The 2040 transportation plan for Vancouver is here. A similar version is here.
The MetroVan plan for 2040 is here.
The latest amendments are here.
Given the enormous changes in single family house prices, and thus pressure to move further out if one wants a house and a yard, are these plans, especially the MetroVan 2040 plan, still solid – or do they need more amendments than shown ?
With the new SFPR (South Fraser Perimeter Road), the East-West highway to Abbotsford and the likely 10 lane Massey Bridge, is this 2040 Metrovan plan still solid ?
I’d say no, as the subway east out of downtown to get people out of cars onto RAPID transit is missing, for example. It would revitalize the blighted E-Van and spur high density and affordable housing along Hastings, and ease N-Shore traffic congestion if extended via Second Narrows to Lonsdale Quay and then to W-Van’s Park Royal, Ambleside and Dunadrave.
Given the disconnect between MetroVan planning and provincial planning – especially in light of the failed transit referendum last year – is the plan still solid, or does it need updating ?
Are these five MetroVan goals solid, or do they need change ?

Comments

  1. The plans are still good but not good enough – definitely not aggressive enough. Some of the targets are already being surpassed so they are too timid. If people really want a house and a yard for an affordable price they should not expect city dwellers to subsidize their commute. The priority is theirs to make.
    Or they can encourage, support and become employed in their own satellite cities that don’t require that they commute to Vancouver.
    The biggest failures in the plans are too much acceptance of parking and no hard push for a network of car-free streets.

  2. Best kept secret: $50 million+ in this 2040 Plan is being wasted on the richest in our city, the North-siders of Point Grey Road. Even more will be spent if North siders get their utility poles put underground (City says it will cost one million per block). North-siders just got their road closed to commuters, and now at massive taxpayers’ expense, these homes are having their frontages extended with an extravagant super-wide park-like brand new walkway and treed front boulevard. You thought their properties went up when the road was closed; wait until this huge promenade extends their frontages for lawn parties, resident and guest parking, etc. — their home values will soar overnight. Construction is scheduled for this Spring. Last time I checked, our city was in dire need of transit improvements and social housing. The $40 million would surely be better spent on those urgent needs rather than prely aesthetic further feathering of the nests of the ultra-wealthy.

    1. Reducing the space allocated for motor vehicles, and expanding the space allocated for pedestrians, along the Seaside Greenway. Sounds like a great plan, and a recognition of the need for investment in pedestrian facilities, given that walking is at the top of the City transportation hierarchy (Pedestrians/Cyclists/Transit/Motor Vehicles).
      Along with the return of one of the Burrard Bridge sidewalks to pedestrians, a great step forward. Congratulations to the City.

        1. Only three pedestrians are in this picture of Point Grey Road, Jeff. Three. I ask again, how do you justify spending $50 million+ on an extensively wide walkway promenade for three people at any one time? And, how are bicycles to be kept OFF this extensively wide sidewalk? Hmmmm?

    2. Now if only people would use it. Oh, but wait…
      [img]https://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/dsc09470.jpg[/img]

      1. Jeff,
        Your link is of the bike route on Point Grey Road, which was much needed. Where are all the pedestrians that need an over-sized sidewalk, and what did the North side residents have to do to convince Vision to spend taxpayer millions on extending North siders already extra long (City Land) frontages? How is that justified for only a few residents (Chip Wilson, Trevor Linden, Robert Disbrow, Jackie Cohen, Arnold Silber, etc.) on the North side of Point Grey Road? As I say, and Murphy, “He who has the money makes the rules.”

      2. Susan, you look at that picture and apparently all you see are some people on bicycles. I also see people walking, despite the poor sidewalks. I see frequent curb cuts, causing difficulty for some of those walking. I see crumbling sidewalks. I see overgrown hedges making it dangerous for vehicles entering or departing hidden driveways, particularly for pedestrians. I see more road space than is required for the new traffic scheme. Lots of room for improvement. And we had a public consultation process where this was all discussed.

