Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Metro Van crosses the border to look at the big-picture future

January 22nd, 2012 · 34 Comments

Metro Van chair Greg Moore definitely seems to be trying to set a new course for the region. For one, the directors are all heading out of the regional district to have a retreat in Chilliwack Jan 26 and 27 — the first I’ve heard of Metro ever doing something like this.

Second, it appears to be focused on some big-picture thinking. The invited speakers are architect Bing Thom, Vancouver Foundation vp Catherine Clement, and Metro Port Vancouver CEO Robin Silvester — people with strong stories to tell about the physical planning of the city, the social fabric of the city, and the economy of the city.

I presume there will be some discussion too about the kind of person who will replace chief bureaucrat Jonny Carline when he leaves Feb. 14. Whoever takes up residence at his desk will be a big part of whatever change Metro Vancouver sets its sights on.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Mary

    can you get rid of that damn plumber box?

  • Frances Bula

    No, it’s up and with the first Q and A on it. Apparently, the box extends into the main section on Safari for now, until that browser refreshes itself and then it will go to the right size.

    That’s what happened with me the first time I saw it, but it’s all right now.

  • Danny

    Here’s Robin Sylvester’s opinion on Agriculture in the Lower Mainland:

    “It’s critically important that the Regional Growth Strategy and the municipalities recognize industrial land must be preserved. Otherwise, the economy will, over time, wither,” Silvester says. “Agriculture is emotionally important, but economically [of] relatively low importance to the Lower Mainland. And in terms of food security, [it] is almost meaningless for the Lower Mainland.”


    http://www.bcbusinessonline.ca/profiles-and-spotlights/people/robin-silvester-port-metro-vancouver

    Doesn’t sound like big picture thinking to me.

  • Frances Bula

    Except the Q and A isn’t effing working. Aaaaaagh.

  • Roger Kemble

    http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/1yorkshirelad/vancouver.re-boot/Vancouver.re-boot.html

  • MB

    Mr. Sylvester will have to account for future trends at some point in his career.

    When the expanded Panama Canal opens in 2014 or ’15 it will accommdate container ships with 250% greater capacity than today. What this means for the Port of Vancouver has yet to be defined publicly. It may be cheaper for container ships with cargo originating in Asia and bound for the eastern seaboard of the US to bypass the west coast altogether.

    Then there is the issue of the now measureable depletion of cheap conventional fossil fuels. Higher liquid fuel prices affects all transportation, including of ocean cargo and Canada-bound trucks with produce from California, Florida and Mexico.

    It’s more than a little short sighted to imply that agricultural land should be sacrificed for industrial Port uses, and is certainly not a policy that should be on the agenda of a governing body in a region with very constrained land and an eye on what tomorrow may bring.

  • Sean Nelson

    @MB # 6

    “When the expanded Panama Canal opens in 2014 or ’15 it …. may be cheaper for container ships with cargo originating in Asia and bound for the eastern seaboard of the US to bypass the west coast altogether.”

    A sea voyage twice as long will never compete time- or cost-wise with a much shorter rail route. Not to mention the huge amount of extra fuel consumption and the greenhouse gas emissions of such a strategy.

    There’s a good reason why a fixed rail link between North America and Asia keeps surfacing as something that needs to be built.

  • Chris Keam

    Never is an awfully long time. Ships can utilize new technologies to harness wind power, whether it be massive kites, or vertical wind turbines generating electricity, or some other development, they are are unlikely to be utilized by rail.

    When your fuel costs are near zero for a portion of the voyage, a few extra days may not be an issue. The immense benefits these technologies might offer makes it seem likely that some hybrid freighters aren’t far from the horizon.

    https://responsibility.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=242852&lang=EN

  • spartikus

    A sea voyage twice as long will never compete time- or cost-wise with a much shorter rail route. Not to mention the huge amount of extra fuel consumption and the greenhouse gas emissions of such a strategy.

    That’s an interesting question, but this blog seems to dispute that, claiming railroads cost 2.24 cents Per Ton per Mile and 200 CO2 Grams Per Ton per Km while ships are
    0.72 and 52 respectively.

