October 3, 2016

Gil Kelley's To-Do List

Michael Alexander wrote down observations from our new city planner, Gil Kelley, at his Urbanarium intro talk:

  • Where do we want to go?
  • Strong, detailed incremental planning.
  • Area plans— what were best practices?
  • Planning has shrunk. We need to be leaders, not just regulators.
  • There has been a collective layering of bylaw accumulation. Consolidate and clarify.
  • There’s a generational divide over density, lifestyle, cars.
  • Don’t rehash CityPlan, but figure out how to knit together what we have.
  • CAC’s are great. We need to do best allocation, and insure public understanding.
  • A renewable city strategy, to come.
  • We’re getting better architecture after a period of sameness. More inventive.
  • Focus on the ground plane and the space between buildings.
  • The City needs better cooperation with Translink and Metro Vancouver. Regional compacts.
  • How are we addressing our housing needs? The ‘missing middle.’
  • We need to expand our downtown core planning.
  • Waterfront hub! The embarrassment of Granville Street ending into a parkade.
  • More diverse and regional job base.
  • Importance of the Broadway Corridor and transit to UBC.
  • The opportunity of the Jericho Lands.
  • Impact of the Millennium Line extension and development.
  • Main Street: keeping its moderate scale
  • Seismic retrofit for a renewable city
  • Regulatory review and budgeting
  • Public engagement: what works? Tours.
  • Feedback loops for planning and engagement

A long list, not in any particular order. He did emphasize the waterfront, and I was struck by his comments on regional cooperation.
He noted that he worked in Portland, which has very tight regional planning and decision making, and the San Francisco Bay Area, which is fragmented (105 municipalities; 26 transit agencies, multiple water, power, waste collection and disposal).
 

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel Reply

    1. Better COOPERATION with translink. (1) BUS LANES would reduce translinks costs & improve service. (2) (Closing of Robson has Increased tranlinks costs with increased BUS travel time on both Georgia & Robson streets

      1. There are always trade offs. Would you rather not have a pedestrianized Robson Square? Luckily we have a city which has determined that walking is at the top of the transportation hierarchy. This is a small way of demonstrating that they are attempting to follow this policy. I can’t wait for a pedestrianized Robson west of Hornby.

        1. Since the bus has to jog over off of Robson it makes sense to start planning for the bus to be on Alberni instead. A community shuttle could go on Nelson to serve those who can’t walk the extra block.

        2. ARNO,. Trade Offs .(1) No shortage of downtown roads that can be turned into people places without impacting transit .(2) Diverted East bound traffic to Georgia often has the bus slower than walking . (3) Robson square had a wide sidewalk so pedestrian access not an issue here.

        3. Which roads, Bob?
          The reason the buses are slow is because of cars. We need to reduce cars so that buses can flow more freely.
          They weren’t that wide – actually quite narrow at three of the four corners.

        4. Downtown has ZERO improved walkability. Where ?
          Once you are a block off the water it is an ugly car infested city with narrow sidewalks.
          Where are the plazas ?
          Where are the wider sidewalks ?
          Where are the pedestrian zones ?
          Where are the car free streets downtown ? Name me just one, please.

        5. @RV: buses are slow because they are not subways and are stuck in traffic just like cars. More buses are not the answer. Only rapid below (or perhaps above) ground is the answer.

        6. Thomas, that’s only the most expensive answer. Reducing cars so surface transit can move freely can be done at a fraction of the cost and we’d all benefit from less noise, stink and carnage.
          What you completely fail to grasp is that if you have the kind of dense, mixed-use development that is required to support excellent mass transit, the need to travel very far diminishes. Sure some people will still commute long distances but why would we cough up our hard earned dollars for the few. You want to superimpose a massively expensive subway network under a region that doesn’t have anywhere near the density to support it.

        7. “ugly car infested city with narrow sidewalks.”. We are truly living in a different dimension. As I see it, I live in one of the most beautiful cities there are, easy to get around, easy to walk, cycle, drive. Talk about glass half empty. Try getting around in cities which have real congestion and pollution. You will come running back to Vancouver kissing the narrow pavements you so despise.

        8. @robotboy44: you need to get out more & travel more. Vancouver’s attraction is the water and mountains around it, coupled with mild weather. Go a block away from it, especially downtown, or E-Van and it is a very average city with far too many cars and far too narrow sidewalks.
          Take away the seawall, the water, the mountains, the beaches and add snow and ice and it would not nearly be as nice.
          E-Van is nice ? Granville South between 6th and 16th is nice with a 6 lane highway and 1 m of sidewalk – this is a shopping mecca ? NO ped zone downtown ANYWHERE a block off the water. Why ?

      2. Robson square a trade offs? give us a break Arno
        A trade off looks like it:
        https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/bordeaux_sq_2.jpg
        And it is this kind of trade off, which allow large scale pedestrianization, , and still preserving the city accessibility and inclusiveness, especially of senior, and people with mobility challenge…
        What we see on Robson, is just blind ideology in action. light year from an articulated pedestrianization plan increasing the city accessibility and inclusiveness…and as noticed by Bob, with very dire consequence on transit… (not surprisingly the city transportation policy has been a failure so far: yes more cyclist, but at the expense of transit, not car!)
        here is what do cities when instead to be driven by an ideological agenda, are serious about both urbanism and accessibility:
        https://voony.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/transit-as-part-of-the-urban-fabric/

        1. @Arno: we need access. Robson Street has 2 subways nearby. It should be closed from Stadium to Denman. Starting at Robson Square 2-3 blocks in both directions, then a block year by year. Unclear why this is not done NOW ?

    2. I can understand the frustration and sincerity with which PT bloggers face the subject of local transportation, it’s become an obsession, and yet I can remember when premier Van der Zale brought in Sky train there was hardly a murmur. Today it is one long interminable gossip train with very little likely hood of anything coming of it.
      In the good old days it was industry and jobs came first, the frills, later. In industrial England workers lived and walked to work: I remember the clog train!
      My guess is most of PT’ers work in one government job or another and haven’t a clue as to what’s going on the street. Surely no one still believes they will be living in those hundreds million dollar empty monsters tomorrow?
      Do they not thinq that if Gregor could have sweet-talked the bankers long ago we would have had a tunnel the length of Broadway by now!
      When I arrived 1951, Vancouver had a great inter-urban: downtown-Steveston, downtown-Langley etc.
      What seems to have slipped the notice of yeah these many bloggers is that the world is in an irreversible, yes, massive economic depression . . . https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/55r6xl/does_anyone_else_feel_frustrated_by_how_bullshit/ . . . Good luck!

      1. Thanks for providing this important link. Would suggest those interested to watch über rich Nick Hanauer’s TED talk. He warns fellow greedy billionaires that the 99% might be coming with pitchforks.
        We are held hostage by predatory capitalists. Look at Gates, who likes to promote himself as a social do-gooder. But his obscene wealth increases constantly. He is an ultra greedy control freak who has been convicted three times for predatory monopolistic business practices. Pure unrepentant psychopathological narcissistic greed.
        Curious how in our language someone can be worth x amount of dollars; that they are defined as such. “Oh, he’s worth a billion”, but if you’re of modest means, you’re what – a thousandaire? Are you worth ten thousand or a hundred?
        When you croak, microbes don’t care how much you’ve sucked out of the 99%.
        Take Greedy Jim’s incessant game. How many wage slaves can he acquire before he croaks? How much cash and control is enough? It’s never enough for Geriatric Jim. Who will shed a tear when breathes his last? Who will rejoice? Will we tear down the plethora of vile billboards polluting our visual environment.
        How can we allow one individual or a handful to dominate and control our lives.
        Look at the Walton clan – wealth of truly revolting proportions – greed on a monumental scale. Yet there are foodbanks; people digging in garbages and dumpsters. Children living in poverty.
        The USSR had political prisoners. We have economic prisoners. A predatory capitalist system so vicious that individuals are jailed at society’s cost of $100K per year for stealing from people so rich they wouldn’t notice if million dollar bills were falling from their back pockets.
        We 99% are asked to contribute to charitable causes. That’s absurd. Hey charities, schools, foodbanks: if you want cash, go to the mother lode – the billionaires. And don’t ask, don’t beg. Demand. Shame these relentlessly greedy smug monsters. Load up buses and go to their homes. Need a logo – how about the guillotine – or a pitchfork.

  1. How does “walking is at the top of the transportation hierarchy” get people to and from where they need to be, unless they happen to live a short distance to their work? Of course we need to provide good walking access, but “the top”? Really?

    1. Pretty much everybody walks, whether it’s the entire trip or from the bus stop, skytrain, bike or car parking. So yes, walking tends to be listed at the top in most municipalities with transportation plans, not only Vancouver. It’s also good for retail.

    2. Walking is at the top because it is the lowest impact, most beneficial form of urban transportation and therefore a great goal to work toward getting more people walking. What don’t you get?

      1. RV (1) Which roads ? .. Both sides of Vancouver library , & old post office would be good start for a people place (2) Agreed reduce cars . That can be achieved by less parking (3) By closing Robson they did NOT reduce cars they moved them to Georgia street(4) Yes walking is preferable to an overcrowded gridlocked bus unless its raining

      2. As you put it, yes, walking is very important and we all have to do it, but I suppose it depends how you classify that walking is at the top of the hierarchy.
        We hear a heck of a lot more about public transport or bridges, or cycling before new walking infrastructure or plans for major walking developments. It seems more money, discussion and time is spent on everything else before walking, so, as I say, it really depends on what you mean by “at the top”.

        1. Well here’s a great example of walking being at the top. Bob suggests places that could be closed to traffic. But they are not the places most beneficial to pedestrians.They are places that would least inconvenience other modes. Robson is better because it’s already heavy with pedestrians and is a cross”roads” between shopping and entertainment areas as well as fairly close to the business core.
          Pedestrians being at the top means prioritizing pedestrian spaces. And isn’t it great that i costs so little!

        2. “We hear a heck of a lot more about public transport or bridges, or cycling before new walking infrastructure…”
          But sometimes when we do hear about new walking infrastructure (thinking here of Phase 2 of the Seaside Greenway) we get posts saying that it is a waste and people can walk there just fine. There were a lot of articles and posts about that particular walking infrastructure.

        3. Jeff Leigh must you always revert to another old argument where you had trouble trying to express yourself and try to open it up again? We can see you rolling up your sleeves to fight another old fight, again. How many times do they have to remind you to keep it civil and on topic?

        4. Robotboy – Exactly. Walking is at the top of the transportation hierarchy but little is done to improve walking except for Robson Square. and other small nods to improved walking. City has proposed scramble intersections but appear to be afraid to move forward. Why don’t we make Water Street a pedestrian street? Then Robson Davie and even Denman. Granville Island is a must do for pedestrian area. So much potential but downtown continues to be a motorized wasteland. The only bright spot is a few protected bike lanes.

        5. Well, my view is that walking is not really in dire need of attention on the same level as transit, roads and cycling. In my limited personal experience, dare I say, I have no problem walking anywhere and everywhere I need to walk, but clearly transit needs are far more pressing, as I see it. Can someone tell me where they tried to walk and just couldn’t? Even the PGR sidewalk widening which Jeff refers to is certainly not at all necessary, but more of a pet project. Walkers there have no problem at all, and I have stood there on a sunny weekend and asked many of them, who agree.

        6. ICBC Lower Mainland stats indicate 1700 injuries and 34 fatalities for pedestrians annually (five year avg – 2009 to 2014). If anything we need greater attention to this issue and how to solve it.

  2. How about putting a pin in “Broadway corridor” plans until there is adequate research and investigation. This is another Vision pet project lock step with developers keen to densify along the route. It’s a colossal misuse of funds when so much more transit allocation could be achieved for a lot less than the billions a subway to Arbutus would cost. Light rail, or streetcars or just more busses would achieve so much at a fraction of the cost.
    The assumption that we are desperate for a subway on Broadway is being asserted by the city, but it is really misguided and a huge waste of funds.

    1. It’s an incredible conspiracy. It involves Translink and the other regional mayors agreeing to place a priority on Broadway. Actors have been hired to queue at B-Line stops to give the appearance of long lines. Data from multiple government agencies faked. Offices and storefronts have been set up to give the appearance of commerce but, much like the moon landing, it’s all faked.

      1. Yeah, we were also told we desperately needed major roads running through Vancouver or the city would choke to death. It almost happened. Sometimes you need to step back and not assume that politicians with vested can conflicted interests are always right. I’m not a some conspiracy theorist, but I have read about alternatives, greener, easier to use and less costly alternatives. No one is saying we do not need better transit, but the assumption that a subway to Arbutus is sensible is absolutely not universally agreed and from what I have read, and my own eyes, it seems crazy to me.

    2. The second highest office space in the Metro — cardboard castles, apparently. The second densest employment centres — written in invisible ink. The highest estimated transit ridership next to the Expo Line — a whisper campaign by the masked, anonymous SkyTrain Lobby. Protection of the densest signalized pedestrian crossing array of any arterial — a comedy routine by Marg Delahunty.

  3. If the subway is going out to UBC then what is the rough cost, now? Is a rail line down to Tsawwassen out of the question? How about the rail line to Langley? Now, we are also hearing ideas for a rapid rail line to Seattle.
    Now we’re talking serious money.
    Hey, don’t forget the north shore rail link.
    Maybe someone with rail experience can just total up a rough costing for us.

    1. $3B roughly to UBC. Peanuts – especially borrowed at 2% – if one adds the add’l land value and density and property taxes and GST and PST to be collected over the next 100+ years.

      1. Gil Kelley says that The City needs better cooperation with Translink and Metro Vancouver. This must include regional transit. Rapid transit. Which lines will he be thinking of?

        1. City needs better cooperation especially with the province as a major cheque writer.
          I think he is thinking of “gee, Surrey – Langely is approved” and is getting major federal and provincial $s and UBC-Broadway line is stuck in the swamp, for now only to Arbutus.
          With the Jericho lands feds+natives cooperation and massive density there, plus already approved massive density for UEL’s block F a subway to UBC is such a no-brainer.
          Will UBC and native bands contribute mightily might I ask ? Or is this not expected, of course, as they are both special and “exempt” ?
          $60M a year for debt cost plus op cost will EASILY be offset by add’l CACs, user fees, land values and taxes of all sorts (property taxes, 15% foreigner tax, vacancy tax, land transfer tax, PST, GST, federal corporate tax, federal personal tax, provincial corporate tax, provincial employment taxes, EI, CPP, CO2 taxes ..)
          Detailed KPMG 65+ page study on UBC-Broadway corridor economic spin-off here: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/KPMG-UBC-Broadway-Corridor-2013-02-26.pdf
          Why are we not digging yet ?

      2. Gee, never heard $3 billion described as peanuts. I think you have nailed it though, the impetus is rooted in land value and density rather than true transit needs.

        1. Send a letter.
          I just sent this to CC, David Eby (my MLA) and Joyce Murray (my MP) plus Maria Harris (Area A director) and Richard Alexander, UNA president:
          Dear elected officials representing our interests:
          I wonder where we stand with regard to the UBC Broaway subway in light of the recently approved Block F densification and the upcoming, likely similar dense provincial/federal/native Jericho lands ?
          The estimated cost is around $3B. PEANUTS I’d say as $3B borrowed at ultralow 1.25 to 2% is a mere $42-60M a year for debt cost. Add some op cost and this will EASILY be offset by add’l CACs, user fees, land values and taxes of all sorts (property taxes, 15% foreigner tax, vacancy tax, land transfer tax, PST, GST, federal corporate tax, federal personal tax, provincial corporate tax, provincial employment taxes, EI, CPP, CO2 taxes ..)
          Detailed KPMG 65+ page study on UBC-Broadway corridor economic spin-off here: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/KPMG-UBC-Broadway-Corridor-2013-02-26.pdf
          Why are we not digging yet ?
          Why are we not even announcing funding ?
          What are we waiting for ?
          Look at the congestion in New West, N Van or now Port Moody because we built first and then realize, gee, there is all them cars. Build the subway first, or in parallel to densification, PLEASE. UBC is dense already and getting denser by the day. Block F in UEL was just approved for super high density after “consultation” which preferred far lower density, and no doubt we will get the same “consultation” for Jericho land and we will have a complete traffic disaster on our hand on 4th, Broadway and 16th in a decade if no subway is built at least to Jericho land (and not to Arbutus) or best to UBC with three stops, at Block F, at current bus loop and at Wesbrock village south of 16th.
          Yours Sincerely,
          Thomas Beyer
          UBC Resident & former UNA treasurer & vice chair & lover of uncongested roads & rapid transit
          604-564-7673

  4. WALKING Pedestrian access can be improved with wider sidewalks instead of parking. This would have the added benefit of reducing traffic. Market driven user fees on the remaining spots would encourage transit use.I

      1. This is uncalled for. It is a very discriminatory statement and is in clear violation of the PriceTags comment policy. If you made this type of statement about gay people, people of colour, females, Jewish people or any other group specifically mentioned in the Human Rights legislation, you would be subject to be charged with violation of these laws. Please stop this nonsensical discrimination.

  5. This conversation is so yesterday: trying to solve tomorrow’s issues by “looking in the rear view mirror” Marshall McLulan.
    “The old order changeth yealding place to new and God shall fulfil his will in many ways lest one good custom should corrupt the world! Alfred Lord Tennyson.
    I have watched planners come and go from Gerald Sutton-Brown to the current conflagration but then who am I to disrupt an engaging conversation among equals!
    Vancouver is a small, iddoated, urban economy, deeply indebted, full of grand ideas with no-where to go. You would be wise to stop dredging up old complaints with old ideas and start with new people and new ideas.
    Read the semiotics of current developments and patterns, learn what not to do and build from there. Today’s planner is tomorrow’s pensioner, learn from that.

  6. RB44: “walking is very important and we all have to do it, but I suppose it depends how you classify that walking is at the top of the hierarchy.”
    Transportation 2040, our municipal strategic transportation plan, has some comment on that, as follows, from page 16 of the 2012 plan:
    “The City’s transportation decisions will generally reflect a “hierarchy of modes” for moving people, as prioritized below.
    1. Walking
    2. Cycling
    3. Transit
    4. Taxi / Commercial Transit / Shared Vehicles
    5. Private Automobiles
    The hierarchy is intended to help ensure that the needs and safety of each group of road users are sequentially considered when decisions are made, that each group is given proper consideration, and that the changes will not make existing conditions worse for more vulnerable road users, such as people on foot, bicycle, and motorcycle. Each time a new roadway is designed or an existing one changed, opportunities for improving walking and cycling will be reviewed. Separated cycling facilities are to be included in all new major roadway design and construction.
    This is a general approach and does not mean that users at the top of the list will always receive the most beneficial treatment on every street. In highly constrained urban environments, it is not always possible to provide the ideal facilities for all users’ needs, and compromises sometimes have to be made, including accommodating some users on parallel streets. This is especially the case for streets with limited rights-of-way that play a special role for a particular mode or use (such as transit or goods movement). Where modes lower in the hierarchy are prioritized, the reasons for this approach will be outlined and improvements to parallel alternative routes considered.”
    You posted that you “have no problem walking anywhere and everywhere I need to walk” but that isn’t the real issue. The issue is that not everyone can, or is willing to, walk everywhere they want, whether because of uneven footing, lack of curb cuts, etc, or just because they don’t feel safe or comfortable. The best way to determine the most beneficial treatment is to try and understand latent demand, to see if walkers are under-represented along a route. The fact that one or a few able bodied people can walk there isn’t as important as whether all potential users are walking there. We have mode share targets, not just access targets. We don’t just want some person to be able to walk there, we want a higher % of users to be walkers.

    1. I understand the hierarchy in that context, but I think it’s more about the principal of walking being the most widely used and important. Breathing air could be above that on the list, but that doesn’t mean that it requires our attention above all else, even though breathing is clearly more important than anything else. Our attention needs to go where the need is most and that is clearly public transit and roads, above walking infrastructure.
      You say, ” The issue is that not everyone can, or is willing to, walk everywhere they want”. I think this is greatly overstated. In reality, I don’t perceive that we have anything like a critical situation in the city as regards the ability to walk here. I wonder where you are thinking that walking is a serious issue. Curbs most everywhere have drops to accommodate wheelchairs. Sidewalks are wide and easy to walk. My mother is 86 and she walks a lot and has never once said, “Oh, I wish the city would give walking more attention because I just can’t get around”. She actually comments about how easy it is to walk in Vancouver (she’s not from here).
      So who is having a hard time walking here and how can that be improved? If you are talking about pedestrianizing downtown streets, that is less about helping people and more about an aesthetic. You can close Robson and it might be lovely to walk there, but that doesn’t mean that people can’t adequately walk there now, it’s just a question of whether it would be more pleasing or not, not need. Some would argue that businesses would suffer. Maybe they wouldn’t, but these are the considerations, not the inability of people to walk places now.

      1. You asked about the hierarchy of transportation modes, and now you have it. Your response seems to be that you have a different definition of the hierarchy. Fine, but yours seem to be based on “if I can walk there then it is good enough, now let’s build some roads”.
        Again, we don’t just want some person to be able to walk there, we want a higher % of users to be walkers. For a lot of reasons, all documented in the strategic plan.
        What happened on Point Grey Road when vehicle traffic was reduced? Walking trips doubled. If one was to argue that there were perfectly good sidewalks previously, then are you saying that the doubling of walking trips could have been a coincidence?
        .

  7. Jeff Leigh – that COV transportation heirarchy was first adopted by Council in 1997 when Philip Owen was Mayor (and a certain Gordon Price was on Council). I’m happy to have been part of the staff team that produced that seminal Transportation Plan.
    What I’m not particularly happy about is that No. 1 – the “Pedestrians First” policy -has not kept pace with other modes. We’ve built 2 rail transit lines, at least one viaduct (Powell Street) and many kilometres of bike facilities since then. All good. I just don’t see equivalent $$ and street space devoted to making walking more safe, comfortable and convenient. (The recent separation of the NEFC sea wall is a very pleasant exception, so kudos on that one, City!)
    As but one set of related examples of what I’m bellyaching about, we still haven’t gotten rid of the dreadful Granville Loops (first approved by Council in 2002), nor built the proposed Greenway on that bridge (see 2012 Transportation plan) nor created pedestrian-friendly corner bulges on South Granville.

    1. Agree with you on the NEFC Seawall improvements. Approved, and coming soon to SEFC, along to Granville Island. Lots more still to do.
      I am looking forward to a greenway on the Granville Bridge, eventually. And separation of walking and cycling on the Cambie Bridge.
      The improvements don’t have to be a competition between all modes. Hornby is much better for walking since the separated bike lane was installed, IMO. The False Creek improvements benefit walking and cycling at the same time.

    2. I’m looking forward to pedestrian scrambles – especially at busy intersections like Georgia/Granville and Cambie/Broadway. Currently, there is only one that I know of in all of Metro Vancouver – namely at Moncton/No 1 Road in Steveston. Why should pedestrians have to wait for two traffic light changes to make a diagonal crossing? Unfortunately, in spite of the transportation hierarchy, motordom still rules.

  8. Beyer writes about “native bands” in the wilds of UBC. Is he referring to the First Nations?
    He sounds annoyed by their special status.
    He should be grateful that members of pirate colonial tribes, esp. those that caused all the trouble in WW1 and 2, found safe haven in their homeland.

    1. Nations have borders, armies, their own tax collection system, their own school & hospital systems. They issue debt instruments and are self-sustaining. Our first “nations” have none of this. Hence the term tribe or band is a better description.
      I do recognize their special status. Some call this racism.
      Proudly second “nation” .. or 8th ?
      Perpetual dependency: when will it end ? it is neither good for the giver nor the givee.

  9. Why is Beyer (former treasurer of the UNA? – is that the United Nurses of Alberta?) so obsessed with having a subway built to UBC? What is his profit motive?
    UBC is a privileged enclave. It has customers only 7 months of the year. Expensive transit should be useful year round.
    The model of a university is changing – there are free and almost free institutions -countries see the value of providing free education. UBC may find itself without so many students eager to pay, or go into life debt.
    Michael Moore’s brilliant film: Where to Invade Next – profiles Slovenia. You don’t even have to be Slovenian to get a free education there.
    UBC, in many ways, is a kind of educational tourism. It would make more sense for this business to build more dorms – student hotels as it were, not for the rest of us to pay to shuttle their customers back and forth in a subway boondoggle.

    1. UBC is the second biggest employment center in BC, after downtown Vancouver. Why not read the KPMG report that lays out the business case ? It is here: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/KPMG-UBC-Broadway-Corridor-2013-02-26.pdf Lots of densification already coming, such as UEL’s Block F and Jericho land.
      More buses to the rescue ? or just more bike lanes ? Apparently you have not been to UBC lately as it has changed QUITE A LOT the last decade with its now 60,000+ daily and son 80,000+ inhabitants say in ten years. More on UBC here https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/whats-happening-at-ubc-lots/

        1. I live @ UBC. I prefer a subway over a (wobbly, slow, crowded, overheated) bus ! As do 10,000+ employees of UBC, 40,000+ students and 10,000+ residents !!

      1. No doubt it would be nice to have a subway to UBC, but the cost massive and those funds could be much more impactful if used for broader transit needs. Even if a subway was built, we are talking years before the first, then second phase gets to UBC, so what until then? Nothing new?

        1. And what is so “wobbly” about a bus? Are we talking horse and buggy? Busses are more accessible and flexible. We just need more busses. Simple.

  10. University Neighbourhoods Assciation. UBC residents/tenants, in Electoral Area A. Although not a resident or taxpayer in Vancouver, Thomas wants Vancouver to build a subway to the enclave.

  11. Beyer prefers to take the subway rather than a wobbly bus!
    Something is wobbly here – and it’s not the bus.
    In a province where 1 in 5 children is affected by poverty, spending billions on transit to whisk the privileged back and forth to the UBC enclave – that’s wobbly.
    It’s wobbly thinking to poor-bash. It’s wobbly thinking to disparage the First Nations. It’s a wobbly Weltanshauung that is proudly promulgated by the Smug Minority and bully dominator colonial invaders.

    1. Anyone to their opinions. Yours to you, and mine to me !
      Diversity creates progress, not uniformity.
      What is the opposite of diversity ? University ?
      What is your solution to the native issues ? More cash ? More land ? Borders ? Or integration and equal treatment of all Canadians ? Or are some more equal than others ?

  12. It’s ok to have opinions. The ugly ones are best left private.
    BTW, if you so dislike the wobbly bus why don’t you take a limo. You sound like you’ve got a lot of cash; or is it just the billions that don’t belong to you that you are so keen on spending.

    1. I take a car2Go usually .. or my scooter .. or walk .. or a bike .. or a (hybrid green) car .. or only on occasion use the (wobbly, slow, often overheated) bus.
      What opinions are ugly ? Just those that disagree with yours ? Or treating every person the same, regardless of race or ancestry ?
      It makes sense to invest billions that cost less than 2% to borrow to make 5% or more on it. That is smart investment or infrastructure spending !! It is common sense. But: common sense is not so common.
      Happy Thanksgiving. We have much to be thankful for here in prosperous clean Canada, and that is why there is such a lineup of folks that wish to come in !
      Perhaps the city and the province will get their funding act together here for enhanced infrastructure, less congested (and tolled) roads and more rapid transit for enhanced quality of life in ever more crowded Vancouver !

      1. Yep. I agree there. While we all like to complain and for some it’s a big hobby but overall things in this part of the world are pretty good.

      2. Why are you fixated on this multi-billion dollar infrastructure? Why are you pushing for it? You obviously don’t need it to get from a to b. Altruism? Sure.
        Your life revolves around making profit from real estate. That’s what you do for a living.
        If my property happened to be rezoned because of a new mega transit infrastructure, it would be worth an extra million.
        I strongly suspect you’d profit even more. That’s what I hear.

  13. So, Beyer, in his own words, uses Car2Go, a bicycle, a scooter, and a hybrid car; and, oh horror, on occasion, a wobbly slow overheated bus.
    Yet he’s pushing obsessively, relentlessly, to have billions of our dollars – which he calls peanuts – spent on some of the most expensive deluxe transit infrastructure built, to where he says he lives: a privileged enclave.
    Considering all the other means of locomotion he currently uses, not to mention the options of taxis and limos, or carpooling – that makes a choice of 8 ways to get around. When would he even find time to take a subway? Why the mania for a subway? What is the ulterior motive? Anyone who owns property near a transit station will make millions.
    It is, as he says, a “no-brainer”.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles