Frances Bula header image 2

Office-tower developers continue to love transit and Vancouver downtown

September 16th, 2013 · 165 Comments

Two new office-tower projects, to add to the I’ve-lost-count number already. I still can’t get over how much the commercial broker/office developer cluster is bullish on downtown and transit, after having been so hot on business parks for so many years.

These two are interesting, as well, because they’re taking advantage of space that’s not really empty lots: a parkade in one, the plaza of an existing office tower for another.


Categories: Uncategorized

165 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Joe Just Joe // Sep 16, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    It’s important to note that not every proposal is intended to be built (at least not by the current owners). It’s not uncommon to go thru the hassle of a rezoning just to increase the property value and then sell it off to another party at the new valuation. There are many landowners (although not as common locally) that have made a very successful business model out of this. I would be very surprised if we were to see all the current proposals acutally come to fruitation within the next office cycle.

  • 2 Richard // Sep 16, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    Yet more proof that improved transit is important to the regional economy. It is time the provincial government stepped up and find solutions to fund transit. Please sign the petition for better transit at:

  • 3 teririch // Sep 16, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    @Richard #2:

    Sorry Richard, but that ‘petition’ is another Vision ‘self promotion piece’ and somewhat misleading to the general public , especially for those concerened about transit issues but want zip to do with Vision. (and don’t want their names on a ‘list’ seemwhere)

    FYI – the Mainlander just put up a great piece on how, if the city truly wanted to, could fund additional transit within Meto Van.

    Vision Vancouver’s illusionists are shortchanging democracy

  • 4 waltyss // Sep 16, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    teriisn’titrich@3. Yes, the piece in the Mainlander is a great piece if you are a COPE supporter and believe that the taxpayers of Vancouver should take on something not in their jurisdiction: running a parallel bus system.
    Even though the author of the Mainlander doesn’t expressly say so, I doubt he is suggesting that CoV taxpayers support a metro wide parallel bus system. That would truly be loopy. However, true to form, you seem to advocate for CoV funding of additional transit within “Meto Van.”
    I know that you would dearly love to see Vision Vancouver voted out of office. If they adopted such an idiotic idea as you advocate, they would indeed be voted out of office.

  • 5 rph // Sep 16, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    @Richard #2. And also more proof that improved fast and efficient transit will also bring with it pressure for density development, either office tower, condo, or a hybrid of both.

    Increasingly, we will not be allowed one without the other.

  • 6 Richard // Sep 16, 2013 at 4:48 pm


    Which is fine. What would you rather see. Farms and green space disappearing for remote office parks and subdivisions where everyone is forced to drive everywhere clogging our streets and highways?

  • 7 jenables // Sep 16, 2013 at 9:07 pm

    ahem with all due respect Richard, the sprawl I think has less to do with the automobile and more to do with the cost of living /upzoning. Hell, even condos are not cheap, especially for families. You can’t blame people for not wanting to pay through the nose for a shoebox with no yard, lots of restrictions and monthly fees that sometimes rival rent.

  • 8 Richard // Sep 16, 2013 at 9:50 pm


    Basically the old “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.” kind of argument?

    It is pretty obvious people want to live in houses and condos in Vancouver. That is why they are expensive. By not having to drive as much or even own a car, people can afford to spend more money on housing.

    The reason why housing is cheaper in the ‘burbs is that people don’t want to pay as much for it. Likely because they don’t want to drive or drive a lot.

    The solution is to have more homes in Vancouver.

  • 9 Bill McCreery // Sep 16, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    Not necessarily Richard. Have you thought of stronger regional centres with more jobs there so people can live closer to their work? And, of course we’ll still need much better transit than we now have.

  • 10 Richard // Sep 16, 2013 at 10:30 pm

    @Bill McCreery

    Yes, stronger regional town centres are a good idea. The reality is though that it will take decades for these town centres to gain the concentration of jobs where people have a realistic opportunity to walk or cycle to work. High levels of cycling and walking are needed to get levels of driving to work down below 50%.

    In the core of Vancouver (up to 5km from downtown), many areas have very low levels of car commuting (20% to 40%) due to high numbers of people walking, cycling and using. Walking is strong up to 2km (up to 40%) or so from downtown while cycling is high (up to 15%) 2km to 5km from downtown. New people that move into these areas will likely walk and cycle as well.

  • 11 teririch // Sep 16, 2013 at 10:30 pm

    @Richard #8:

    ‘The reason why housing is cheaper in the ‘burbs is that people don’t want to pay as much for it. Likely because they don’t want to drive or drive a lot. ‘

    That explains all the vehicle traffic working its way to Vancouver from Maple Ridge, Surrey etc.

    Why would anyone pay $400K for a 350 sq/ft apt, where you may be pulling your bed out of a wall when you can get a nice size condo/townhome or small house in the outskirts.

    People may not want to drive 1-2 hours everyday to get to work – but they will sacrafice certain things for others.

    When I first got work in Vancouver, I traveled roughly 1.5 hours each way, everyday for over a year before I moved. I was living in Maple Ridge at that time. My mtg in MR was $444/month. When I sold my place with the idea of buying something in Vancouver, I didn’t factor in paying rent of $700 which was the equivilent at that point to one paycheque while I looked for something that I could afford.

    Now people are expected to pay over that 50% I once forked out for rent. The lofty idea that a studio renting at $1200 or a one bedroom at $2600 is considered ‘affordable’ is simply ridiculous.

    That is why people choose to live in the ‘burbs’. And as you see more ‘affordable’ housing torn down in order to smack up towers of ‘not so affordable’ apartments or condos, you are going to see the demographic of the city shift. It already is.

    So increasing transit it not the answer to the bigger elephant in the room.

    Vancouver is becoming a city of the privledged.

    From Stats Canada:

    According to the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS), roughly 15.4 million Canadians commuted to work, while 1.1 million worked at home most of the time.Note 1

    Of those who commuted, 13.5 million went to a usual place of work and another 1.9 million travelled to a location that varied from day to day.

    Car, truck or van was by far the most commonly used mode of transportation. Overall, about four out of five Canadian commuters used private vehicles.

    Specifically, 74.0% of commuters, or 11.4 million workers drove a vehicle to work. Another 5.6%, or 867,100 people made the trip as passengers.

    The percentage of commuters who used public transit for the longest part of their trip was 12.0% in Canada in 2011. By comparison, 11.0% of commuters reported taking public transit in the 2006 Census of Population.

    In the 2011 NHS, detailed information about the type of public transit used was collected for the first time. Of public transit users, 63.5% commuted by bus, 25.0% by subway or elevated rail, 11.2% by light rail, streetcar or commuter train, and 0.3% by ferry.

    Finally, in 2011, 880,800 commuters walked to work (5.7%), and 201,800 cycled (1.3%). In the 2006 Census, 6.4% of commuters walked and 1.3% cycled.

  • 12 Richard // Sep 16, 2013 at 10:41 pm


    You really need to do your research. The vast majority of condos that are going up are not replacing affordable housing and they are far more affordable than $1 million plus houses.

    In fact, the developments that have faced the most opposition lately have been built on sites that did not have any homes on them at all. Marine Gateway, the Safeway site in Marpole, the Rize in Mount Pleasant, etc. Then there is the Safeway parking lot at Commercial and Broadway that some people are protecting for some reason that is not exactly clear.

    All those who are fighting more homes in the city are accomplishing is making the city more expensive while losing the character of the neighbourhoods due to old houses being replaced by new larger single family houses.

  • 13 Richard // Sep 16, 2013 at 10:43 pm


    Why on earth are you including the stats for all of Canada? Only the ones from the region are at all relevant to this discussion.

  • 14 teririch // Sep 16, 2013 at 11:08 pm

    Okay Richard: #13:

    According to that same cenus:

    Proportion of workers commuting to work by car, truck or van, by public transit, on foot, or by bicycle, census metropolitan areas, 2011

    Vancouver: the first number is from the 2011 census the second is the 2006 census.

    Car, truck or van (total) 70.8% / 74.4%

    Car, truck or van (driver) 65.9% / 67.3%

    Car, truck or van (passenger) 4.9% / 7.1%

    Public tranist 19.7% / 16.5%

    Walking 6.3% / 6.3%

    Cycling 1.8% / 1.7%

  • 15 jenables // Sep 16, 2013 at 11:43 pm

    Richard, to most of us it really doesn’t matter if something is more affordable than an overpriced $1 million dollar home when we can afford neither and clearly recall a time in the not so distant past when houses cost half of that. Suddenly all I hear is tired justifications for that price as if it’s totally reasonable and pitches for what are supposed to be enticing and relatively cheap shoebox ends even if I could afford them, I wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot pole. After all, where would I keep the ten foot pole?

  • 16 jenables // Sep 16, 2013 at 11:48 pm

    And you can thank the current counswill for the current trash (that was supposed to say rash but I couldn’t bring myself to change it) of ugly added density mcmansions, but nice try blaming it on people who don’t want to see their already very dense neighborhoods steamrolled. This city has enough empty towers and surprise surprise as we all know they haven’t made anything more affordable so let’s put that argument to bed as this city has many other forces affecting it than the simple supply and demand of those who actually live here.

  • 17 Lewis N. Villegas // Sep 17, 2013 at 12:03 am

    I’m just about to get off the transit band-wagon altogether, jenables, based more or less on the issue you are raising… Has nobody else noticed that housing affordability has gone off the charts?

    March on City Hall if you give a damn:

    We can do human-scale urbanism with four-storey, renewalbe resources, or we can build 20-storey-plus concrete towers with wood formwork that we throw in the landfill when the forms are stripped.

    The quality of the resulting neighbourhood is something like this: tower neighbourhoods outside the downtown are lifeless; human scale neighbourhoods everywhere are thriving due to social mixing.