    I say “claims” because, even though the author says the data is based on U.S. Bureaus of Transportations Statistics, I was not able to independently confirm it.

  • spartikus

    Sorry, link here.

  • Roger Kemble

    MB @ #6

    “Mr. Sylvester will have to account for future trends at some point in his career.

    You imply future trends always rising.

    Gerald Celente . . .

    http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/

    . . . may not agree with you!

  • Dan Cooper

    “The invited speakers are architect Bing Thom, Vancouver Foundation vp Catherine Clement, and Metro Port Vancouver CEO Robin Silvester — people with strong stories to tell about the physical planning of the city, the social fabric of the city, and the economy of the city.”

    Well, at least a small slice of those three things (physical…social….economy…) Still, essentially they are all from the same niche. You might hear a different story, or at least a different view on the story, if you also invited – say – a neighbourhood association leader, a First Nations elder, and a teacher who works with teen parents, and then added in – let us again say – the heads of a Catholic church, a Sikh gurdwara, a Buddhist temple, and a United church. I could go on.

    But sadly, no, only a group of wealthy, comfortable, high-level administrator types. Ah well.

  • Frank Ducote

    Johnny Carline has had a long and most remarkable career as a planner and administrator in this region, largely flying below the radar. Perhaps that’s been one of the secrets to his success?

    My one little gripe is that when Gordon Campbell devolved transportation to the region it was not kept under Carline’s watch and thus integrated with land use, utilities, etc.

    Instead, TransLink was created and CMBC, under another kind of management, with eventually a 3-month transit strike, which to my memory never happened under Carline’s watch at the GVRD, now Metro.

    The saving grace today is that at the staff levels transportation and regional planning are operating with a shared vision, regardless of the separate governance models.

  • MB

    @ Sean #7.

    In addition to Chris + Sparti’s responses (8 + 9), cost per kg of freight also depends on how many times you handle a container as well as delivery time.

    1. Pack, deliver and load the container onto the ship at an Asian port.

    2. Unload the container at Vanterm, load it onto a truck and deliver to local market. However, the local market takes only a very small percentage of the total number of containers entering the POV.

    3. Unload the container from the ship and load it on a train to North American markets. Some container rail cars can be delivered directly to rail-accessed receivers, but not all, necessitating an interim step with trucks. Note that a hefty number of containers are double-stacked onto one rail car and both may have different destinations.

    4. Unload the container from the train onto a truck and deliver to local market at the end of the rail line.

    With a Panamax ship delivering 13,000 containers of electronics to the NYC area directly from Asia, you could skip one or two steps. Sure, it may take a few extra days, but with bulk orders a quick turn around may not be as important as overall cost.

    Moreover, if Panamax ships find destinating to Vancouver to offload to trains still affordable after the expanded Panama Canal opens, does Vancouver have the facilities to accommodate them?

    First Narrows may not pose a problem (they are, after all, planning to pass larger oil tankers through it and only Second Narrows poses a hazard without massive dredging — but that’s another story), but the docks and cranes may require redesign. I don’t have any data on this, but it seems feasible.

  • MB

    @ Frank Ducote #13, I agree that Johnny Carline has made a very reputable contribution, but one of his more recent comments stuck in my craw: That the limited funds TransLink has for transit should be devoted to areas “where growth will occur in future.”

    What about where growth has already occurred, and the demand is already highest?

    In that light he suggested prioritizing transit south of the Fraser over the Broadway corridor, a choice I feel is completely backwards.

    In a slightly more perfect world we would have the funds necessary to complete the Metro-wide transit system and address inter-city transit beyond the Metro borders, as well as address linking land use to transit to shape growth in all communities.

    But giving it to the suburbs when Vancouver is already light years ahead on such growth issues, but decades behind in transit infrastructure given the population, is beyond comprehension.