        1. Jeff,
          Not just me, but anyone who looks at the picture, and has spent a great deal of time on the road, knows and sees more than ample sidewalk space for the low to no volume of pedestrians (most of the time on Point Grey Road there are very few to no pedestrians, just local residents out walking their dogs before and after work), no difficulty walking whatsoever, manicured hedges except for one or two homes that have absentee owners, not anywhere near enough road space for parked vehicles on the South side, two-way vehicular traffic, and two-way bicycle traffic that rarely rides single-file but almost always 2, 3, 4 and 5 abreast. Regarding so-called “public consultation,” having only 2 weeks allowed for the public to respond (from presentation of the Final Recommendations to the public in late February 2016 to a written deadline by the Active Transportation Team of March 13, 2016, and NEVER consulting South side residents regarding the Final Recommendations) does not constitute “public consultation”; residents on the South side and owners on holiday or away on business are not even aware that Final Recommendations have been presented yet. Is that really what you consider “public consultation?” No one else, except Vision and their blind, self-interested supporters, do.

      3. Jeff,
        There are only 3 pedestrians in your picture. How do you justify the expense of a super-sized seawall promenade of 10-12 feet for three pedestrians.

        1. Bikes will show up too. Another no-brainer, just like closing Point Grey Road or a subway to UBC or under Marine Drive in W/N-Van, or a subway to E-Van or west end !
          Fresh thinking in the Mayors Council in Transportation (or more likely: new people) is required !!

    3. Don’t we need to cater to some of their wishes as they pay very high property taxes ?
      A society cannot be just takers.
      We need makers too !

    4. Yes that is true but Vancouver and BC will get vastly more in property taxes too, say $12-20,000 more per house per year times say 100 houses or $1M to $2M more a year, forever.
      The wealthy pay a disproportionate share of property and income taxes and as such they demand some services for them in return, too.

  3. Jeff,
    I knew my comment would bring you out of the woodwork; you must support Vision at all cost, and I do mean “at all cost”: sidewalks in our city, although needing flattening for wheelchair access and smoothing due to tree root uplifting, do not need to be 10-12 feet with front boulevards. This is an aesthetic, not necessary expense. How do you justify millions spent on beautification of wealthy residences over providing urgent transit and housing needs? I am most interested in your balance sheet.

    1. How about we thank the engineers, planners, community engagement teams, and all those who worked to make these improvements. I don’t see this as a Vision issue. If you support them or not, fine. You have no idea who I support, and it doesn’t matter anyway.

      1. Jeff,
        Your comments are transparent as to whom you support. Regardless, you are misinformed, as usual.

    2. The most surprising thing about the Point Grey Road Greenway was how many pedestrians and joggers flocked to it. I knew it would be popular with cyclists but had no idea there was so much pent up demand from people on their feet. This has been a great success story but it still needs lots of improvement to meet its potential. It is the missing link in the seawall that benefits everyone in Vancouver.
      The rich who own there got lucky. But you’d never think that if you heard the ranting of Nelson Skalbania who only sees his inconvenience.

      1. “Missing link in the seawall” — it is a 100% residential street; it is neither seaside nor a “wall.” It is a local, residential road by City street and traffic designation. Define “seawall” and then try to apply it to Point Grey Road; there is no relationship between the two, and trying to mislead the public only to add on usable property by already privileged North side residents, is also overtly transparent nepotism.

        1. Susan, Susan, Susan..you must recall that when you championed the Point Grey Bike Lane for banishing the evil commuter from your ‘hood that several voices were raised saying this was just a nice way for the Mayor to give his backers a private roadway. And now you’re surprised when the 1% gets fed even more at everyone’s expense? Surely you wouldn’t expect the creme de la creme to have an unsightly walkway outside their picture windows and their precious views? Even though the idea was floated of extending the seawall to just that, but was quietly dropped.
          I guess your take away from this should be: Be careful what you wish for.