    However, since we seem hell-bent on building more Skkytrain and Skytrain begets towers and blighted neighbourhoods, it seems to be time to put an end to the transit honeymoon and demand more neighbourhood design before the mega projects are green-lighted.

  • 18 jenables // Sep 17, 2013 at 1:29 am

    Lewis while many may disagree and point to Joyce or metrotown, I’m not entirely convinced that a) people are very interested in living RIGHT BESIDE a skytrain and b) TOD creates a safer community and c) skytrain eliminates the need for people to go elsewhere. Plus, what is the obsession with controlling where and how people get about? I talked to someone at City Hall about Adanac and commercial diversion and the higher incidence of both pedestrians and accidents (2008-2012 stats) at venables as opposed to Adanac. (73 @ venables, 11 @ adanac) He told me that people were cutting up commercial from Hastings to get to prior. I cannot for the life of me figure out why the city thinks this is a problem they need to curtail, and I live right on commercial in that area. I saw meggs talking about these mini communities so ‘people don’t have to go anywhere’ and quite frankly, I find it downright creepy.

  • 19 Boohoo // Sep 17, 2013 at 7:02 am

    Towers beget blight. Kerrisdale says hello.

    Everyone stop with the over simplification. Towers bad or density good or whatever.

  • 20 Everyman // Sep 17, 2013 at 7:28 am

    Who is filling up these new towers? It isn’t as if Vancouver has had an influx of new head offices. Are they just cannibalizing existing tenants?

    And the vacancy rate in suburban commercial/office is appalling. Shouldn’t we beencouraging more jobs where the residents are?

  • 21 rph // Sep 17, 2013 at 7:43 am

    @jenables #18. Just addressing the comment you quoted “so people don’t have to go anywhere”.

    This is a form of social engineering, and I find it is is becoming rampant. Our communities should not be composed of ‘people like us”. We are supposed to be diverse, isn’t that what makes for lively involved neighbourhoods?

    Vancouver is starting to hollow out, and it is losing the people who are not marching lockstep with planner’s ideals of what constitutes the new Vancouver reality. You know, we all live in smaller eco-density condos (to share the privilege of living here) and we give up our polluting traffic ensnarling cars. All one big happy.

    Those of us with space consuming children with 6am hockey practices and night games in Maple Ridge one day and Langley the next, well…

    This is not just about transit and development, it is about social engineering and the ostracism of people whose needs are not “like us”, or at least not like what developers and planners and so-called community visionaries want us to be.

    Creepy yes, and scary.

  • 22 Sean Nelson // Sep 17, 2013 at 8:49 am

    @jenables #18 “I saw meggs talking about these mini communities so ‘people don’t have to go anywhere’ and quite frankly, I find it downright creepy.”

    It’s a great idea. I live near 41st and Victoria, and I love being able to walk to the grocery store, to shopping, to medical services, etc. But that doesn’t mean I never leave my neighborhood. “Mini communities” aren’t about PREVENTING people from going elsewhere, they’re about giving people the OPTION of not HAVING to go elsewhere.

  • 23 teririch // Sep 17, 2013 at 8:51 am

    @jenables #18:

    I’ve live close to a Skytrain and will never do it again. They are a crime magnant. After that, you can hear the ‘cleaning’ at night so are lucky to get about 2-3 hours of uninterrupted sleep..

    And personally will never live in a tower. i find them cold and un-neighborly. I like to who know who lives next to me, down the hall from me, on the floor below etc. Towers are cold – not jsut esthetically.

  • 24 teririch // Sep 17, 2013 at 8:57 am

    @jenables #15:

    Remember Jang’s definition of ‘affordable’.

    A prime example of ‘ugly’ planning is the entire Olympic Village lands. The ‘new’ buildingsbeing erected already look tired and old. Very sad as it is a beautiful piece of land. Just bad, bland, un-creative thinking.

  • 25 Frank Ducote // Sep 17, 2013 at 9:54 am

    Back on topic, it’s refreshing to hear that new office development and employment space is being created whre it should be, in our doewntown and at transit nodes. Protecting the Metro Core from pre-emption and overdevelopment by residential development was a good thing. Kudos to the City for doing so.

  • 26 Frank Ducote // Sep 17, 2013 at 10:23 am

    rph@5 – “@Richard #2. And also more proof that improved fast and efficient transit will also bring with it pressure for density development, either office tower, condo, or a hybrid of both.

    Increasingly, we will not be allowed one without the other.”

    I’m not sure what side of this issue you’re on, but I agree with Richard’s point which I take to mean, why should all of us pay for transit to the hinterland ‘burbs without the contractual obligation on their part to take up a larger share of regional growth, in whatever form? (Towhouses can be part of the mix but alone won’t do the job that is needed.)

    Otherwise, why should we bother? The other half of the equation is for municipal governments to stop approving office complexes and malls etc. that cannot be reached by frequent and reliable transit.

    Too many places and Councils, bowing to local pressure, seem to think the chicken comes without the egg.

  • 27 Frank Ducote // Sep 17, 2013 at 10:29 am

    Make that “townhouses”.

  • 28 rph // Sep 17, 2013 at 11:08 am

    @Frank Ducote #26. You are assuming that communities with rapid transit are not taking a proportionate share of regional growth, including density development. Have you seen Richmond lately? Especially the Three Road corridor along the Canada Line? And Surrey is no slouch in this matter either, including South Surrey/White Rock which has poor transit options.

    Which side am I on? Divided.

    In my immediate 40 year old neighbourhood there is an integrated mix of townhouses, sf homes, six story apartment blocks, co-ops, subsidized housing, seniors housing, and one small group home for the disabled. A school with a large playing field that accommodates baseball and soccer. And a community centre with a park. And enough shopping within walking distance, and certainly biking distance.

    What it does not have are 20-30 story condos.

    I live in a walkable community that works, that has embraced some density, and moreover a community that can accommodate different family models.

    I think it is a travesty to tear up communities like mine and rezone the land for higher density tower development.

    Having said that, when I drive along Cambie, I think that area is perfect for a better mix of housing than just sf detached, but it certainly does not have to adhere to the biggest is best mantra. As Lewis @17 states, and I paraphrase, we seem to be ending up with towers and blighted neighbourhoods. We need to design better communities and not just let developers and misguided city planners tell us that dense is best.

  • 29 teririch // Sep 17, 2013 at 11:22 am

    @Frank Ducote; #26:

    Surrey is scheduled to outpace Vancouver in a very short period of time.

    I think Maple Ridge was not far behind as far as places to invest in. I would suugest the industrial lands both hold have a great deal to do with it.

    And those ‘burbs’ have been handing money over to transit that services the city without getting much back in return. It is about time they got their fair share.

  • 30 Threadkiller // Sep 17, 2013 at 11:25 am

    To rph’s comments at 28 re burb development I would add the Tri-Cities area. What’s gone on in the area of Coquitlam Centre and in Port Moody over the past 10 years or so isn’t mere “growth”; it’s metastasization. I won’t even comment on Maple Ridge… and across the river, has Frank Ducote been to Langley lately? I suspect that much the same is happening in Abbotsford, although I haven’t been out that way in quite a while. Mr. Ducote, exactly where are these bucolic suburbs that you criticize (#27) for selfishly refusing to “take up a larger share of regional growth”?? I think I’d like to move to one.

  • 31 rph // Sep 17, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    @Threadkiller #30. The growth in Langley has been incredible. It won’t be long that all the South Surrey development (the Morgans – Crossing, Creek, Heights et al) just bleeds right through to Langley. It certainly surpasses anything Vancouver has seen. And I am not talking just about leafy subdivisions of sf houses either. These are communities with an emphasis on townhouses, condos, and apartment blocks.

    Coquitlam, imo, is just a development mess. And affords a few good examples on poor planning.

  • 32 Bill McCreery // Sep 17, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    rph, I’ve had the opportunity to assess close up a few of the South Surrey townhouse projects you are referring to. Unfortunately, the way Surrey is allowing these to be built is not going to achieve a very good overall quality of life for their occupants. They are approving and building 3 storey townhouses at +/-25 upa. That’s double what we were doing in the 70’s and 80’s. There is not a useful scrap of leftover land left on the sites that can be used for some kind of common purpose. People are forced to live in 3 storey units with the garage taking up the majority of the ground floor, so there’s little if any meaningful connection to outdoor private gardens and the occupants had better be healthy because they’ll be using the stairs not hallways to get from room to room.

    These project (there’s a multitude of them) are one after another from the same cookie cutter. There are no pedestrian or bike paths other than at typically high density collectors or arterials, and many are not that close to shops, etc. The neighbourhood centres are still being designed for the car, not transit, bikes or pedestrians. There are less than adequate park, recreation, or community facilities and there won’t be any left over land to provide same in the future.

    It is possible that such ‘communities’ will not age well and what the social problems will be in 30 or 40 years should be of concern.

    I am not against this kind of low scale development, in fact I support it. It’s just that there a good deal more that goes into making such places sustainable, vibrant, liveable and healthy communities in the long term than what I see being done in Surrey, Langley, and even in Abbotsford and Richmond

  • 33 Frank Ducote // Sep 17, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    TK@30 – to each his own. One person’s metastisization is another’s example of well-planned growth, well-placed for future rail transit. I’m thinking specifically of both Newport Village and Suter Brook in Port Moody, two of the better planned comprehensive mixed-use developments in this region. People who live there are pretty satisfied, according to comments I’ve heard at recent public events concerning Port Moody’s new draft OCP. OTOH, people there don’t want any new Newport Centres or Suter Brooks, despite the addition of two or perhaps three Evergreen Line Stations. I’m all right, Jack seems to be alaive and well.

    Want leafy ‘burbs? Try Ioco Centre (TOD) in Port Moody, where one block away to the south from a new Evergreen Line station there is no proposed change at all. Or try Marpole, where townhouses and lowrise apartments one lot in from Cambie are being challenged by owners of single family houses. I’m all right, Jack.

