Frances Bula header image 2
← →

City Plumber: Any chance the city would use some of the fees collected from developers on Cambie for a new Canada Line station?

February 24th, 2013 · 4 Comments

Answer over to the left, folks.

And, for those of you who love City Plumber, sorry for the long hiatus. As some of you may have heard, I’ve had one new little job to my portfolio (chair, Langara Journalism department) and I was a bit swamped at the beginning of the year learning the difference between a purchase order and a cheque requisition, plus filling out many forms.

I’ll try to be more on the ball here.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Voony

    good they are not thinking at slowing down the Canada line riders, to the benefit of few developers/speculators.

    there are enough station along the line, and absolutely no need to have more. Capstan station in Richmond is also utterly unnecessary when both Aberdeen and Bridgeport are in walking distance of it: thise station is pure waste of $20M which could have been better allocated at improving local bus service, for greater overall benefit.

  • rph

    Apparently the Capstan station is being funded by a levy on each of the properties sold at that development. I believe the levy is around $8000 per unit, and of course this will be built into the purchase price.

    I imagine it would have been a harder sell to get the developers (and purchasers) to fork over that kind of money for better bus service.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Voony (or his master) has it right. This drip-drip-drip planning is getting us nowhere. I took a look at the proposal for Oakridge here

    http://wp.me/p1yj4U-bo

    There was a mass rally in Surrey tonight clamouring for better mass transit. LRT was the ‘missing link’ to the town centers. However, we have better keep an eye on that because ‘transit improvements’ by themselves are not going to get the job done.

    We need to move up the hierarchy, and understand that ‘better urban design’ is our missing link. If we embrace that concept, then better transit follows.

    However, given the regional history for having a blind spot for all things ‘urban’ (since about 1915), then full speed ahead with the clamouring for better transit. Because that’s the way we’re going to get to understand how the ‘urban design’ in our region has really let us down.

  • boohoo

    Clicked on your link there–you can’t say that London, Paris, etc have high density low rise buildings around metro stations therefore Vancouver should without ignoring the sea of single family housing around Oakridge that does not exist in London, Paris, etc.

    Not saying this proposal is good, but your use of European cities as comparables is not a good one.