  4. Wow there’s a lot of antipathy for this … I get being suspicious of intentions, and it is quite coincidental that the houses with the most end up getting a more pleasant place.
    But the thing is, the link is needed, it is already extremely well used despite not being all that well executed (yet), or finished, and where exactly are you going to put it? The old bike route was on 3rd, and exactly zero people used it to get to UBC because it has significant hills (I used to live on top of that hill).
    Sometimes, unless you choose to act differently/defiantly out of spite, you end up giving one group something while at the same time unintentionally giving another group something. (With roads it is usually the opposite, you give to one group and you take from another [taking away safety, clean air, noise, etc…])
    The route to UBC was unsafe before. It is better now. Can we move on please?

    1. Artitectus,
      No one is questioning the bike route on Point Grey Road; there is a consensus. It is the new plan for a super-sized inland seawall on a narrow, local residential road that does not make sense. There is no “link” on either side of Alma and Macdonald for this walkway. What is the point of a super-sized promenade on a 9-block entirely residential road that links to nowhere? And, think of the cost; what a shocking waste of funds. The City should spend the bigger bucks and extend the actual seawall at the seaside.

    2. It isn’t an inland seawall, it is a greenway. It was always described as a greenway. And greenways are for walking and cycling. They are designed to connect other points, in this case from Kits Park to Jericho Park.
      http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/greenways-for-walking-and-cycling.aspx
      If you are concerned about the funds being spent on improving walking (and cycling) routes, then you should look at the percentage of the City transportation budget that is spent on those areas as compared to infrastructure for motor vehicle traffic.

      1. Jeff,
        The project manager has called it “a seawall” at the meetings for the Final Recommendations for the project just this past February; you can disagree with him if you want, but that is what he is calling it in front of many citizens as witnesses.

  5. Bob,
    I supported and still support the closure to commuter motorist traffic for safety. I also support a seawall, or seawalk, on the waterfront because that is where a seawall belongs by definition and purpose; it would be a win-win for tourism in Vancouver and a much-needed additional transportation route for navigating the city and getting to and from UBC. It is a no-brainer. The fact that Vision buckled under the cost and environmentalists’ pressure not to touch the foreshore reveals an utter lack of “vision” for the city and its future. A stop-gap measure of constructing a “seawall” on local, residential Point Grey Road is nonsensical and obviously flawed in that Point Grey Road does not link up, and never will, to any continuation of a seawall or transportation route for the benefit of citizens or tourists. There is little to no sea view, no beaches or anything to attract pedestrians, and no commuter motorist transportation viability. It is a bike route, period, and that benefit is about to be destroyed with planned substantial narrowing (10-12 feet) of the road and pavement extension in front of North side residences. It is cheaper and faster than building an actual seawall, but it has no viability going forward; it is an extremely expensive short-term bandaid only, and a severe safety hazard, but Vision has “vision” only as far as its last term in office. Vancouver citizens will be left to pick up the pieces, yet again. Lest we forget the wastage on Vision’s utterly unused but costly York Street separated bike lanes.

  6. “A stop-gap measure of constructing a “seawall” on local, residential Point Grey Road is nonsensical and obviously flawed in that Point Grey Road does not link up, and never will, to any continuation of a seawall or transportation route for the benefit of citizens or tourists.”
    Not sure how one could come to that conclusion. As a fairly regular user of the existing route it was how I got from the bike path at Kits Beach to the bike path at Jericho Beach countless times since the new configuration was installed. A trip I should add, I wouldn’t have taken in the past, instead relying on the Off-Broadway route because Point Grey Road in the past was simply too stressful for this laid-back cyclist — due to the number of aggressive drivers that used it. The stunning number of families riding with small children that I have witnessed in my travels along the improved Point Grey Road certainly pointed to pent-up demand for these kinds of traffic-calmed facilities.

