In case anyone missed it, the region’s politicians are buzzing with anxiety about what the province has in mind in terms of paying for the Evergreen Line.
It’s difficult to imagine what is getting cooked up in Victoria, given how many options the province has already rejected, so people have taken to guessing and worrying. Here’s the latest chapter in what appears to be the never-ending TransLink drama.
55 responses so far ↓
1 Joe Just Joe // Mar 18, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Maybe Richard Bransons Carbon war room will just give us the money if we promise to send him all the carbon that we save.
2 voony // Mar 18, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Is it right to think that the Federal matches the province share in this project?
so, the Province could just need to find $200M what should be doable, right?
but I heard that the “clowns” of Victoria will not even tap in the federal Stimulus fund in its entirety, preferring to milk the local tax payer instead… is it true or insane?
3 jimmy olson // Mar 18, 2010 at 10:03 pm
I just saw a depressing news item the other day about how our wages in BC have been steadily declining. We are getting poorer by the day and the bozos in Victoria want to tax us even more.
I am mad as hell and I ain’t going to take it anymore!!
4 mezzanine // Mar 18, 2010 at 10:32 pm
I would be madder if transit infrastructure wasn’t extended to the tricities.
5 grounded // Mar 18, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Frances, your article says:
“Last year, the province turned down TransLink’s suggestions to put money from the carbon tax toward transit or to create new revenue mechanisms, like tolls, road-use fees, or ICBC charges based on kilometres driven.”
Do you know if there was a report produced where they evaluated PAYD insurance and road pricing or was this a purely political decision? It seems absurd to me that such a free market government won’t entertain the idea that those who drive and use the infrastructure most should shoulder a greater portion of the cost of providing and maintaining it, not to mention ICBC’s costs. It’d also give them credit for creating a less congested transportation network, one of the chief goals of the Gateway project, and encourage more transit, walking and cycling, other purported goals of this government. Not to mention inch them closer to their legislated GHG reduction targets. Hmmm.
6 Lewis N. Villegas // Mar 19, 2010 at 1:31 am
When all else fails, write a letter to the editor… This one went off this morning:
To the Editor,
Our Premier and Minister of Transportation are short $400 million for Evergreen Skytrian. If the car you want costs too much, then switch to a more affordable model.
By Translink’s own numbers the “Olympic Line” tram would save $430 million. That’s the missing $400 million plus $30 million more to handle costs of switching (see “The Case for the Evergreen Line : Keeping Greater Vancouver Moving”. Translink, September 2006).
There is more. The more affordable “car” won’t blight the neighbourhoods, and will take cars off congested streets.
Skytrain blights neighbourhoods with overhead track. Thus, Evergreen Skytrain was redirected to run along highways and railway corridors away from served populations. This adds even more costs! Buses must service SkyTrain.
Evergeen Tram runs on neighbourhood streets. People just walk from home to ride on North Road, St. John’s Street and Guilford Way.
No wonder Translink has problems making ends meet.
You’d think trams would make a mess of already clogged arteries. Think again. Evergreen Tram down the centre of the street means revitalization for local merchants. The 20,000 cars Tram takes off the road is really peak hour capacity. Tram puts back 60,000 trips (20 million trips per year according to Translink).
7 Mr Peanut // Mar 19, 2010 at 6:19 am
Choo choo I think I can I think I can… Choo choo … You betcha!
8 Keith // Mar 19, 2010 at 8:52 am
A sales tax is still the best way to pay for transit.
Boston’s Transit receives one per cent from the State of Massachusett’s 6.5% sales tax, amounting to almost $950 million last year.
By the way, their basic cash fare is only $2.00.
9 Chris // Mar 19, 2010 at 8:56 am
Take a look at the transportation part of the BC budget (http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2010/sp/pdf/ministry/trans.pdf). It lists 4 major capital projects:
Kicking Horse Canyon ($341 million)
South Fraser Perimeter Road ($1.2 billion)
Port Mann/Highway 1 ($2.5 billion)
Evergreen ($1.4 billion)
No one has ever suggested a special property tax to pay for those highway improvements. If we cancelled the contentious South Fraser Perimeter Road, we could have the Evergreen Line for almost free.