  • 34 Threadkiller // Sep 17, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    F.D., #33:
    You may see the single-family-house owners of Marpole as nimbys, and I suppose in a sense they are. What I see them doing, however, probably unintentionally, is striking a small blow for the preservation of Marpole as an enclave of semi-affordable housing. Those stucco 3-storey walkups, ugly as many of them are, comprise one of the last remaining stocks of rental housing that working people in this city can (almost) afford to live in. And thanks to the monstrous developments at 70th and Granville and at Cambie and Marine that now bracket the neighbourhood, not to mention the Canada Line-inspired densifications to come, Marpole’s chances of long-term survival in its present form are somewhat below those of the African rhinoceros. The new community plan will, of course, ensure that.

  • 35 Roger Kemble // Sep 17, 2013 at 3:10 pm


  • 36 Richard // Sep 17, 2013 at 4:01 pm


    While I agree that much better transit service is required South of the Fraser, it is hardly the case that “those ‘burbs’ have been handing money over to transit that services the city without getting much back in return.”

    While they may not have been getting transit, they got the Golden Ears Bridge which has cost transit a fortune. Up front TransLink blew $160 million that should have been spent on better transit service. Now, the tolls are not even close to covering the cost of the bridge. Because it is getting no where near the use that they expected, it is costing TransLink around $40 million a year. That would buy a lot of transit service.

    Even worse, as the province and the Feds typically pay 2/3 of the capital cost of projects, the Bridge delayed the Evergreen Line by years and likely is the reason why there is not the money for rapid transit South of the Fraser now.

    Unfortunately, Surrey has learned nothing from this is and is now trying pushing a costly new six lane Pattullo Bridge on New West. This woukd cost TransLink a fortune and further delay transit projects in the region.

    Then there is the overbuilt Port Mann and South Fraser Parimeter Riad which are costing provincial taxpayer a fortune.

    Really hard to make the case that they are not getting their fair share of transportation dollars. Problem is that most of it is being spent on roads instead of transit.

  • 37 Threadkiller // Sep 17, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    @Richard # 36:
    When I hear about the wastage(s) of funds you speak of that could have gone into regional transit improvements– and when I stand with a dozen other people at my Granville Street bus stop every morning and watch the full-to-bursting trolleys sail by on their way downtown, all bound for a mysterious destination called “Sorrybusfull”– and when I recall how much the problems on Granville were exacerbated by the elimination of the Vancouver-to-Richmond B-Line– it’s then, whenever he starts squealing in excitement about the opportunity to blow three billion dollars so UBC students can get to class on time, that I want to hit Gregor Robertson with a brick. Incidentally, did anyone see Geoff Meggs fuming in the Courier recently about the fact that it took him *35 minutes* to get from Broadway Station to UBC by bus–?? The poor man; how he must have sufffered. I’ve got a brick for him, too.

  • 38 Kirk // Sep 17, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    @36 Threadkiller. RTFLOL!!

    Anyway, all the road/bridge improvements will likely be needed in the near future. A few years ago, one could reasonably argue that the high cost of commuting by car would offset any savings of moving to the burbs. But now, coming in from Mission in a Hummer is going to save you thousands of dollars a year. With the sky high population projections around here, 400sqft is going to eventually cross the $1,000,000 mark.

  • 39 rph // Sep 17, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    You can add to the expenditure list the proposed replacement of the Massey Tunnel. (Delta’s Mayor Lois Jackson is pushing hard for this, and yet the council and citizens of Delta/Tsawwassen are stridently anti development in their neck of the woods.)

  • 40 Richard // Sep 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm


    Might want to look into some anger management. It’s not normal or acceptable to hit people with bricks.

    I find a good way of dealing with anger is to take some positive action. Like signing this petition:

    Sure, it mentions UBC but it is pretty clear the intent is better transit throughout the region. Now.

    As well, the real problem is the lack of leadership from the province on transit funding.

  • 41 Threadkiller // Sep 17, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    @Richard, # 40:
    ” It’s not normal or acceptable to hit people with bricks.”

    It is if you’re a fan of classic comic strips:

    (Scroll down slightly.)

    All hail George Herriman, the James Joyce of comic creators. Ignatz Mouse, how we need you now.

  • 42 Kirk // Sep 17, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    BetterTransitNow doesn’t have any info on funding. If I sign, does it mean I’m agreeing to increased taxes, fees, fares? Or, is it yet another group asking for more services but don’t want to pay for them?

  • 43 boohoo // Sep 18, 2013 at 8:41 am

    We all pay for it Kirk. It’s just a matter of how we allocate it. I’m paying for things I never use, just like you are.

    It’s pretty well agreed upon by everyone we need more funding for public transit, but because everyone is so pissed at translink, right or wrong for whatever reason, and because this government is so inept, nothing is happening.

    It’s short sighted and pitiful. Much like most people in charge.

  • 44 teririch // Sep 18, 2013 at 9:26 am


    Both sides of the new Golden Ears Bridge are industrial lands and set for huge growth.

    Sure, Translink could have waited on building it and we could pay more or it 5 or 10 years down the road.

    That bridge was long overdue for the area and somewhat replaces the Albion Ferry that used to bridge the gap between Maple Ridge and Fort Langley – which, once upon a time, was a tolled ferry.

    If you want to get a true picture of how people outside Vancouver proper view Vancouver/Vancouverites and transit – I suggest you strike up the conversation with those in the outlying areas. I also suggest you put on a really thick skin, because many are tired of seeing their tax dollars being handed to Vancouver, while their needs get put on the back burner and or are ignored.

    Surrey is highly under serviced for its population and land capacity.

    When I looked at that census – for 2011 it showed that rougly 37% of commuters come in to Vancouver from Burnaby. I couldn’t find the number for Surrey. But I can tell you as someone who travels into work from Surrey (to Vancouer) via Skytrain twice a week (the boyfriend lives in Surrey) the bus I take down Scott Road – the #319 and the Skytrain at Scott Road are wall to wall people during rush. That train line needs to be extended out to Guildford and they need more buses.

  • 45 teririch // Sep 18, 2013 at 9:28 am

    @boohoo #43:

    Agreed. I almost spewed my coffee when I read Tanslink has allocated $670K for ‘art’ at the stations. Someone needs to give their head a shake.

  • 46 Kirk // Sep 18, 2013 at 10:24 am

    @43 boohoo: Thanks.

    I will not be signing it. I agree that better transit is a good idea. But, for me, health and education are in more of a crisis. Affordable housing and homelessness are also higher priorities for me. If I had to battle to get on the B-Line everyday, I’d probably sign it. Best wishes for those pushing for it though.

  • 47 teririch // Sep 18, 2013 at 10:35 am

    I find it kind of ironic that ‘Vision Vancouver’ is backing this petition – yet, have readily ignored petitions presented to them for various initiatives by the ‘people’.

    On top of it – they really have no durastiction over this matter – it is provincial, not municpal.

  • 48 West End Gal // Sep 18, 2013 at 10:39 am

    threadkiller #37 ROTFLMAO!
    I don’t have bricks, but I can lend you a couple of cartons of rotten eggs! Free range, organic, whatever is Vision approved. Ha.

  • 49 West End Gal // Sep 18, 2013 at 10:43 am

    teririch #have you read in yesterday’s 24 Hours re. the elimination of the Bus Fare Tickets starting jan 1st 2014 once the Compass card is shoved down (something similar with the Community Centers access card I suspect)? Great thinking.

  • 50 teririch // Sep 18, 2013 at 11:57 am

    @West End Gal #49

    Yes, and it is going to bring hardship to a lot of low income people – seniors included.

  • 51 Ms Jones // Sep 18, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    Oh my goodness, Threadkiller @37 you overdid it.
    Do you want to throw bricks at them?
    But they are going to pick them up, give them to their developer friends, and then build some more Vision erections aka “podium + tower” throughout our masculine city.
    here’s a terrible thought now: after 2 1/2 years as an useless MLA, six years of a pain in the behind mayor… someone wants 4 more years in office! Yes, FOUR not THREE (so I’ve heard)!
    People need to wake up, go out and vote this clique out. If not… God save us all.

  • 52 waltyss // Sep 18, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    teriisn’titrich @ 50. How is the Compass Card going to “bring hardship to a lot of low income people – seniors included”
    Concession fares will continue for seniors as will the Annual Bus Pass Programme for low income seniors and persons with disabilities.
    The discount on a ticket using your Compass card will be less than currently if you buy a Fare Saver book but you don’t have to buy a book, which is actually better for low income folk because they don’t have to come up with the $21 at once.
    The only people who might be negatively affected are those few people who pay cash on a bus and then transfer to a train. Based on the stats provided by translink, the total number is a very small percentage of total ridership and an even smaller % would be low income.
    So, teri, tell us how a lot of low income people are going to be affected?
    Facts, troublesome facts! What’s a girl to do when she just wants to spew at anyone she doesn’t like.
    And Ms. Jones, let’s see, the Mayor has been an MLA for 3 years, Mayor for almost 5 and has annnounced that he will run again next year. Pretty impressive record.
    And what exactly have you contributed to the commonweal other than ridiculous, hateful comments? Just askin’. I’ll give you this. Unlike teriisn’titrich, you make no pretense that your posts have anything factual in them.

  • 53 jenables // Sep 18, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    No waltyss but to get a compass card costs $6, and it will charge you for three zones until you tap out. We all know this issue doesn’t affect you so perhaps you should hold your tongue.

  • 54 teririch // Sep 18, 2013 at 1:58 pm


    Tis like banging your head gainst a wall – which sometimes would be less painful.

    Reminds me a lot of … Jonathan Ross.