    1. Chris,
      Try to pay attention: I am not talking about the existing bike route on Point Grey Road; I am talking about the proposed seawall sidewalk that goes nowhere to the West or East. Although, it is also true that as a cyclist, once one hits Stephens heading East there is nowhere to go since no one uses York, and heading West, there is only the gravel and sandy Jericho path, not much of a bike route to UBC.

      1. The proposed sidewalk improvements sure look like they go east/west to me. I often use York, and I don’t think getting to UBC via the beach route is something one would expect. There are other, easier routes. I guess I just haven’t been paying attention for the past twenty years I’ve been riding in Vancouver and have been doing it wrong. Perhaps I was cycling in some fantasy world.
        The wider sidewalks sound like a great idea given the number of joggers I’ve seen in that area. It would be better for everyone if they weren’t on the roadway, which seems to happen fairly often when you get a running club going through.

        1. Chris,
          I am glad to hear that you, someone, is using the York bikeway so that it was not a 100% waste of taxpayer money.

      2. Hi Susan:
        I counted 15 cyclists using the York bike route in this video clip, as opposed to 6 cars. I don’t count the parked cars because it’s impossible to know how many bicycles might be stored (parked) in homes along the same route.

        1. Chris,
          So let me get this straight; you are not counting the visible parked cars, which are obviously on the street because people use them, and your reasoning is that there may or may not be bicycles that are not visible, so you are just going to pretend that the visible cars are not there. I am giving my head a shake.

        2. Chis,
          The parked cars along the route that you chose to pretend aren’t there number 226 compared to your 15 bikes. So where should the priority lie regarding usage? Unlike you, who would like to pretend cars don’t exist, I have counted the facts.

        3. No Susan, I don’t pretend they don’t exist. They are there, unused, taking up road space. There could be a bicycle in every apartment along that stretch for all we know, so I chose not to do a comparison of who demands more public space for the storage of private property. Regardless, you made a nonsense claim that York goes unused by cyclists, yet there go 15 of them in the space of a few minutes! I am giving my head a shake.

  7. I always took 3rd without any difficulty. Then again, I am not of the sprinting Spandex ilk.
    This was before it became a quasi gated community.

    1. Odd that proposed Arbutus Greenway (which promises to be a jewel in the crown of Vancouver Greenways) stops at 10th Ave? Surely this should connect with Seaside Greenway, Burrard Bridge and the proposed Granville Bridge Greenway? Otherwise, it looks like and amazing network of greenways. I’m so happy I live and in Vancouver.

    2. Arno, there are different versions of the map, and they are generally from 2011-2012 anyway. Here is a City version that shows the potential Arbutus Greenway running down towards False Creek.
      http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/city-greenways-network-map.pdf
      One issue may be deciding on the northern terminus. There has been mention of it not running north of 5th, and other calls for it to run further. That property, north of 5th, seems more developable as it isn’t just a narrow corridor in places, but larger parcels that accommodate the changes in direction in the current track. It may be that selling off some of those pieces (sharing the proceeds with CP as per the agreement) could help pay for the purchase. We may have to wait and see. I’ll be voting personally to run it down to 1st if anybody asks me.

      1. Regarding the Arbutus “greenway,” there has been no public consultation either on this project, which is shameful. Vision is making a lot of enemies.

      2. As I’ve said in other posts, I’m not for spending the $55M (just for the land), PLUS millions more for the construction. But, since the City is building it anyway, I like the proposed path. It has to cut east at 5th or higher — you guys know what the hill from 4th to Cornwall looks like, right? Only Jeff would be able to get up that grade.

        1. For this kind of land $55M is cheap cheap cheap. Property values around it will soar and the city will collect more in property taxes. Plus in a few spots here and there they will actually sell the land after it is rezoned and build residential units recouping much of that money. A no-brainer, like a new self-funding subway or tunnel with tolls.

    3. Jeff,
      Of course it should be about Point Grey Road, Arbutus, and all the other neighbourhoods and local roadways utterly ignored by the current Vision council. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbing Peter, and Peter has every right to complain and insist that his rights be protected.