  • boohoo

    MB,

    Not sure it’s beyond comprehension. Shaping growth in places like Surrey would go a lot further in helping develop the kind of Metro Vancouver we want. I struggle with Vancouver–it is not ‘light years ahead’. The Broadway corridor needs it but then look at the Expo line with single family homes next to several skytrain stations that have been there for 30 years! Look at places in Cloverdale, S. Surrey, Guildford–the densities are higher than most areas of Vancouver with little to no transit as it is.

    Of course I would fully support building them both/all…

  • Frank Ducote

    Thanks Boohoo for making the case for shaping the region with transit, if it needed to be said. Those communities help pay for these region-serving services and deserve their share of them.

  • T Ian McLeod

    @MB #15 and @Frank #17. I agree that TransLink is obliged to make high-profile investments in Surrey etc. in order to ensure its survival as an institution. Also agree that transit in the Broadway corridor is very crowded – I was on board during a rare visit to the area this past Saturday, and man oh man. If the local folks could get behind a workable transit concept and lighten up with the NIMBYism, it would promote the case for investment in that corridor.

  • Chris B

    A container of cars lands in Prince Rupert. 72 hours later it is in Chicago. Going Great Circle route, in that same time, it is best case at Long Beach. Prince Rupert will remain 5 – 10 days quicker than going through Panama, barring some new technology.

  • voony

    Is it the same Frank Ducote at #13 and #17.
    As much as he is right in #13: every bit of comment #17 is wrong.

    Nope, Transit doesn’t shape – who can still believe this fable? Political will does:
    See Surrey: they have a Skytrain. what they did with it in 10 years? basically nothing beside complaining about it…and they were happily converting agriculture land to open development or business park like in Campbell height- a place they make sure to be as far as possible of any existing transit service!…and now …they complain about that !

    Another fable is that South Of Fraser is subsiding North of Fraser: that is obviously wrong: the reverse is more true.

    But was is the most concerning in the Frank’s thinking is its parochial tone:
    It is the turn of Surrey to have some tracks !

    It will help to propel developer benefit there, but does it will make transit a more sustainable option?

    There is no thinking of that in the “shape” discourse : no thinking that Transit need to work in an integrated network to work

    Paris is often celebrated, with good reason, for its Transit system, but if people had followed the Frank Thinking, Paris could have the network as shown here
    http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/what-if/

    No RER because you understand it is someone else turn to have new track…But at least in Paris, even the suburban mayors understand that a line stopping short of Paris center and not connecting with other lines has little value in both its ability to achieve modal shift and to “shape”.

    It is unfortunate, that even people like Franck Ducote doesn’t seem to see that.

    Why people can’t think of transit as a transportation instrument is beyond me, and I fully agree with MB.

    At the End:
    Port Mann Bridge, Golden Ears Bridge, SFPR, soon new Pattulo Bridge… we are well in excess of $6Billion in road investment connected to this city…

    It is an “all road” choice Surrey has given a plebiscit, subsidized by all the BC taxpayer: Explaining after that “Surrey” receives “nothing” is pure insanity”, and this kind of “insanity” must stop!

  • boohoo

    voony,

    Maybe I’m wrong, tell me what land uses/densities exist around 29th Ave station? Nanaimo? Stations that have been in existence since the 1980’s?

  • Joe Just Joe

    Nanaimo and 29th might not look dense but they are. Almost every home has at least one basement suit and in many cases 2. The census number will probably show very respectable population per hectares numbers even though the population numbers are underrepresented because of immigrant families refusing to disclose the true number of people occupying the home for fear the government will come after the illegal suites. The stations themselves get very respectable transit usage, much more then other denser appearing stations. Density doesn’t need to be visible.
    Anyways the city is overdue on doing a new area plan for Nanaimo and 29th station so we could soon see visible density to appease the near sighted. 😉

  • boohoo

    I’m not saying they get poor usage, but if the argument against transit in Surrey is a lack of density, well Vancouver can look in the mirror.

  • Frank Ducote

    Voony @20 – did you see anything in my comments that mentioned tracks? Did you read Surrey either? No, You did not, so please don’t put words in my mouth and I won’t put them in yours.

    I will agree that it takes political will to achieve imporant outcomes, including delivering transit to communities outside of Vancouver. Yes, transit alone won’t generate good urban patterns, but its pretty clear that without it there isn’t much hope.

    So, I do strongly support providing a range of public transit options outside of Vancouver. And i hope it is directed to places where there is strong public support, potential for population growth through supportive land use and urban design policies and a willing development community to create the livable region we aspire to. Even in Surrey.

  • voony

    Thanks for the clarification Frank.

    See, when the conversation revolves about Broadway vs Surrey in the context of the next GVRD transit priority (which I assume we all understand will involve some tracks of some sort, be Skytrain or LRT)…we tend to understand the comments under those lines 😉

    By the way, Translink has considerably expanded its bus service SoF, and the Translink Commissioner had concluded that it is the very reason for the Translink woes. It is a matter of fact there is lot of buses in Surrey – and good bus service can be good enough to “shape” landuse, it apparently works relatively well on the NorthShore and has been the modus operandi in Coquitlam so far (as is in Europe), and should be the recommended step up to a stage where eventually demand can warrant an heavier mode like LRT or Skytrain.

    I don’t think any route in SoF is close to that tipping point yet.

    Doing otherwise leads to a very expensive to operate system (which is done at the cost of its coverage be spatially or temporally), and can be counterproductive – it is eventually what happen in many US LRT system those days.

    In the current architecture: the later one (operation of the system) is none of the GVRD business…so it can decide to dump some grossly inappropriate system in name of “shaping” and left the extra-operating bill to Translink…what it does…

  • Roger Kemble

    “. . . making the case for shaping the region with transit” . . . IMHO not the right decision.

    Not too smart Frank @ #13 / #17. That’s the architect in you, not the planner!

    Los Angeles, back at the beginning of the last century sent tram lines into the out-lying undeveloped areas: the result, we see today, relentless sprawl as far as the eye can see.

    Do we want that in Metro?

    Is Expo Line any different? Waterfront Vancouver to New West and beyond . . . sprawl all the way!

    “. . . did you see anything in my comments that mentioned tracks? Did you read Surrey either? No, You did not, so please don’t put words in my mouth and I won’t put them in yours.”

    Are you back tracking Frank?

    May I humbly suggest a city/regional village/town strategy will fulfill our requirements better than replicating failed policies . . .

  • David

    @boohoo
    Nanaimo/29th Avenue are evidence that you don’t need to build massive density to fill trains. In fact the trains would be full even if those two stops didn’t exist. SkyTrain, despite running through Vancouver, provides benefit mostly to people outside the city.
    Broadway rail transit, as currently envisioned, would shift the balance somewhat, but it’s clear that it’s being planned mostly to take suburban residents to Canada Line, UBC and the hospital district. Who I am kidding? It’s being planned to make a few large developers a lot of money by bringing towers to neighbourhoods where they’re not welcome, neighbourhoods that already generate enough passenger traffic to justify better transit.

  • T Ian McLeod

    @Roger Kemble #26: Wha? The Expo line from Waterfront to New West is characterized by recent, densely-developed nodes – not only at Metrotown, but in New West, Collingwood, and Edmonds. They may be ugly, awkward, flawed, etc. but I can’t see how the new downtown of New West meets any definition of “sprawl,” unless “sprawl” is simply bad development as defined by RK.

    In any case, I was stepping in here to flag a post by Nathan Pachal at “Civic Surrey” that comments on how old Cloverdale Village was shaped and then abandoned by transit. http://bit.ly/zwPv0I

  • boohoo

    David,

    Not sure I’m following your split response.

    First off, I have to make it clear I support transit in both/all locations. It’s not an either/or for me. But, I guess in Metro Vancouver we’ve seen where transit shapes development and where developments shapes transit. Richmond is a pretty good example of build transit and density comes. For me, Nanaimo/29th are examples where it didn’t happen. I know there is density, but come on…

    Transit of course doesn’t have to be skytrain, there are plenty of light rail options that are substantially less money and much more attractive for a number of reasons–probably a better solution for ‘far flung’ places like Surrey.

  • Silly Season

    @boohoo #21 Absolutely, and there should have been a land-use plan around those stations well BEFORE implementation of the system.

    We are always playing ‘catch-up’ here, it seems. A day late and a dollar short. Then, we are surprised when systems are under-used/over-used/not paying for themselves. Clearly, the coordination needs to happen between cities, Metro Van and the provincial government. Yet, political considerations seem to screw it all up at every level, at different times.

    I think any future additional “big ticket” transit capital plan—in Vancouver on Broadway or Surrey or wherever—absolutely needs to align with land-use issues and planning. This surety will benefit taxpayers, in the end. And it will open up the conversation as to how to better integrate a transit system in communities/neighbourhoods.

    With some foresight, you could even have mixed housing along a corridor instead of being stuck soley with the god-awful and ugly towers we see springing up in each neighbourhood (used to justify every economic failing of our short-sighted politicians), preserving some semblence of an areas “character’, however that is defined by neighbourhoods.

    Yeah, I know that many of the ugg towers are being built for the investor market right now.

    But, I can dream that Vancouver can be properly planned for a sustainable future, can’t I?

  • Roger Kemble

    Well, SS “ . . . as to how to better integrate a transit system in communities/neighbourhoods.

    Not the other way around!

    We’re getting somewhere at last . . . IMO . . . set up urban nodes in places best suited to such purpose and direct TX accordingly . . .

  • voony

    On Nanaimo station.
    Agree density is high in nanimo station area, but is it high enough to justify a subway station, costing several mn of the time of 200,000pax a day?

    On other issues pertinent to this post, I have wrote this: http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-future-of-metro-vancouver-lie-in-chilliwack/

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    I sense some dissonance here. Rearing itself most clearly when opinion is left to make decisions about who goes first: Broadway, Burnaby or Surrey?

    I stand fast. In order for Metro to function effectively as regional government, it must be representational government based on one person one vote. It needs its own political leadership as well as the professional staff that is currently leading it. And, metro and translink should be one and the same. The model works in other jurisdictions, time to start imitating success.

    However, I don’t think that is the origin of the dissonance. The source of dissonance is more often than not cultural. Where we can see a clear division is between the old, and the new planning paradigm.

    That should be what the folks in Chilliwack should be debating with their breast, and among themselves. We did a little transportation plan as part of the Historic Quartiers Charrette:

    http://wp.me/p1mj4z-sw

    That choo-choo that we identified could run on existing track, and dubbed “The False Creek Streetcar”… Well, it runs on existing track all the way to Chilliwack!

    Transportation shaping growth?

    I agree, that is happening too. It is the Gateway project, including the new Port Mann Bridge. It’s automobile-driven growth, and very old paradigm.

    It is time to strike out in a new direction.

  • Bill Lee

    Hmm, it will be a quiet retreat.

    ” Fire cuts cell & internet access
    CHILLIWACK/CKNW(AM980)
    Terry Bell | Email news tips to
    1/27/2012
    Cellphone and Internet service has been cutoff in parts of the Fraser Valley. A major fibre optic cable has been damaged by a nearby fire.
    Telus spokesperson Shawn Hall says repair crews are ready to go, “We have crews on site with cable and they’re gonna be getting in there and restoring service as quickly as they possibly can.”
    Bell, Shaw and Telus repair crews were delayed access until the fire site cooled down.”
    — 2
    ” Substation fire in Valley cuts power to thousands
    VANCOUVER/CKNW AM980
    Charmaine de Silva | Email news tips to
    1/27/2012
    BC Hydro has shut down power to more than 30-thousand people in Chilliwack and Abbotsford, as fire crews battle a blaze at a Hydro substation in Chilliwack.
    City of Chilliwack spokesperson Starlee Renton says the fire was sparked by a transformer failure.
    She says, “our fire crews are still trying to determine the health risks from the smoke, from the fire…so right now in order to protect
    the safety of residents in Chilliwack, we’re asking everyone to stay in their current shelter if its safe to do so, close their windows, and
    turn off their furnace…..
    BC Hydro says it’s concerned about thousands of litres of oil that are burning at the substation.*