  • 55 teririch // Sep 18, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Parents worry TransLink changes will hurt working families

    TransLink’s Compass fare card could create big challenges for Vancouver’s poor

  • 56 waltyss // Sep 18, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    jenables and teriisn’titrich: Not nearly as painful as reading your fact challenged whines about just about anything.
    At least jenables, you acknowledge that the only hardship that will “bring hardship to a lot of low income people” is a one time charge of $6 for the card, less than the difference between 10 one zone adult fares and a faresaver book.
    Anyway, sorry to painfully interrupt your fact challenged whining.

  • 57 teririch // Sep 18, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    FYI – waltsyss #55

    I posted links to several ‘media’ articles on Translink/low income/family impact.

    And they were under moderation on Frances’ blog.

    So wait for it and then you can tell jenables and myself and a mirad of other people/community leaders who see the same issue as a’problem’ how wrong we are and how right you are.

    Funny coming from a person who once again (inaccurately ) accused me of having contempt for ‘poor people’ yet defends a program that will cause hardship to that same group.

  • 58 teririch // Sep 18, 2013 at 9:09 pm


    Did you see the blog post by Bob Mackin I linked to the Talk ‘Vision’ Vancouver header?

  • 59 jenables // Sep 18, 2013 at 10:03 pm

    Teri I did! Glad this issue is getting more recognition – seems to be the way of all government today, take something noble that should have integrity, and use it as a distraction. It linked to this which was also a good read

  • 60 waltyss // Sep 18, 2013 at 10:05 pm

    I’nm glad you waited for it, teriisn’titrich @55. Most of your posts have established you can’t spell but by regurgitating those fact challenged Georgia Straight articles you have demonstrated that your math (and that of the idiot who wrote the Straight article is shaky as well.
    Let’s start with removing the pass where your whole brood can travel free on Sunday. First, let’s avoid a philosophical discussion about why you should be able to travel free on something that is running at the deficit. However, to the point, the elimination is not a function of the Compass Card, it is a function of translink’s decision to eliminate certain discount programmes such as one for employees (you know, the ones who pay the taxes).
    Then we get to how much additional this is going to cost this single mom with two kids, one about to turn 5. If their outing is on a Sunday (which was the sob stained point of the article), then it will cost $2.75 for mom to go 2 zones plus $1.75 for each child. $6.25 each way, $12.50 for the 3 of them to go to Stanley Park for the day. If mom has a monthly pass (which you were supposed to have to get the free rides) then her additional cost come January 2014 is a whopping $7 for the family to go round trip into Vancouver to the Park. How does that compare to the false inflated numbers in the Straight article? Oh, and I almost forgot, if they have a Compass Card, they whole thing will cost 15% less.
    The only issue that had anything to do with a Compass card and which had some legitimacy was the inability of the Social Service agencies to provide bus passes to some of their clients. However, if you had not abandoned reading those articles (did your lips get sore?), you would have seen the lady from the YWCA and translink discussing how they were working on a plan for that to continue.
    What I really loved, though, was your reference to community leaders agreeing with you (or you with them). Who was the community leader from CoV? Why, Geogg Meggs. And you are agreeing with him?!?!?!?!? teri, sweetcheeks, has hell frozen over? Have I awoken in a new dimension.
    In any event, you are welcome for being shown the Georgia Straight was wrong, as usual (I do love Savage Love however. Show it to your Surrey boyfriend. It might cheer you up.)
    So, yes, you teri my little dumpling, are wrong again. An impressive 100% record. Wow!
    They will work out the kinks in Compass, it will work for most people and be an improvement (after all it has worked elsewhere, we are not reinventing the wheel) . You will however continue as the sourpuss hating anything new, and complaining about any innovation.

  • 61 Richard // Sep 18, 2013 at 11:33 pm


    They are trying hard to work through the issues. Might want to stand up for them when they are wanting to make transit work for the less fortunate.

    Online backlash against TransLink over homeless transit plan

  • 62 jenables // Sep 18, 2013 at 11:48 pm

    It is interesting how people take such offense to people who don’t even have a roof over their heads using the bus for free, yet overpaid government officials expensing their gasoline for driving to their whistler cabin barely raises an eyebrow.

  • 63 Stephanie // Sep 19, 2013 at 12:03 am

    I don’t see how you can separate Translink’s decision to eliminate discount programs from the implementation of the Compass system. The Compass system is a colossal money sink, and they’re scraping the budget for savings.

  • 64 teririch // Sep 19, 2013 at 8:17 am

    @jenables #62:

    Some people just don’t get it and never will. Sad, really.

  • 65 boohoo // Sep 19, 2013 at 8:36 am


    Ironic that you say that considering your angst over the relative peanuts translink is spending on art.

  • 66 gman // Sep 19, 2013 at 9:18 am

    There was a correction on the piece in the Straight and these are the new numbers they came up with.If free sundays and the one zone discount on weekends are eliminated it will cost more.When I looked at a family of four traveling three zones ($37) I would rather buy a car and use it sparingly.

    Travis Lupick
    Sep 4, 2013 at 3:34 pm
    Vancouver readers on Reddit have questioned the math used to calculate the numbers that appear in paragraph six. ( Here’s an explanation:

    The discussion was conducted in terms of hypotheticals. Ie. What’s the cost for a family of four to travel from Burnaby to Downtown Vancouver (2 zones) and back again?

    My colleague has since found that we made a miscalculation by failing to take into account how concession fares change depending on the number of zones travelled. The sentence in question has been corrected. It now reads: ” $21.50 for a return trip from Burnaby into Vancouver (two zones), she later calculated, and $27 after her youngest’s fifth birthday.”

    Here are the numbers:

    -for family of three moving two zones…
    -$4.00 x 2 adults x 2 trips = $16
    -$2.75 x 1 child x 2 trips = $5.50
    -total for family of 2 adults + 1 concession = $21.50

    -for a family of four moving two zones…
    -$4.00 x 2 adults x 2 trips = $16
    -$2.75 x 2 children x 2 trips = $11.00
    -total for family of 2 adults + 2 concessions = $27.00

    -for a family of three moving three zones…
    -$5.50 x 2 adults x 2 trips = $22.00
    -$3.75 x 1 child x 2 trips = $7.50
    -total for family of 2 adults + 1 concession = $29.50

    -for a family of four moving three zones…
    -$5.50 x 2 adults x 2 trips = $22.00
    -$3.75 x 2 children x 2 trips = $15.00
    -total for family of 2 adults + 2 concessions = $37.00

  • 67 teririch // Sep 19, 2013 at 9:55 am

    @gman #66

    The automatic tap in of 3 zones needs to be taken into consideration – so extra dollars above those fees will be needed on the card(s).

    And the one time $6 deposit per card.

  • 68 gman // Sep 19, 2013 at 10:23 am

    teririch #67
    I’m really not familiar with the pricing as I don’t use transit.But I am curious about the free Sundays and what the one zone weekend discount is?
    $6 might seem like only the price of a pint to those who can afford it but for someone who is struggling to make ends meet its the difference between meatloaf or kraft dinner.

  • 69 waltyss // Sep 19, 2013 at 10:29 am

    The point gman that you and Mr. Lupick ignore is that the way the article that teriisn’titrich promoted was misleading (to be kind).
    The numbers are only accurate if on Sundays additional people will no longer be able to travel on one monthly pass [which unquestionably translink has said they are going to do] and if translink is also going to eliminate the ability to use a one zone ticket throughout the system after 6:30 pm and on weekends and holidays [I have not been able to find this in any of translink's communications but that may not be saying much]. It also does not take into account the 15% discount with a Compass Card.
    The other point is that the numbers were misleading in the context of the article which related to free family Sundays. The additional for a family would not be those numbers because it was all predicated on one member of the family having a monthly pass.
    The point is that these numbers are only true for someone not using a Compass card paying full freight.
    As for the comment at #67, I have not heard whether for the Compass card tapping on and off on the weekend, whether the full three zones comes off or only the single zone fare if that after hours discount remains. Just how smart will this card be.

  • 70 waltyss // Sep 19, 2013 at 10:33 am

    gman, @ 68, for everyone after 6:30 pm and on weekends and holidays, the entire system is considered as one zone. Will this change after January 1, 2014. As I said in post 69, not that I have heard from translink but if it has, I am sure someone will point it out.
    If you read the Straight articles, you will see the free family Sunday, according to translink spokespeople, came in after the last strike to encourage people to return and was not intended as a permanent discount. Who knows>

  • 71 Terry M // Sep 19, 2013 at 11:20 am

    Jenables @62

    “It is interesting how people take such offense to people who don’t even have a roof over their heads using the bus for free, yet overpaid government officials expensing their gasoline for driving to their whistler cabin barely raises an eyebrow.”

    100% with you on this one. Best comment!

  • 72 gman // Sep 19, 2013 at 11:53 am

    So you don’t know and don’t accept a correction but you still manage to post long winded insult filled replies…..thanks for nothing.

  • 73 teririch // Sep 19, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    @gman #68:

    Free family Sunday’s is a definite benefit to those families of limited means. I was aware of it, but have never used it, however have been on the bus when it has been requested by others.

    The one zone pricing right now is a flat $2.75 – which allows you to travel all zones after 6:30 pm weekdays and on weekends/stat holidays.

    It was interesting. About 2 weeks back I was heading to the Commercial Skytrain and a man got on – didn’t have money to pay (I would suggest low income by how he was dressed) and the bus driver allowed him the lift. He was asking the driver about how the Compass Card worked – cost wise. (He saw the tap in pad lit up)The driver did his best to outline the 3 zone auto debit tap on… I saw the look on the man’s face. For some people, despite what naysayers believe, this is going to be tough for them.

    If you are having trouble putting together $2.75 for a one zone trip – how are you expected to pay $6.00 for the card and then another $5.50 for the auto 3 zone charge. And yes, I know the cost gets adjusted when you get off. It is also ridiculous that when you use cash for your fare that you are penalized if needing to transfer to the SkyTrain.