  8. Chris,
    You cannot mean what you just said: “No Susan, I don’t pretend they don’t exist. They are there, unused, taking up road space.” Surely, you are not suggesting that these 226 cars are parked on the road for no purpose except to take up space. They are there because people use them daily, repeatedly each day. Your 15 cyclists to 226 cars tells the story; you just can’t read.

    1. A car with no one in it, sitting still, isn’t being used Susan. Stop insulting people because they don’t agree with your erroneous claims — such as York being unused. There is concrete evidence you are wrong. It was demonstrated to you. Issue a mea culpa and please stop ‘advocating’ on behalf on cycling in this city. I think you are doing more harm than good frankly.
      and this: “They are there because people use them daily, repeatedly each day.” Another completely unsupportable assertion. Fail.

      1. That’s right, Chris, the 226 visible, licensed and insured cars on the road in your own video are there just to irritate or mislead you personally, not because they are being used, and the unknown and unconfirmed invisible bikes that you imagine/hope/trust/channel as being in garages or units that you can’t prove exist are being used in your dreamworld, so they outweigh the immediately evident cars. You have a unique idea of “concrete evidence.”

      2. Chris,
        Cars parked on the street require insuring or they are impounded, and car insurance is no small cost, so people are not going to insure vehicles that they are not using. Bikes require no insurance and can sit idle for years on or off the street. You can rest assured that the 226 cars are in active use compared to your 15 bikes.

      3. The evidence is in the bike counts, Chris. The York bike lane is relatively unused compared to other bike lanes in the city and a waste of money in cost analysis.

  9. Not even close. I said I didn’t count either of those categories in disproving your claims. I counted cars and bicycles on the road, moving, in use. I’m sorry that this concrete proof makes a mockery of your original contention Susan — to quote; “Although, it is also true that as a cyclist, once one hits Stephens heading East there is nowhere to go since no one uses York.”
    15 cyclists in the space of a few minutes. It’s over. Your statement is wrong and misleading. Let it go.

    1. Here is my analysis re York Street. We can probably assume that the car/bike mix stays the same throughout the day. Also, we can assume that there are just as many parked bikes (which we can’t see) as cars which we can see, so these don’t matter, except that the parked cars take up an awful lot of public space. In any case, the parked cars and parked bikes don’t matter because they are not moving. So therefore, the only evidence that we have is that there is 2.5 times as much bike traffic as car traffic on York Street.

    2. Chris,
      Statistically significant correlations are not based on subjective bias (guesses for personal gain) but a large sample of data under varying conditions, not 15 bikes once in a few minutes. You might want to take a course on Probability and Statistics.

  10. Susan:
    You made a blatantly incorrect statement about York. It’s been proven to be so. You are free to keep revisiting this if you like. I’ll keep pointing out that your original remarks were so far from reality that your attempts to discredit my proof of such simply appear to be a tactic to divert attention from the truly fatuous remarks you made earlier in the thread:
    “Lest we forget the wastage on Vision’s utterly unused but costly York Street separated bike lanes.”
    “once one hits Stephens heading East there is nowhere to go since no one uses York,”
    These claims are incorrect and were proven to be so. End of story. The fact that you didn’t like it when I didn’t count parked, empty cars as ‘using’ the road is irrelevant. Make a case for your original remarks or retract them. Those strike me as your two best options. Pretending my remarks aren’t valid or relevant because they are concrete proof of the inanity of your claims regarding York St. is simply bad manners IMO.

  11. Chris,
    Once again, your argument lacks logic: 15 visible bicycles is a pittance compared to 226 visible cars within the same time frame. Unlike you, I am not about to “assume” (guess, fabricate) the invisible as a means to falsify evidence and pretend that there are more bicycles using York than there actually are. The cars outnumber the bicycles by 750%. Fact.

