there isn't capacity for the next 30 years. The alternative would be large $$$ for R+D for geothermal plants or a massive expansion of their private electricity buy-out program to large scale plants as well.
Which is a good thing for Peace River Residents, because they probably don't care about Peace River as much, and would have built
both Site C and E if given the chance... (remembers Bute Inlet) (shudders)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner
I think the bigger issue is the fact we live in a Province with $237 billion GDP per year and we gripe over $3 billion (1.26%) in infrastructure spending spread over 25 years. That's kind of like someone making $237,000 per year losing sleep over buying a $3,000 house.
There's always going to be a segment of the population that thinks any 1 project is stupid and pointless, especially if it doesn't affect them daily which is true for probably 95% of the people in BC for every project and really the money isn't much if the business case is sound.
For this specifically, I think it is a neat concept. My thoughts and opinions right now are:
1. Given the options presented, costs, and populations of Powell River + Sunshine Coast combined being just shy of 40,000 people, the reason for this absolutely has to be about goods and resource movement/access, not people's homes. If its just about the people living there having faster driving access to the mainland, then I'd say none of these are worth it and yes the money then could be better spent elsewhere even for goods movement like putting it toward a faster link between Metro Vancouver and Prince Rupert for example.
2. I wonder what the real issue is ultimately. A few have said it is the ferry cut backs for Powell River. If that's the case then just the link between it an Sunshine Coast could help that by giving access directly to SC. That said would that not just move the problem then to the Sunshine Coast ferry link?
3. I'm a little confused as to if multiple options are available or if the options are all exclusive. Aka could they do a road to Powell River then the bridge link to Sunshine Coast from Powell River? Or could they do both bridge links to Sunshine Coast & Powell River. Or is it like only options A, B, C, or D.
Maybe I missed that somewhere.
4. $3 billion which is the most expensive one is pocket change in the grand scheme of things infrastructure wise (we've just spend $10 billion+ in the last decade in metro Vancouver alone and last I checked all the infrastructure through kicking horse pass near Golden doesn't service much population if that's what matters...), especially if new resource access is opened up. Think it could be especially useful for Powell River which is double detached from Metro-Vancouver right now (2 ferries and a long drive to get there). With direct road access there, the town could see a boom of industry especially with links to Squamish which is already starting to see a boom in recent years.
5. Overall I think this will help Squamish out a bunch more than Metro-Vancouver.
6. People need to get over the fact that houses are being built everywhere. We live in a world where people can't stop multiplying by the millions every year, so get used to it. The cities are going to grow bigger and bigger and any towns within a rock throw distance from Metro-Vancouver which in 50 years will be 4+ million people, will feel the affects of that.
For those counting, yes by 2050 projections are Metro-Vancouver will add another Metro-Vancouver within the same boundaries it is today. That's Vancouver City @ 1 million+, Surrey at 1 million+, etc. etc.
If the people in the Sunshine Coast or Chilliwack or Abbotsford or Squamish etc. want to feel like they live in the middle of nowhere near nobody and in the great vast wilderness, they better be prepared to eventually move up to Fort Nelson BC.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...lation_in_2050
Considering BC is near "Average" in terms of % growth in population, I actually think net population growth is probably going to be on the conservative side.
North American population growth is going to be fairly low in the future, and be driven by immigration, which is vulnerable to geopolitics (and politics in general). Say a Canadian Trump comes into power, and puts a temporary ban on Muslim Immigration into Canada.
Also, if another major recession hits(likely), population will also grow much slower- people don't immigrate to nations with bad economies, and people in those economies make fewer babies.
Combine this with the fact that global population will peak at ~2050-2060 due to declining fertility.
I would be suprised if we get sprawl up to the edges of Maple Ridge by 2050, to be honest with you.
There's still a lot of land in West Van, Maple Ridge and Langley- and we've been densifiying enormously.
TLDR; I can't help but feel these estimates of population growth are a bit too liberal.
Prev
.
And I don't want to get into that discussion again. 
Linear Mode