10 mezzanine // Mar 19, 2010 at 9:08 am
@ Keith, the problem with payroll and sales tax going to tranist is that they are prone to large fluctuations depending on the economy. At least one good thing about property taxes is that they are more stable and slower to fluctuate.
IMO it could work if money went to infrastructure only. If it went to service, then we would be like Protland currently:
“TriMet blames the economic downturn for falling payroll tax revenue, which accounts for 55 percent of its operating budget. Transit agencies across the country, many of which depend on sales tax revenue, have been cutting service and raising fares during the recession.”
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/02/trimet_says_recession_to_force.html
11 Zweisystem // Mar 19, 2010 at 9:21 am
Gerald fox, American transit expert shredded TransLink’s Evergreen plans as; “…..cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain……..”
For the full fox letter:
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/can-translinks-business-cases-be-trusted/
SkyTrain is a relic, an “Edsel” of transit and it will bankrupt the region.
12 morven // Mar 19, 2010 at 11:01 am
Some of us remember the furore over Glen Clark’s super property tax on high priced housing in 1994.
Even if the NDP are not in power at the moment, the Liberals can expect an equally feisty response in 2010 by west side residents if the Liberals go the property tax route.
And this (Liberals) is the party of the free market ?
-30-
13 david chudnovsky // Mar 19, 2010 at 11:08 am
“The uproar among the mayors arose after Premier Gordon Campbell announced two weeks ago that the Evergreen Line was going to get built according to its original schedule, no matter what.”
Part of the problem with public policy debate in British Columbia is that the media lets politicians off the hook by simply accepting their spin and manipulation as truth.
The “original schedule” for public transit to the tri-cities was a commitment from Campbell’s government that it would be built AT THE SAME TIME as the RAV line (now called the Canada Line). That was the only way Campbell could get the then GVRD to agree to ignore its own priorities for transit projects in the region.
The residents of the north east sector have been waiting for decades for rapid transit which they have been promised over and over again. To passively regurgitate the notion that the “schedule” for the project starts some time in the future, as Bond and Campbell claim, is, at the very least, a significant error.
14 Chris // Mar 19, 2010 at 11:22 am
Portugal cuts road projects after economists say they don’t help the economy
http://www.transportenvironment.org/News/2010/3/Portugal-cuts-road-projects-after–economists-say-they-dont-help-the–economy/
15 Keith // Mar 19, 2010 at 12:28 pm
@ mezzanine, I agree revenue from sales taxes can go down in a recession.
By starting from a slow economy with increasing population growth and future inflation, revenue would be on the rise.
I also believe taxes should cover the infrastructure only, and fares pay for the operating costs.
16 Frances Bula // Mar 19, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Thanks for the reminder on that, David. Although I think most people have it fixed in their brains that the Evergreen Line was supposed to have come before the Canada Line, so obviously any “schedule” the premier now refers to is revisionist.
17 Paul // Mar 20, 2010 at 3:37 am
Although in terms what should of come first. Wasn’t the Canada Line or Rav Line envisioned years before the evergreen line. There was talk of it back in the early 80′s. Hell I remember seeing articles and drafts done of it going down Arbutus or Granville or Oak or Cambie.
Of course if there wasn’t so many nimbys in the west side of Vancouver. It probably would of been built earlier.
While I don’t mind paying more in property taxes for the line. The problem with increased property taxes is they don’t persuade people to take transit more. Which is why I feel an increase in gas taxes or tolls would be a better option.
18 Zweisystem // Mar 20, 2010 at 6:07 am
Let us remember that the 1978 transit study approved by the region showed a LIGHT RAIL system from Vancouver to Richmond, Whalley, and Lougheed Mall, costing about $700 million. The Bill Bennett Government forced the region to build with a SkyTrain light-metro (renamed ALRT) light metro instead. SkyTrain cost $850 million just to go From Vancouver to New Westminster.
The present SkyTrain planning, including RAV and Evergreen, were based on LIGHT RAIL and not SkyTrain light metro.
Trans Link treats LRT as a poorman’s SkyTrain, yet the mode has made SkyTrain and its light-metro cousins (VAL) obsolete.
The fact is, the Evergreen Line was never conceived to be a SkyTrain and the estimated ridership is about 330,000 passengers a day less than what is needed to justify a metro.
The result, massive tax increases to pay to build and operate it.
How man times doe the taxpayer has to be hit with massive new taxes to realize that spending for “Edsel” transit solutions are not viable.
If TransLink splits in two, with the South Fraser taxpayer seceding from TransLink, watch out for ruinously high taxes to pay for the metro. Only then will the taxpayer come to realize the folly of building with SkyTrain.
19 Paul // Mar 20, 2010 at 10:23 am
You do realize of course that it is the higher transit riders ship in Vancouver that covers a lot of the lower ridership routes South of the Fraser.
What you are proposing is that you don’t want to be subsidized by Vancouver.
Oh by higher ridership I’m only talking about the bus routes and not skytrain.
20 RC // Mar 20, 2010 at 10:29 am
The South Fraser taxpayers were among the first to benefit from the rapid transit with the completion of the Expo Line to Surrey. They have benefited for the last 20 years from a fast rapid transit connection.
21 Lewis N. Villegas // Mar 20, 2010 at 12:44 pm
If the kind of decision making we are chronicling around the implementation of mass transit in our region continues, All the King’s Horses and All the King’s Men will not be enough to keep us from fracturing.
The possibility is very real that we will be breaking up into smaller, more manageable chunks that are more responsive to local conditions and local needs.
22 zweisystem // Mar 20, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Quote – “The South Fraser taxpayers were among the first to benefit from the rapid transit with the completion of the Expo Line to Surrey”
Absolute rubbish, as only a small fraction of South Fraser taxpayers actually use SkyTrain. what has happened is that TransLink has forced bus riders to use SkyTrain and RAV, to artificially increase ridership – 80% (TransLink’s numbers) of SkyTrain users first taking a bus before using the metro.
Fact is, we have spent over $8 billion on a rather elderly metro system that has failed to attract the motorist from the car and we keep building with the damn thing!
Even SkyTrain was too expensive for the $2.5 billion RAV Line and a generic metro system was used, if only a mini version.
Our planners keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, which is a definition of madness.
Mass Transit has never worked, in fact there is no definition of ‘mass transit’. What does work is a transit network that takes transit customers from their door to where they want to go in a seamless (no transfer) journey. Our planners have rejected this successful policy, instead trying to ‘reinvent’ the mousetrap.
The SkyTrain model for regional transit has failed and to keep building with it means the taxpayer is going to take a massive hit.
23 RC // Mar 20, 2010 at 3:36 pm
So the Portland model, which is basically what you are proposing, works better. Yeah right. Both the ridership on their LRT is a fraction of the ridership on rapid transit in this region and the transit mode share in the Portland region is much lower than here.
As well, the census shows that in Burnaby and New West between 1996 and 2006, both the number of people using transit and the transit mode share increased dramatically. It is no coincidence that this is where the major transit investment was made during that decade.
It is time to start debating on the facts rather than just more rhetoric.
24 zweisystem // Mar 20, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Portland doesn’t force feed its bus passengers into the light rail system, like we do here. That 80% of bus riders forced to transfer to SkyTrain, skews real ridership numbers, thus comparisons are difficult to make. As well TransLink, fudges ridership numbers on SkyTrain by well over 10%, which again skews any meaningful comparisons.
Bottom Line – Vancouver’s SkyTrain used as a transit model > 1 (Seattle).
Portland’s LRT used as a transit model > over 15 cities.
The mind numbing rhetoric is mostly from the SkyTrain lobby.
25 Frank Murphy // Mar 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Transit is free in Portland — or at least was when I was there a couple of years ago — in the relatively large downtown area.
26 jimmy olson // Mar 20, 2010 at 6:15 pm
I agree with the observation that the SkyTrain is a relic. It stinks as well. Ground level light train is much more “human” and it scales right. look at the experiment around the olympics with the Belgium Train.
27 Lewis N. Villegas // Mar 20, 2010 at 7:13 pm
On Portland: The freeway infrastructure there is much more extensive than here, as is the automobile culture. American is America for good reasons afterall.
The important thing for me in Portland (besides the fare-free zone) is that the Streetcar is integrating well with the downtown. Reports from the Mayor—not always an unbiased observer—is that streetcar is reshaping development along its tracks.
Then, there are the quirky things. I’d like to see a good study on their air tram, for example.
The latest I heard from Portland Metro was at a lecture in Langley City Hall. A Councillor of Portland Metro—elected, representational regional government—reported that they are planning to link to Tigard by BRT (20 mn south on the I5). Their concepts about what they would achieve should also help us understand why Vancouver-Portland comparisons are not exactly apples-to-apples.
The Councillor presented a case of recognizing that Tigard, along the corridor for BRT (bus rapid transit) implementation, was strip-mall urbanism. And, what they would hope to achieve, is a series of walkable neighbourhoods with street oriented uses linked up by transit.
Heady stuff. We wouldn’t expect to be able to judge for success or failure for 10 and 20 years.
jimmy olson, that Luxembourg Tram gives its last free rides tomorrow, Sunday. As a component in our regional transit system, I think it would be fantastic. Cost less too…
28 zweisystem // Mar 20, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Many cities, including Calgary, offer free travel in a downtown zone. Not only this encourages transit use, it save money in fare enforcement, as a large number of customers will be traveling outside the fare free zone and fare checks can be more standardized. If one knows one fare is to be checked outside a fare free zone, the less fare evasion.
29 Chris // Mar 20, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Portland reduced its free fare zone downtown in August. It no longer covers buses and it might be removed completely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Rail_Zone
30 Lewis N. Villegas // Mar 20, 2010 at 9:59 pm
And the parking meters in Granville Island are still there, covered over with a black garbage bag, but set on a concrete base.
Rem Koolhaas once said that, “Urbanism is what the city gives you for free.”
31 voony // Mar 21, 2010 at 12:31 am
You will see here a map from the GVRD dating of 1970 and drawing with astonishing accuracy our rapid transit network
http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/the-case-for-rapid-transit-in-1970/
But there is more than a map in this piece of Harry Rankin:
Not only the network is already drawn,
+the Skytrain specs are already lay down
but more important, the Translink woes are well foreseen, and the recommended Translink structure is layed out as it should be done.
At the end financing, look at how actual is the problem…Michael Geller in a preceding post was mentioning the example of Hong Kong…It is addressed here too, and give reason to Micheal Geller…at a time HongKong was not on the transit radar, and for good reason it was no train, no MTR up to 79 !!!
We have achieved the 1970 map with 20 years delay, but we could got have it all right…
Just read the piece, and read twice…
32 zweisystem // Mar 21, 2010 at 5:13 am
Voony, SkyTrain, a light-metro, wasn’t even designed in 1970, so how could the specifications be made for it?
The 1978 study laid down the foundation for LRT in the region, using the former interurban routes, with minor modifications.
In 1980, the Bill Bennett government bought an unsellable ICTS systems (renamed LRT) from the Ontario Provincial Crown Corporation UTDC, in a political deal that brought the then famed ‘Blue Machine” to BC.
SkyTrain was parachuted onto the LRT designs at great cost, far greater than if LRT was originally built. I remember a GVRD planner telling me that if SkyTrain was planned for in the beginning, they would have put on Kingsway, all the way to New Westminster.
What we have done is to spend 3 to 4 times more for SkyTrain than light rail for ‘rail’ transit or put another way, we have a transit system 1/3 to 1/4 the size we should have by building with SkyTrain!
It is interesting to note, the CBC did a documentary on the Social Credit/UTDC/Bill Davis/ALRT SkyTrain deal, explaining why Vancouver got the expensive and unsellable SkyTrain system embarrassing to all concerned (especially Conservative and Social Credit types), the Brian Mulroney Government stopped airing of the program and had the contents ‘disappeared’, so to speak. I have never trusted the CBC with honest news since.
33 Frank Murphy // Mar 21, 2010 at 8:12 am
Correction on my point that transit is free in Portland’s downtown. Small point, but transit isn’t free anywhere. You won’t catch me saying “free parking”. Fare free zone is the more precise term.
34 Joseph Jones // Mar 21, 2010 at 9:13 am
The two big legacies of Expo 86 are SkyTrain and a massive land giveaway to Li Ka-shing. Vancouver’s hallmark event was a turning-point toward world-class stupidity.
35 morven // Mar 21, 2010 at 9:28 am
Unnoticed behind all this, is the seeming recognition by Victoria that the Lower Mainland is an economy quite divorced from the rest of B.C.
If this indeed is the strategic view, then the logical progression is that Victoria hand over decision making powers from the likes of Translink to a regional and local government that is accountable to local residents.
What Gordon Campbell has done, perhaps inadvertently, is demonstrate the emptiness of his government’s vision for B.C.
Does this make any sense ?
-30-
36 Lewis N. Villegas // Mar 21, 2010 at 11:04 am
Accountable and representative regional government… yep.
37 Urbanismo // Mar 21, 2010 at 11:18 am
@ Joseph Jones . . . “. . . and a massive land giveaway to Sir Li Ka-shing”
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/6urbandesign/2010.pdf
Money talks . . .
38 RC // Mar 21, 2010 at 12:58 pm
@ zweisystem
“What we have done is to spend 3 to 4 times more for SkyTrain than light rail for ‘rail’ transit or put another way, we have a transit system 1/3 to 1/4 the size we should have by building with SkyTrain!”
Nice theory, but there is not evidence in North America that this would actually be the case. If this were the case, then cities that built with LRT would have larger systems with more ridership. Yet Calgary’s system is shorter and has less ridership. Portland’s system is a bit longer but has only 1/3 the ridership. Edmonton’s is much shorter and has a fraction of the ridership.
Likely what would have happened is that any money saved by building LRT would have been spent on roads, tax cuts or other projects. Putting it simply, if politicians think they can get the “transit” vote by spending less money, they would use the remaining money to get votes from other constituencies.
It is time to back up your arguments with real world examples that are relevant.
39 Joe Just Joe // Mar 22, 2010 at 10:21 am
Don’t expect Zwei to respond with a direct answer. He should’ve been a polictician. His master trait is to pick and choose stats that suit him. He will post data from Translink when it might be of use to him, but if it doesn’t suit him he will claim that Translink lies about it’s numbers. Which one is it, are their numbers good enough to quote or are they fake? Of course we know the numbers he uses are the real ones, only the others ones are fake.
Then we have him quoting the price of systems that cost ~$10M/km but not the ridership or other details of those lines, when he does use ridership stats they are from lines that cost ~$100M/km which is in the same ballpark as our beloved Skytrain.
Stop comparing apples and orangutans, show us examples of lines built in recent years in a similar city, show us the ridership numbers and full cost per km of the lines. You will see that the prices are very similar.
40 MB // Mar 22, 2010 at 10:31 am
@ Zwei: “Mass Transit has never worked, in fact there is no definition of ‘mass transit’. ”
This is the same individual who, in other blogs and names, claimed transit should never be used to shape growth, to increase density and to tie land use to.
How ironic that he is also one of the most vociferous pro-transit pontificators ever, albeit in one and only one mode.
The gods help us if this guy ever gains power and has influence over building cities.
41 MB // Mar 22, 2010 at 10:46 am
@ JJJ: “Stop comparing apples and orangutans [Zwei], show us examples of lines built in recent years in a similar city, show us the ridership numbers and full cost per km of the lines. You will see that the prices are very similar.”
I would also like to see figures on safety at level crossings, but given his past performance, I wouldn’t trust information from Zwei to be unbiased.
And, JJJ, I wouldn’t call our honkin big SkyTrain guideways “beloved.” No Matter. I know you’ve got your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek.
42 Paul // Mar 22, 2010 at 12:51 pm
@JJJ
“Stop comparing apples and orangutans, show us examples of lines built in recent years in a similar city, show us the ridership numbers and full cost per km of the lines. You will see that the prices are very similar.”
In simple terms you get what you pay for. You can not expect to build a cheaper system and get the results of a more expensive system. It just doesn’t work that way.
43 Lewis N. Villegas // Mar 22, 2010 at 1:59 pm
On the string that is running over 100 posts further down in this blog, Paul and I were looking at the percentage of ridership.
My memory was a number of 12%, but probably dating back to the days of the implementation of HOV lanes on the freeway. Paul dug up 25% for his nieghbourhood in the 41st & Clarke area. We think my 12% represents regional use, and that doubling that figure is representative for Vancouver neighbourhoods along the arterials.
The density bump of 2x between suburb (gross density of 6 units/acre) and Vancouver Special (duplex, or 12%) was also borne out by the population numbers that Paul dug up for his neighbourhood.
That is more or less consistent with the California AAA study that Peter Calthorpe quoted in his 1993 “The New American Metropolis” measuring vehicle miles travelled per year by households located in one of three different neighbourhood types: urban center; traditional town (i.e. Vancouver Arterials); and suburb.
Moving from the edge to the center, suburban homes drove 4x more than homes in urban neighbourhoods; while those in traditional towns 2x more than homes in urban neighbourhoods.
Now, that is not all Transit use. The principle of “short distances” comes into play. The number of destinations within easy walking distance from your front door increases dramatically as we move from periphery to core; so does the distance we have to drive in order to get what we are looking for. However, transit use, and our ability to provide effective transit service has to be factored in.
The mess of statistics that is keeping us spinning in circles, and not helping one bit with making sound decisions, can be attributed to another factor. We lack a methodology, or theory of urbanism in our society. Without an overall understanding of our urbanism, it is more difficult to know what to measure, and why.
44 Lewis N. Villegas // Mar 22, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Correction: Vancouver Special (duplex or 12 units/gross acre).
45 Mr Peanut // Mar 22, 2010 at 8:55 pm
@morven ..yes it makes very good sense.
@Urbanismo – Vancouverites dropped their pants, and bent over. Concord obliged them.
46 Paul // Mar 23, 2010 at 1:01 am
Actually with the advent of the laneway houses. Added with the duplexing and triplexing of existing and new homes. In theory the dwelling density will be slowly increased up to 52/acre.
In fact I’d be willing to bet that that dwelling count is already higher than 13/acre in most of the single family homes area of Vancouver. The only place it might not be like that is on the west side of Vancouver in certain areas.
The downside of course is people are no longer living in a 2,100 sq ft home. But a portion of that.
Of course that wouldn’t equate to a higher collected property taxes. Only an increase in land and house value would do that. Besides a property tax rate increase.
47 zweisystem // Mar 23, 2010 at 7:11 am
Unlike the PAB blogging here, who have unlimited funds for research, poor lil me just gotta do it all by himself!
The problem with transit is simple: we spend far too much money on very little transit.
Transit shapes growth, but not to the extent of building massive apartment complexes. But friends we for get one very important thing, transit is to move people. People are customers and of the customers don’t like the product they will not use it, except for Vancouver where deep discounted fares (U-Pass) have greatly skewed ridership.
Car ownership is increasing in the region and head offices are leaving Vancouver.
We may find in 20 years or so, having a hugely expensive metro system that doesn’t serve anywhere in particular, which taxes need to pay for it have driven businesses to relocate to cheaper areas.
Take away the U-Passes, concession fares and forced transfers and it would be very soon that we would see that the SkyTrain emperor had no clothes!
48 Joe Just Joe // Mar 23, 2010 at 10:00 am
I’m shocked to see you avoided the question posed to you, I really am.
49 Frances Bula // Mar 23, 2010 at 10:29 am
@ JJJ Are you talking to me?
50 Joe Just Joe // Mar 23, 2010 at 10:53 am
No Frances, it was to Zwei, sorry I thought it was obvious but the interweb doesn’t always allow things to come across as they are meant.
51 Frances Bula // Mar 23, 2010 at 11:18 am
Usually, it’s pretty clear, but I thought you meant from something on one of the radio programs I was on this morning.
52 Paul // Mar 23, 2010 at 12:08 pm
“Take away the U-Passes, concession fares and forced transfers and it would be very soon that we would see that the SkyTrain emperor had no clothes!”
U-Pass is here to stay.
First off there is a good chance that those students who did use transit while going to school. Might be more willing to use transit when they join the work force. I’m not saying all will.
Secondly while I as a taxpayer or a transit rider might have to subsidize a student using U-Pass. The fact remains every time you see a student on a bus whether it be with a U-Pass or a concession fare. That is one less student driving around polluting the air. That to me is worth subsidizing.
Of course I don’t expect you to see this. For your agenda is to get Vancouver to go cheap on Transit. Just so you can have you way quicker SoF.
53 Lewis N. Villegas // Mar 23, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Bit of a to-and-fro on a regional basis reminds one that representative regional government—with Translink and, say, social housing in its mandate—might help us move a few pegs down the board a notch or two.
Paul, if you are looking at a 33′ x 122′ lot with a house on it, unit density tops out at about 18 units to the acre. It is not so much a function of the 2,400 – 3,000 s.f. that number represents, but of problems with front doors, opening windows for habitable rooms, and that other thing… parking.
So, what Simpson and I were looking at in one of our FormShift schemes was to split the lot in two along the long dimension, then build with concrete and wood, and put the equivalent of 5 units per newly subdivided lot. That got us up to 60 units/gross acre in a very tight package that was still fee simple.
This building type in Toronto is called a “stacked town house”, and the most likely use of it would be by two families, living one over the other. One family occupying the main unit, and renting the second as a mortgage helper.
However, for the purposes of comparison, we still count that as 5 units with 2 persons per unit. In the case of stacked towns, you might actually have two households, with 10 people between them. Four adults and six children, or any other combination of that. A single flat might go on the top level, or over the garage adding a further resident and a second income source.
We suggested a reduction in the parking arguing that trams on the arterials would reduce parking demand. One car per family would suffice, and a guest could can park on the street.
54 Chris Keam // Mar 23, 2010 at 3:54 pm
“Secondly while I as a taxpayer or a transit rider might have to subsidize a student using U-Pass. The fact remains every time you see a student on a bus whether it be with a U-Pass or a concession fare. That is one less student driving around polluting the air. That to me is worth subsidizing. ”
Worth noting you’d still be subsidizing them as a automobile user anyway.
55 Paul // Mar 24, 2010 at 12:14 am
“Paul, if you are looking at a 33′ x 122′ lot with a house on it, unit density tops out at about 18 units to the acre. It is not so much a function of the 2,400 – 3,000 s.f. that number represents, but of problems with front doors, opening windows for habitable rooms, and that other thing… parking.”
Well they are currently building a house on my block with one living space upstairs, 2 living spaces downstairs (those are accessed by rear doors) and a laneway house. So that one 122×33 property has 4 dwellings on it.
I know there are 13 properties on my block and it is about an acre. So assuming that all 13 properties are built the same way. I get 52 dwellings. I also realize that not every lot will be built the same way. And so that number would be lower.
Having said that I do agree that parking would be a nightmare. Although it might force people to not own a car for the simple fact that they have no where to even park a car.
“Worth noting you’d still be subsidizing them as a automobile user anyway.”
Well if they are on transit. They can’t be in the car at the same time. Although I do realize that everyone at some point will use a car for what ever reason. But nobody can be on both at the same time.
Leave a Comment