    1. You know, this back and forth thing is counterproductive when looking at the larger picture.
      To make a comparison, we provide ramps at almost every corner so that people in wheelchairs can have more mobility. We don’t take a glance at each corner and count how many are in wheelchairs and then decide that there’s too low of demand or count the number of people walking and say that walking is clearly more popular so we should not provide any other option. We then don’t look back and say that corner ramp was a waste of money because the number of people in wheelchairs is low. No, we provide accessibility.
      Same here, there are many people who are not able to access the motor vehicle world nor the transit world. For them they need other options. Having the rare street where cycling is prioritized in a vast ocean of space where driving gets every single street is not asking for much at all.

      1. Adanac,
        You are incorrect; there is a requirement of an Accessibility Study to determine a cost analysis based on need versus cost so that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on the wrong street for accessibililty. There is no question that our taxpayer dollars were wasted on York. Look at the City’s own study data. Still the preferred route is Cornwall. Fact.

      2. Adanac,
        Faulty analogy because by it, you are then arguing for 12-foot wide redundant sidewalks with 3-4-foot wide front boulevards that are “unsafe” at $6.4 million for every 9 blocks for all roadways in the city simply because a pedestrian at some point might choose to walk along any roadway, and you think that the extra wide sidewalk is a justifiable improvement despite high cost, lack of demand, and safety hazards.

        1. Adanac,
          Similarly, you are arguing for bike lanes everywhere on the odd chance that one cyclist might come up or down any roadway in the city, so the cost, inconvenience to other road users, and creation of safety hazards seems worth it to you. Your priorites need adjustment.

        2. I don’t quite follow what you’re saying in these last two posts.
          I’ll take a guess though. I don’t know who you’re lumping me in with but I’m not arguing for 12 foot wide sidewalks. I’m also not arguing for bike lanes everywhere. That’s not necessary. Bike lanes are only necessary when the volume and speed of motor vehicles is high. If both are low enough then there’s no need for a bike lane.
          (Are you maybe getting the words lane and route mixed up? They’re not the same thing.)

    1. Arnie,
      The Rally of Concerned Kitsilano Residents attracted 400+ individuals, who all signed the Petition against the current Vision Council’s wasteful spending throughout the city, including the redundant $6.4 million sidewalk plan for Point Grey Road. That’s hardly “a couple of neighbours.”

    1. To a majority of taxpayers, Don, what their City spends their money on does matter. Not so “lol.”

  12. Perhaps the regional growth strategy, lacking any justification for the new Massey Bridge (more here https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/subtext-the-real-purpose-of-the-massey-bridge) is flawed and needs updating ?
    Growth – both residential and commercial – will happen in ALL parts of MetroVan but more where it is cheaper, i.e. Fraser South. Unclear to me why there is 0 discussion on that, or more land as part of a growth strategy ?
    Don’t we update plans when new facts show the plan is flawed ?

    1. It is probably a good thing that it is being regularly updated, most recently in 2015. The information from each of the municipalities is contained in the Regional Context Statements.
      More here: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/metro-vancouver-2040/amendments/Pages/completed-amendments.aspx
      The bigger issue is the disconnect between Metro doing this land use planning, and other levels of government proceeding on projects that don’t appear to be aligned with the growth strategy.

      1. And, are those “updates” considered “conceptual,” “detailed,” “final” or “final detailed” plans despite the “updates?” In other words, are they clearly labelled as such for public information, or is the public expected to guess due to intentional lack of the clarity on the plans (allowing planners and engineers for the City to misrepresent their actual plans later)? And, if “updates” are not provided in a timely fashion by the City, does this not mislead the public as to the true intentions of the City, particularly when “updates” are “in principle only.”

      2. Thanks Jeff. I edited this into the original post.
        Why is there nothing on Massey Bridge impact yet, as that massive bridge (however controversial it might be) surely will impact areas south of Fraser in 2022 and beyond when bridge is complete ?