    I use transit as my main mode of transport. A monthly bus pass costs me $91 – which works out to roughly 36 trips/month based on the current one zone pricing. It will be interesting to see if this cost will stay the same or similar once the CompassCard is in use. Sometimes I use the bus 4-6 times a day – (work/home) and going to/from work related meetings/events. Will see.

  • 74 tedeastside // Sep 19, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    Vancouver has no big companies and mass vacancies….those office buildings will never be built

  • 75 teririch // Sep 19, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    It makes me damn curious to know how hard the ‘dvelopers’ are whispering in Robertson’s ear to get the Broadway subway line put into play.

    Just think of all the $$ they are missing out on right now…..

    Can’t wait to read the next ‘know your donor’ report.

  • 76 waltyss // Sep 19, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    gman @72. This is an insult: You are an idiot. How were posts 69 and 70 “insult filled”.
    As for not knowing, what I said what that I had not seen that one zone fares on weekends and after 6:30 was being done away with and asked for anyone to correct me if I was wrong. No takers so I asssume I am right.
    That is true, I don’t accept the so called correction because it remains misleading in the context of the article which was about a mom and two kids going to Stanley Park on a Sunday. With doing away with free Sunday family days, what was said to be the additional fare was and remains wrong.
    Oh, just to bring me closer to the “insult filled” threshold. In addition, gman, you are a nasty old moron. Happy now?

  • 77 gman // Sep 19, 2013 at 2:22 pm

    ” teriisn’titrich ” is an insult but I don’t expect anything else from you.And your response @76 pretty well sums it up…..I rest my case.

  • 78 Threadkiller // Sep 19, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    I don’t know about posts 69 and 70, but if I was a woman and you spoke to me the way you speak to Teririch in post #60… well, unless you were a close friend, I’d kick you right square in the nuts. And I think anyone standing within earshot would agree that you had it coming. Your twisted obsession with Teririch makes you sound like you’re a stalker and she’s your prey. In short, you come across as a misogynistic creep. Man up and own it, “little dumpling”.

  • 79 Bill Lee // Sep 20, 2013 at 11:16 am

    Hmm. Towers downtown as that is the transfer and end-node of most of Vancouver’s transportation.
    But so-called TOD (Transit-Oriented Speculation Development) along Cambie is missing the East-West component so there will still be heavy car use there.
    And how much has Thomas Fung Wing Fat (馮永發) of the Fairchild Group made with all his developments along the Cambie line from Broadway through Cambie Village to his Aberdeen (Era Street 時代坊) Centre?

  • 80 rph // Sep 20, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    Seems the Provincial Government has found the money and political wherewithal for a new bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel. Just announced today, and construction to start in 2017.

    Unsure of where, but a bridge would entail removal of existing and farmed ALR land. (I believe Richmond council was against this option and preferred another tunnel).

    I suppose this was fait accompli after all the money spent on the South Fraser Perimeter Road.

  • 81 Mira // Sep 20, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    Threadkiler #78
    Right on. Go back in the Fabula’s archives and discover how I was called “Ms. Breckinridge” as in “Myra Breckinridge” ( go look it up)
    But what could one expect from Mr. W?

  • 82 waltyss // Sep 20, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    rph@81. Next time the Province newspaper or others on this blog talk about the war on cars, just ask how much money in this city and in this province is spent on infrastructure for cars. $2 billion, another $2 billion for Massey Tunnel, more for the perimeter road. I appreciate that this is capital cost but by comparison how much is spent on capital for mass transit.
    Mira, Ms. Breckenridge, where have you been? Being a “good girl” I hope.

  • 83 jenables // Sep 20, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    Waltroll, need I remind you that bikes, buses, cars and trucks use the roads too?

  • 84 brilliant // Sep 20, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    @WalTroll 83-the war on the car has nothing to do with the BC Liberals and everything to do with your mancrush Gregor and his eco-thugs. Fortunately the provincial administration doesn’t gave its head as far up its sheer Lululemonade butt as your fella and sees that the new bridge will be a net benefit to the economy.

  • 85 teririch // Sep 20, 2013 at 9:07 pm

    Ha, pretty much as I expected – up on Twitter:

    Chris Bruntlett‏@cbruntlett

    One week after submitting my address to their transit petition, @VisionVancouver writes me asking for a political contribution. Smooth move.


  • 86 Threadkiller // Sep 21, 2013 at 12:43 am

    Mira #82:
    One of the few things I can remember about Myra Breckenridge (the movie version)– it’s been decades– is the scene wherein Raquel Welch plays a, um, powerfully dominant role. I will try to not envision Waltyss as her co-respondent, though the idea does tickle me…

  • 87 rph // Sep 21, 2013 at 8:01 am

    The capacity increased Massey bridge (the visuals how 10 lanes) is going to funnel increasing amounts of traffic (including trucks) through Richmond, and onwards into other areas like Vancouver.

    TF Nation (and Aquilini) are building a huge Metro town sized shopping and residential complex by the Tsawwassen Ferry terminal. The residential component will accommodate an additional 5000 people. (And except for minimum wage mall jobs and some opportunities at the Port, there are few in place work opportunities in that part of Delta). And of course residents of fast growing South Surrey will continue to feed up Highway 99 and the new bridge.

    Odds of rapid transit extending there anytime soon?

    Gregor and Vision can continue to place their planters and dividers and paint the roads green, but unless viable rapid transit gets put into place, those cars are coming.

  • 88 teririch // Sep 21, 2013 at 9:35 am

    Further to my comment of #3, this was up on Twitter last night.

    Chris Bruntlett‏

    One week after submitting my address to their transit petition, @VisionVancouver writes me asking for a political contribution. Smooth move.

  • 89 Chris Keam // Sep 21, 2013 at 9:40 am

    “unless viable rapid transit gets put into place, those cars are coming.”

    There’s a lot of disruptive technologies waiting in the wings, from 3-d printing to driverless cars. Many of them reduce our need to move people and goods, or reduce the amount of road space necessary to transport what does have to travel by road. I think the assumption that we will always need more road space is very debatable. Certainly committing large amounts of public money and resources to a ‘pave everything’ approach should be given greater analysis. My personal opinion is that an emphasis on road-building shows a lack of attention being paid to those change factors. We are going to look like real idiots if we end up with roads even emptier than they are currently (stood at Main and Broadway yesterday at 4pm and looked west to Broadway at a sea of empty asphalt).

  • 90 Chris Keam // Sep 21, 2013 at 9:40 am

    Oops, should read ‘looked west to Cambie’

  • 91 jenables // Sep 21, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    Well Chris, I believe putting a tower on it, or a mcmansion is a pave everything mentality. Think about the sheer number of yards on the west side that were beautiful mature gardens, now reduced to a square of grass or row of hedge, the rest built out home and cement. Makes me sad to think of all those plants going to the landfill.

  • 92 jenables // Sep 21, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Teri, you’re not the first person I’ve heard that from, though was there a problem with your copy/paste? I just see a name in your post

  • 93 teririch // Sep 21, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    @jenables #92;

    That is weird, I can view it no problem.

    The person, Chris Brunlett tweeted:

    One week after submitting my address to their transit petition, (at) Vision Vancouver writes me asking for a political contribution. Smooth move.

  • 94 Bill // Sep 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    @chris keam #89

    Remarkably, Tom Tom awarded Vancouver the title of second most congested city in North America right after Los Angeles. Are you sure you weren’t looking at a bicycle lane?

  • 95 Chris Keam // Sep 21, 2013 at 7:35 pm


    I think it’s useful when the inefficiencies inherent in reliance on the single occupant vehicle are highlighted, so thank you for pointing that out. However, anyone who looks critically at the Broadway Corridor for a few minutes sees the problem isn’t of capacity, but of flow (the antidote to congestion, be it noses or roads), created by the need for traffic lights to regulate vehicle and pedestrian movement. The road truly does sit largely unoccupied for long periods of time, esp. outside of peak periods.

  • 96 jenables // Sep 21, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    Oh, I totally misunderstood. I thought the below was your comment on something I wasn’t mistake!

  • 97 brilliant // Sep 22, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    @Crisp Keam 89- really CK? Anecdotes? Whenever Someone points out deserted bike lanes and the bike lobby is quick to dismiss anecdotes. Post a picture of an empty Broadway at 4pm on a weekday please.

  • 98 Chris Keam // Sep 22, 2013 at 7:57 pm

    I related an experience I had (and have witnessed regularly). You are welcome to monitor the traffic camera at Cambie and Broadway if you think I am making things up.

  • 99 Threadkiller // Sep 22, 2013 at 11:47 pm

    @Chris Keam, #’s 89/95/98:

    Random and isolated samplings of empirical data, as any scientific pollster will tell you, give no accurate indication of anything. I happened to be on Broadway between Cambie and Main twice today (Sunday). At 1 PM traffic was horrendous, bumper-to-bumper in both directions. Perhaps it was the equally horrendous weather, but at 3:30 the rain had largely stopped and traffic was still heavy, backed up in both directions. Were I to apply your research standards, I would have to conclude that traffic along that stretch is always dreadful on Sunday; and through extrapolation I would be forced to logically conclude that if Sunday afternoons are that bad conditions must be even worse on weekday afternoons.

    Unfortunately, my conclusions would be no more accurate or meaningful than yours. There is not a street, road or avenue in this city that is not “unoccupied”, sometimes only briefly, at certain times of the day, even those that are generally traffic-choked at peak times. This can happen even at normally busy times. So what? Any engineer who made transportation planning decisions based on poorly-collected, lowest-common-denominator data would be fired for gratuitous stupidity, and rightly so.

    Your comments, in fact, remind me of a traffic-related anecdote from the mid-1960s. At the time there had been increasing and voluble complaints about extreme rush-hour congestion on the Lions Gate Bridge and its approaches from commuters and others who used the bridge on a regular basis (for you youngsters, this was long before the days of Seabuses, express buses and the like). Eventually the complaints reached the ear of Premier W.A.C. Bennett (in those days the Highways Ministry was responsible for all bridges in the province not wholly within civic boundaries), who dispatched his Minster of Highways, the notorious “Flyin’ Phil” Gagliardi, to investigate. Gagliardi’s “investigation” consisted of visiting the bridge at 10 AM for a photo op. The picture appeared in the papers the next day with Gagliardi’s smug comment that he had had a look at the situation and didn’t see any problems.

    For this fatuous statement, Gagliardi was severely criticized by both the media and those long-suffering commuters. So much so that the Sun’s brilliant editorial cartoonist, Roy Peterson, drew a very funny cartoon showing Bennett and Gagliardi hovering above a traffic-choked bridge in tiny helicopters, with a beaming Bennett saying “Good work, Phil! But next time check it at two in the morning, just to be sure!” Despite this criticism, it would be years before anything concrete was done to address the issue.

    Your conclusions re west Broadway, Mr. Keam, make me think of nothing so much as that newspaper shot of Flyin’ Phil’s smugly smiling, swarthy mug, seen against a backdrop of a near-empty Lions Gate Bridge. The picture you describe is nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to imagine.

  • 100 ThinkOutsideABox // Sep 23, 2013 at 1:04 am

    Very relieved to hear Broadway is empty on a weekday at rush hour. With the dwindling volume of cars and drivers coming into the city we keep hearing about, doesn’t sound like the push for a tunnelled Skytrain to UBC is all that necessary anymore, despite the insistence of the city’s director of transportation. There is too much road capacity apparently that it would be insane to spend $3 billion for buried Skytrain when the more economical solution is to simply push away the tumbleweeds and put more buses on Broadway.

    Now if you’ll excuse me I need to step into my self-driven Google Stanley as I’m summoned to a booty call… and unlike the iPhone 5s’s fingerprint scanner, the car’s control system is absolutely positively NOT hackable.

  • 101 ThinkOutsideABox // Sep 23, 2013 at 1:15 am

    …well screw that. Apparently when I upgraded to ios7 it wiped my booty call presets address list on google maps in my car and I don’t have any of their addresses written down! F U APPLE!!!

  • 102 Chris Keam // Sep 23, 2013 at 6:56 am

    “With the dwindling volume of cars and drivers coming into the city we keep hearing about, doesn’t sound like the push for a tunnelled Skytrain to UBC is all that necessary anymore, despite the insistence of the city’s director of transportation.”

    The buses I observed were quite full. It was the road space that was being underutilized from my observation.

  • 103 Chris Keam // Sep 23, 2013 at 7:08 am


    I’ve made no conclusions. I made an observation and suggested that there may be other solutions beyond paving more land to deal with the movement of goods and people. My observation was neither ‘random’ or ‘isolated’. Roads sit empty most of the time. This is obvious to anyone who wishes to look.


  • 104 Chris Keam // Sep 23, 2013 at 7:26 am


    When you say:
    “The picture you describe is nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to imagine.”

    the only conclusion I can reach is that you didn’t note the only real suggestion I made in my post:

    “committing large amounts of public money and resources to a ‘pave everything’ approach should be given greater analysis.”

    and I am reminded that it’s largely pointless to voice anything outside of sarcasm or orthodox thought on an Internet forum, because someone will have a conniption and start framing their rebuttal without bothering to ensure they even understood the original point.

    So, a good lesson on a Monday morning.

    cheers, (again)

  • 105 jenables // Sep 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    Well Chris you were quite quick to dismiss not only my information regarding the Georgia viaduct, but my father’s memories of actually using the old viaduct, when you were still a twinkle in your father’s eye. Dare I say that set a bit of precedent for you when it comes to anecdote? More to the point, I think we really need to stop looking at already paved roads as a waste of space. They aren’t a waste of space. They are public land that should be used for transport. I’m not suggesting we pave everything, but well used and already paved infrastructure does need to be kept up. Case in point; the burrard street bridge. After using it daily for years, the last six months I have only driven over occasionally, usually at night. Here’s my anecdote – it is looking beat these days. Shouldn’t it be upgraded before the south end is rearranged?

  • 106 Bill // Sep 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    @Chris Keam

    Vancouver is the second most traffic congested city in North America yet we reduce road capacity in favour of bicycles, a mode of transportation used by a small minority. This is very Progressive.

  • 107 Chris Keam // Sep 23, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    Current conditions at Cambie/Broadway a good example of what I’m talking about. Lots of empty road space.

  • 108 Threadkiller // Sep 23, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    @jenables #105:
    You are correct. the Burrard Bridge is looking “beat”. For well over a year now there have been nets strung under the Burrard Bridge above the heavily-travelled bike/ped path that passes the fish docks and marina (Kitsilano side) and passes under the bridge. The nets are there, ostensibly, to catch falling “debris”– reportedly several largish (grapefruit-sized) chunks of concrete have fallen off that part of the underbelly of the bridge in the past couple of years, narrowly missing people. Whether or not those nets would successfully catch said debris is a moot point. Everytime we walk under there, we quicken our pace.

    It’s obvious that the Burrard bridge is in need of an overhaul and seismic upgrade. Reportedly the City is looking at the possibility. Given the bridge’s concrete structure, it may prove to be more expensive to upgrade than the Granville bridge, which for the past few months has been receiving its second seismic upgrade in the past 15 years (the City have yet to upgrade the Granville’s on- and off-ramps, however, and has no plans to do so in the foreseeable future). Be that as it may, if the City does not embark on an upgrade soon and the Big One finally hits, we may be speaking of the Burrard Dam instead of the Burrard Bridge. And for such a lovely old structure that would be a terrible shame.

  • 109 teririch // Sep 23, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    @jenables and Threadkiller:

    I tweeted and posted pics of the slow and painful death of the Burrard Street Bridge well over a year ago now. If you walk it, you will see the concreate on the posts broken down to the rebar -of which the city took some grey paint and sprayed.

    I am somewhat sure at one point there were monies set aside for reparis to the bridge – going back to 2007/2008 – no idea what happened to that plan.

    That bridge is a true jewel and I enjoy watching tourists snap photos of it.

    It is absolutely shameful that it is being left to rot.

    (Sadly) funny how bike lanes can be resurected and or painted green faster than anything else in this city.

    Right now there are no ‘concrete’ lines painted in at the intersection atWest 4th and MacDonald – they are more chalked in – the lines are very faint which includes the crosswalks (4 cossings) Cars stop in a variety of places as they cannot see an absolute line. With the dark weather and the rain, I am waiting for someone to get hit. It has been this way since the city replaced the sewer lines back in June/July. You know, before ‘the vote’ to close Point Grey Road in August which would have changes made to that intersection to inlcude a left turn lane. Just sayin’.

  • 110 Boohoo // Sep 23, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    How about knight street being repaved recently… so much money is wasted on bike lanes by this crazy mayor…

    Right? I mean that had to be for bike lanes right?

  • 111 teririch // Sep 23, 2013 at 10:32 pm

    @Boohoo #110

    Take a walk around the downtown core and look at the newly painted ‘green’ lanes for bikes.

    Meanwhile, other basics get left unattended.

    So, yup, it is about bike lanes – a great deal of the time.

  • 112 Bill McCreery // Sep 24, 2013 at 12:24 am

    Chris will remember we had another aspect of this conversation a few years back.

    One the probable reasons the concrete has been spalling off the Burrard Bridge since late 2010, early 2011 is because of the added static dead load that was added to the bridge in 2010 from the concrete dividers the City Engineering Department used on both sides of the bridge to create the separated bike lanes. This, combined with the aging concrete, which gets brittle over time (+/-80 years old), has caused increased stress to the concrete and, coincidentally it starts to fail. With concrete of such an age, very little added constant load can cause such failure.

    You will also recall before the bike lanes there were earlier bike lane proposals and debates that included heritage advocates, as well as the bike lobby that were stymied. It makes one wonder whether some in City Hall may have a Plan ‘C’ and are deliberately allowing the bridge to continue to fail by not doing timely maintenance. This will result at a certain point in time in the structure becoming to far gone and, whadaya know, taxpayers will be told they need to pay for a new bridge.

    Does anyone have further thoughts?

  • 113 Kirk // Sep 24, 2013 at 12:50 am

    Hey! We made it to about 100 posts before fighting about bike lanes! Not too shabby. We’re getting better! Congratulations everybody!

  • 114 ThinkOutsideABox // Sep 24, 2013 at 1:33 am

    It’s the equivalent of Godwin’s law on these comment threads – just embrace it.

    You can google Godwin’s law if you don’t know the reference.

  • 115 jenables // Sep 24, 2013 at 2:03 am

    I should have mentioned in what I said earlier that while I usually drive over it at night as of late, I recently went over in the daytime and really noticed that the deck, well the whole top was looking noticeably more ragged than earlier this year. A couple of years ago when I was driving to work I had a small chunk (luckily!!) fall off what I can only assume was the second arch and hit my windshield. This was not kicked up by traffic in front of me, it fell on me just past the arch, presumably carried by the wind/traffic? a short distance. It only left a tiny mark, but that was a few years ago and I don’t recall them ever doing anything but change the banners on the bridge since then.

    Ps- icydk boo knight street is a major truck route that all types of heavy machinery pound daily. It is also a massive hill. Trust me, you WANT them keeping that road in shape. During snowmaggedeon I gave them hell for not plowing a truck route with significant grade, the guy almost had hung up then he said… wait, which end of knight would you say needs plowing more? I said if I was selfish, of course it would be the Clark Dr north end but addressing the grade from 41st to 12th made more sense.

  • 116 jenables // Sep 24, 2013 at 2:15 am

    Ps Teri, I feel your frustration. I have asked them repeatedly to remove the zebra crosswalk at Adanac and commercial because there are now (non pedestrian controlled, regular cycling, equal length of time for each) lights and pedestrian signals there. Not to mention dividers in the middle of the street so cars can’t turn left, dividers on part of Adanac so cars can’t turn right wb, and a no right turn sign for cars going eb on Adanac. The zebra crosswalk just confuses people and while I used to stop for people at it, I don’t anymore if I have a green light. No one seems to know what I am talking about though. Much like dangerous low hanging tree branches blocking signs, I feel they think they have bigger fish to fry than the things that are their actual jobs, I have never had success reporting anything dangerous. I should just start lying and pretending I’m a cyclist.

  • 117 Chris Keam // Sep 24, 2013 at 8:32 am

    I have to say the remarks suggesting people don’t know where to stop at a major signaled intersection without lines on the road and are confused by crosswalk markings really does suggest that clear and prominent indicators of how to share road space are probably a good idea. I should note that I drove down 4th last week and seemed perfectly capable of positioning my vehicle appropriately at the Macdonald intersection without the aid of thick white lines and I’m apparently a moron according to some. Naturellement, I’m very confused and left wondering how I can manage not to encroach on a crosswalk, but avid motorists would lack this ability? People talk about cyclists’ needing education (and it is a good idea)… but judging by the comments in this thread, one might think there also needs to be greater emphasis on educating drivers as to road markings and responsibilities.

  • 118 boohoo // Sep 24, 2013 at 11:13 am


    I know it’s a truck route. The point is the exaggerations here about all the money going to bike lanes are ridiculous, that was my point in being ridiculous.

  • 119 jenables // Sep 24, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Oh Chris..
    No, it’s just stupid to have two conflicting traffic markings in one place if you have a reflex for either of them which anyone using the road should. Not to mention they determine a percentage of fault in the event of an accident, and again, your anecdotal experience does not mean the lines should not be there, nor that people driving are mentally deficient for expecting them. Signaled intersection = no zebra crosswalk as it is confusing to both parties I.e. car sees zebra stripes and subconsciously, green light. Car starts to stop for pedestrians, the traffic in the opposite direction sees green light, isn’t expecting pedestrians to be in the middle of the road, do you follow why that is a dangerous scenario? I’d rather cross a street where the crosswalk was delineated properly than not; do you agree with that? Perhaps you should consider what you are arguing for… we all know common sense is anything but!

  • 120 Threadkiller // Sep 24, 2013 at 3:05 pm

    I’m in full agreement with TOAB in #100 when he suggests that a major re-think is needed re the proposed Broadway corridor rapid transit line. If that corridor is as lightly travelled as Chris Keam keeps saying, then all it needs is an increase in rapid bus (B-line) service, with full-time dedicated lanes in the busiest sections. It will probably still take noisy whiners like Geoff Meggs 35 minutes (horrors!) to get from Broadway Station to UBC, but at least they may have a place to sit and catch up on their texting. Take the $3 billion that will thereby have been saved and put it into health care. The people of this province need a substantial increase in the number of doctors, hospital beds and MRI machines a hell of a lot more than UBC students need their own dedicated rapid transit to enable them to get to school faster.

    (Yes, I know that the transit line is merely a smokescreen for Vision’s grand scheme of vastly increased density along the length of Broadway and in its contiguous neighbourhoods, with equally vast increases in the tax base, but I’m pretending to take their altruistic BS about subways at face value.)

  • 121 boohoo // Sep 24, 2013 at 3:17 pm


    Surely you mean the BC Liberals smokescreen?

    I mean you couldn’t possibly be blaming Vision for something they don’t have control over, could you?

  • 122 Frank Ducote // Sep 24, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Bill McC@112 – According to a source who should know, the spalling has been happening for 20+- years but needed maintenance has been inexplicably deferred. Not sure if the barriers have worsened the situation or not.

  • 123 Threadkiller // Sep 24, 2013 at 6:52 pm

    Robertson & Assoc. have been doing a more vigourous, high-profile job of selling the proposal than anyone else. Given that, it seems only logical to take potshots at the tempting target they present. We can work out the identity of true villains of the piece, and the level of blame to be attached to each, in due course.

  • 124 Chris Keam // Sep 24, 2013 at 9:08 pm


    “Perhaps you should consider what you are arguing for…”

    Hmm, I’d be interested to know what you think I’m arguing ‘for’. I sense you’ve missed my point. You might also double check the BC MVA re: zebra crosswalks, I have a funny feeling it might be instructive. Certainly the idea that people might be driving ‘subconsciously’ is terrifying enough to make me be glad for the bright green paint and barriers that offer some small protection from those who motor without their full attention to the road.

    “If that corridor is as lightly travelled as Chris Keam keeps saying”

    Again, I think the point was missed.


    “it seems only logical to take potshots at the tempting target they present ”

    is an eye-opener of a statement. Would that we could have a discussion about infrastructure that wasn’t motivated by politics or behaviour that so sadly resembles that of the schoolyard bully.

  • 125 Chris Keam // Sep 24, 2013 at 9:10 pm

    @Threadkiller (again)

    Perhaps you misspoke when you seemed to suggest dedicated bus lanes and accompanying service on Broadway could be done for $0.00?

    “Take the $3 billion that will thereby have been saved”

  • 126 jenables // Sep 24, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    You misunderstand, Chris. It was a marked crosswalk with zebra stripes before. It is now a signaled intersection where half of the time the light is red. I meant when I have a green light, and the pedestrians have a hand which means “don’t cross” I know that the light is green (perhaps subconscious was the wrong word to use) but I still think I should stop because I see people at a marked crosswalk. Am I clear? There is now a traffic light there where there was only a zebra crossing before. Or are you suggesting if I have a green light I should stop anyways even though they have a DON’T WALK hand, and I’m sending them into the traffic going the opposite direction of me that has a green light? Can you see how this is a problem and has nothing to do with me not paying attention? For the record, I have a perfect drivers abstract and have never had any points deducted, no speeding tickets, nothing…I AM paying attention.

  • 127 jenables // Sep 24, 2013 at 9:42 pm

    The issue is with the zebra stripes. They should paint in regular lines like every other signaled intersection. I live a block away and I’ve watched it happen to others whose instincts are to stop at a zebra crossing when pedestrians are waiting. That’s called paying attention to the edges of the road as well as what is directly in front. Except the light is green!

  • 128 Chris Keam // Sep 24, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    “You misunderstand, Chris.”

    Umm, no. I didn’t. I know exactly what you meant. As I say, it may be instructive to find out a bit more about the rules around zebra crosswalks.

    “The crosswalks marked with solid rectangle bars across the street are called “zebra” crosswalks and are used by the ministry added emphasis for the pedestrian crossing is required. This includes mid-block cross-walks, unsignalized cross-walks crossing the highway, and crosswalks near schools where there is a high number of children crossing the road.

    Zebra Crosswalk
    Municipalities may also use zebra crosswalks, and may establish their own policies as to when and where they use them. In some locations motorists will see wide spread use of zebra crosswalks, compared to ministry roads or other jurisdictions.”

  • 129 jenables // Sep 24, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    I note none of those locations include signaled (or is it signalized) intersections because it is obviously confusing and dangerous if there is an expectation of right of way when you are facing a HAND and the car has a green light. Solution: use the same crosswalk as all the other signaled intersections. Again, what are you arguing for?

  • 130 jenables // Sep 24, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    Other than trying to make the case that I’m negligent and distracted and don’t know the rules of the an intersection which received traffic signals because, I swear to you, the planner told me that some cyclists had said they didn’t know they were supposed to stop at the stop sign, but they did know to stop at red lights. How I wish I’d recorded that call.

  • 131 Chris Keam // Sep 24, 2013 at 10:44 pm

    I can’t say I find it confusing or dangerous… certainly not arguing for anything other than due care and attention. There are certainly examples of zebra stripes and control lights to be found beyond the one example you provide.

  • 132 Chris Keam // Sep 24, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    “some cyclists had said they didn’t know they were supposed to stop at the stop sign”

    Yep, like the many motorists who are unaware they must abide by the stop sign at a ped activated crosswalk, regardless of whether the walk light is activated. Lots of room for education. I have no idea if you are negligent and distracted other than by your own comments. As to whether you know the rules of the road… couldn’t speak to that either. In fact… I know this is hard to believe for those who are here to practice politics, I’m not trying to catch you out or make you look foolish, just trying to ensure good information is being conveyed and people are being safe when they use the roads.

  • 133 jenables // Sep 24, 2013 at 11:31 pm

    Yep, I know that rule too. Doesn’t apply at all here as there is no stop sign and it is not pedestrian controlled, but remember this?

    And from that article, this?

    Vision Vancouver councillor and avid cyclist Geoff Meggs told the Straight, “I was, to be honest, unaware that cyclists couldn’t cross with a walk sign.”

    But I digress, again and again. Your pic shows a random intersection not in Vancouver, likely not in bc. Not only that, it again doesn’t fit in with the provincial use of these crosswalks you posted above. If the city wants to confuse people regarding pedestrian crossings, I’m going to complain about it because inconsistency is unsafe and unnecessary. Just making sure you are safe.

  • 134 Chris Keam // Sep 24, 2013 at 11:38 pm

    Oh geez. I guess I better repost:

    “Zebra Crosswalk
    Municipalities may also use zebra crosswalks, and may establish their own policies as to when and where they use them. In some locations motorists will see wide spread use of zebra crosswalks, compared to ministry roads or other jurisdictions.”

    One should have zero expectation that road markings will be consistent across the province/country/world. Further, I made no claim the picture was from BC, but used it to support the statement I did make.

  • 135 Threadkiller // Sep 25, 2013 at 7:31 am

    @C. Keam, #125:
    Now how did I know you were going to say that?? Fine, make it $2.75 billion. What-ever. My point remains. How’s that collection of nits coming along?

    Re # 124: “Would that we could have a discussion about infrastructure that wasn’t motivated by politics or behaviour that so sadly resembles that of the schoolyard bully.”

    So let me see if you understand you. In your world, one cannot criticize the public statements of those in power without being accused of bullying tactics? Got news for ya, CK: The Marquis of Queensbury done packed up and left town. As Phil Ochs memorably sang, it’s important to keep kicking up a fuss “…until the giant is aware that someone’s pulling at his leg”.

    Anyway, if you think many of Robertson & Meggs’ recent statements on infrastructure have variously not been motivated in part or in whole by politics, I have several large bridges I’d love to sell you.

  • 136 Chris Keam // Sep 25, 2013 at 7:50 am

    “So let me see if you understand you. In your world, one cannot criticize the public statements of those in power without being accused of bullying tactics?”

    If that’s how you read it, then no, you don’t understand me. It’s the juvenile name-calling that I find kind of sad really. Leads to things like this:

  • 137 Teririch // Sep 25, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    I watched the news coverage surrounding the protest at city hall last night, and the comment made by Cllr Reimer on the discourse – that council is acting on city staffs recommendations to move forward versus revisiting or delaying projects. Last I knew ‘city staff’ were not elected to represent the people, so why are are the being granted power to institute these decisions???

  • 138 gman // Sep 25, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    jenables was on Global at noon today,it looked like a pretty good turnout.

  • 139 Teririch // Sep 25, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    @gman:. I am out of town work or I would have been there.

  • 140 Terry M // Sep 25, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    Teririch @137
    Reimer’s discourse is pure BS!
    And she knows it!
    City staff cannot talk to the press, without permission from Herr Ballem, as per her Vision Vancouver instructions, but they can make recommendations on their own?

  • 141 Teririch // Sep 25, 2013 at 8:46 pm


    Oh, I had a pretty good chuckle over ‘that’ disclosure. Sad to see cllrs throw the workers to the lions; hide behind their skirt tails in attempts to divert the heat. Cowards. And I can’t help notice our ‘good’ mayor has been noticeably absent for comment as of late. Love or hate Toronto’s Ford, he is not media or people shy.

  • 142 jenables // Sep 25, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    Ahh, I was!? Well they did interview me I just didn’t think they’d use it! I was thinking Daammn I should have put some makeup on! It was a great rally, saw some familiar faces, met some online personas and commiserated. Everyone was very unified in their sentiment, and the speakers were great. Lots of people honking as they drove by too.

  • 143 waltyss // Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    Well, isn’t it rich indeed that teri the rich would be a fan of the coke snorting thug Ford. He would be your kind of guy. Somehow I am not surprised.

  • 144 Bill McCreery // Sep 25, 2013 at 10:46 pm

    Frank D. @ 122.

    You may recall that the City put nets up to catch the debris in 2010. According to my source, who works below the bridge as well as a boat owner at the Burrard Marina, the frequency sharply increased after the dividers went up. Hence, the nets. But, as you said, no maintenance. Why not?

  • 145 jenables // Sep 26, 2013 at 3:15 am

    Ps keam, I said provincial use. Even you can probably agree that at least throughout the province road signs/markings should be consistent and mean the same things given that the province does the licensing. If it was widespread use, it wouldn’t be confusing, would it? Can you copy and paste the policy cov has established to have this one wonky zebra crossing (as it is only one of four possible sides at the intersection, unlike your picture) with a non pedestrian controlled traffic light?

  • 146 Threadkiller // Sep 26, 2013 at 7:54 am

    Waltyss, #143:
    I realize you’re hell-and-determined to make outrageously stupid statements as part of your pathologically obsessive anti-Teririch campaign, but interpreting her neutral observation on Rob Ford in #141 as “fandom” represents a new low, even by your abysmal standards.

  • 147 waltyss // Sep 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    Believe what you will Threadkiller. If you think that teri the rich was not expressing fandom of Rob Ford, I have a bridge to sell you. The rest of your post is not worthy of response.

  • 148 Teririch // Sep 26, 2013 at 2:59 pm


    How much is that bridge; I thought I might gift it to Threadkiller.

    Perhaps we can toll it and buy you a nicer personality.

  • 149 Frank Ducote // Sep 26, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    Bill McC @144: “But, as you said, no maintenance. Why not?”

    Great question. Alas, I dunno the answer. It’d be nice to have a city official or an InsiderEngineer to tell us, or else we’re left to speculate.

  • 150 Chris Keam // Sep 26, 2013 at 10:17 pm

    “Even you can probably agree that at least throughout the province road signs/markings should be consistent and mean the same things given that the province does the licensing”

    Absolutely. Is there somewhere in the province where zebra striping across a roadway doesn’t indicate a crosswalk?

    “Can you copy and paste the policy cov has established to have this one wonky zebra crossing”


    It’s a previously uncontrolled crosswalk that has had lights added. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist or someone with NASCAR level driving skills to figure it out IMO.

  • 151 Threadkiller // Sep 26, 2013 at 11:43 pm

    Please identify the post(s) where I allegedly threatened you or anyone else (apart from Gregor Robertson, in a cartoonish sort of way) with violence. When I eventually get around to e-mailing Frances to formally ask her to kick you off this board for your ongoing abusive language, taunting, namecalling, relentless personal attacks, outrageous sexism (hello, #60), slander, misogyny, gynophobia, gross insults, deliberate distortions, outright lies, and general mindless ranting, it might be useful to have those posts to refer to, should the subject arise.

  • 152 boohoo // Sep 27, 2013 at 11:15 am


    I support that, although I would add a few names to that list.

  • 153 jenables // Sep 27, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    So ck, you don’t stop if the light is green, right?

  • 154 Chris Keam // Sep 27, 2013 at 3:21 pm


    If you’re unclear on the rules of the road….

    “Driver training isn’t just about passing a road test. It’s about learning the right attitudes and skills to keep you safe and confident on the road.

    Whether you’re new to driving or would like to refresh your skills, there’s a course that’s right for you.”

  • 155 jenables // Sep 27, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    Why don’t you answer the question, Chris?

  • 156 jenables // Sep 27, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    Instead of telling me how obvious it is and trying to imply I don’t know how to drive, just answer the question.

  • 157 Chris Keam // Sep 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    Why don’t I answer the question?? Well, let me answer THAT question. Because I feel zero obligation to participate in this infantile exchange. I post what I want, when I want. Your mistaken belief that you are owed even a moment of my time is your issue.

  • 158 brilliant // Sep 27, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    @Threadkiller 135- yes there seems to be a mean streak of misogyny running thru waltie’s posts. I wonder what his, ahem, wife thinks of that.

  • 159 jenables // Sep 27, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    the fact that you refuse to answer a simple question which is the key of our whole argument here says loud and clear to me what I knew all along; you have picked a fight with me based not on reason but as a contrarian. You are the one who had tried to imply I was ignorant or lacking all along, and I asked you several times to think about what you were arguing for. Maybe you should have taken that at face value.

  • 160 teririch // Sep 27, 2013 at 9:40 pm

    Interesting article by Alan Garr:

  • 161 Chris Keam // Sep 27, 2013 at 11:30 pm


    No one picked a fight with you or was arguing ‘for’ anything. I made an honest observation based upon your and teririch’s remarks about road markings. I further provided a link to provincial communications pointing out that zebra crosswalks can be expected to be implemented in different ways in different places, in response to your belligerent posts and expectation that it be otherwise. I have implied exactly nothing, would prefer not to engage with you at all, but you were persistent and kept asking questions which were answered honestly. Sorry that you feel it’s personal. Finally, I have made all the points in this post already upthread, but in some seeming display of mind-reading, insist on telling me what I’m doing and thinking and even go a step further and claim to know motivation.

    The bottom line is you stubbornly pushed for confrontation, got what you asked for, now claim insult and injury, and present some skewed version of events that I am sure you believe to be true. So be it.

  • 162 jenables // Sep 28, 2013 at 10:36 am

    Without your comment at #118, this would not have happened. Note my original comment was not directed at you. Sorry that you’ve only been able to tell me how obvious the answer is without being able to share what you’d do – it really doesn’t bolster your argument at all. After all, you can’t undelete what you wrote above, and I just can’t respect you telling me I’m wrong if you can’t tell me what right is.

  • 163 Chris Keam // Sep 28, 2013 at 10:48 am

    It’s a free country and people are allowed to voice an opinion. They are not however, beholden to accede to the demands of the unreasonable. You were shown why you were wrong. Need I post it yet again? The province clearly states to NOT expect consistency w/r/t zebra crosswalks. This was pointed out to you. Twice. Three times now. Near as I can tell you have a bee in your bonnet, based upon a mutual misunderstanding about a previous conversation. Let it go. Please.

  • 164 jenables // Sep 28, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    No Chris you aren’t showing me that I’m wrong. The province isn’t giving municipalities a free pass to use road markings irresponsibly. Nor have any city staff ever given me a statement supporting why they haven’t removed it. Besides, if you can’t tell me what you would do when the light is green and there are pedestrians at a lone zebra crossing, I’m going to look past the passive aggressive suggestions you’ve given me and assume it is because you don’t know. Which proves my point.

  • 165 jenables // Sep 28, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    Zebra Markings
    3. The recommended pavement marking for crosswalks which have no signal controls is

    the zebra style with longitudinal stripes which are more visible to approaching drivers

    (See Figure 1.1).
    4. The zebra markings will be used for all crosswalks installed at unsignalized
    intersections under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
    NOTE: Municipalities may choose, however, to retain the twin parallel
    line markings for unsignalized crossings on roads under their

    Perhaps you need to look at more than the FAQ section to learn the rules.

Leave a Comment