        1. Because it is not planned for in the Metro growth strategy, and is in fact working against that strategy, IMO.

    2. If both commercial and residential will occur south of the river then there will be less need to cross the river.

      1. Really ? More people and more commerce means LESS traffic ?
        We build condos in Surrey and less people go to Vancouver than before, say to Stanley Park or Nordstrom ?
        We build the mall in Tsawwassen and less people come from Vancouver ?
        Huh ? Why ? Enlighten us please.

        1. I’m very impressed with the twinkling LED lighting system running down the floors by the elevators in Nordstrom. Sustainable too.

        2. There are more people living downtown, more businesses and less traffic. That can happen everywhere if planning is done right and driving is priced right.
          Consider yourself enlightened.

        3. As RV posted, if planning is done right and transportation decisions are aligned with that planning, then certainly you can have more people, more jobs, more trips, and fewer private or single occupant vehicle trips. Vancouver city is proof of that, just look at the numbers over the past years. Now compare what Vancouver has done, with the Metro plan for multiple regional town centres, people living near where they work (not all of them, but more of them) and watch how that supports growth. With less need for expensive highways.
          Double enlightenment.

  13. Will they leave in the Vancouver plan the intention to close the Lions Gate Bridge by 2030? Has an amendment been made regarding that? I guess not.
    Leaving it in the Vancouver City plan only increases the value of property to the east and south and, of course, further pushes for the Massey Bridge to be built ASAP.

    1. It was never in the Vancouver Transportation plan to close the bridge, you know that. It was in the Transportation Plan to rescind the agreement to close the bridge if a third crossing was built by 2030. And all parties have said they aren’t doing that. It isn’t a Vancouver bridge anyway, it is provincial bridge. Please don’t keep spamming CTF nonsense.

      1. The Plan speaks for itself:
        “Transportation 2040 plan as adopted by Vancouver City Council on October 31, 2012.
        Transportation 2040 acknowledges that a past agreement still exists to remove private automobile traffic from the Stanley Park Causeway and Lions Gate Bridge by 2030. However, the agreement stipulated that this repurposing would take place in conjunction with the development of a third Burrard Inlet crossing. Since there are currently no such plans for a third crossing, the City will work with partners to determine whether this agreement should be rescinded, as well as any other appropriate actions for this regional issue.
        In 2000, an agreement was reached between the BC Transportation Financing Authority, the Insurance Corporation of BC, TransLink, the City of Vancouver, and the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. The agreement committed each party to a long-term objective to remove private automobile traffic from the Stanley Park Causeway and Lions Gate Bridge by 2030, with the facilities being reconfigured as a dedicated transit, cyclist, and pedestrian route, or turned back to park use. It further stipulated that this repurposing would take place in conjunction with the development of a new Burrard Inlet Crossing that is consistent with the aspirations of the communities that it will connect.”
        I see nothing there stating a plan to do otherwise, such as rescinding the above. Where can we see this?

      2. The parties involved include the provincial government, who own the bridge, and who clearly said in 2015 it has no plans to build a third crossing and close the bridge. Links provided previously.
        Sounds pretty rescinded to me. What do you hope to gain by continually reposting this?

        1. The province only said they do not have an intention to construct any third crossing, at this time.
          The City clearly states that they will work with partners to determine whether the agreement should be rescinded.
          Yes, I mentioned this before but there was no confirmation of any written update. If the City still has the intention and has not formally rescinded the agreement this could discourage investments and plans to live on the North Shore.
          Does anyone know if the agreement has in fact been formally rescinded?

  14. When will MetroVan mayors get that and start collecting more in taxes from parking and work with the province and federal government to install it ? More on this here: https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/free-parking-is-like-squatting/
    Here are a few holes in the 2040 plan:
    No subway further west than Arbutus, with UBC building at record pace and Jericho land coming soon ?
    No subway along N-Shore ?
    No subway to North Shore ?
    No second subway south on Granville or Burrard to connect to E-W Broadway line ?
    No CanadaLine extension south in Richmond ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *