It's obvious from this story that much of the decline in liveability is due to our mass immigration policies, which are have caused explosive urban growth without planning or thought, created homelessness (through artificial and sustained housing demand) and linguistic ghettoes. Maybe we need to start placing liveability issues foremost is determining our immigration needs.

The Economist has a select literate and prosperous few who read their pages. The discerning business traveller wants to know where it's best too. With a proper security system and adequate insurance coverage you'll be "all right Jack". In 2010 the world's media will focus on the Olympics. The occasional laurel will be tossed our way as the Entertainment Industrial Complex orchestrates the positive and "virtually" ignores Bleak House. We are a culture which loves the short term and can't figure out its consequences. It takes reflection not sound bytes, and that's something our system of belief doesn't address very well. As for the economic base it's called the north american model which means you can create many low paying jobs with little social security. It's efficient at creating employment but bad at preventing poverty. Put a TV in every household and the impoverished minority can laugh with the more popular forms of entertainment which rarely show anyone who really works. All that glitters morphs into drool and envy. And as for beggars - a minor inconvenience for the residents and a bit of a shock for visitors. They'll keep coming as the advantages of geography and the media hype will keep that certain. Too bad Vancouver didn't extend the life cycle of the last city council which really did try to include the bottom social rung.

Is there an international group who independantly rates cities? I mean an organisisation who sends their agents out into the world to rate cities on their criteria or set of standards? The answer is no.

This silly 'Rate your city game' is based on very questionanble statistics, provided by some very questionable sources. This includes the Board of Trade, Tourism agancies, and Chambers of Commerce. Each one putting the good spin to thier statistics, ensure that Vancouver looks good, too good.

Until there is a truely independant survey of international cities, any statistical analysis of Vancouver is stuff and nonsense.

Case in Point:- The last major international study on regioanl transportation, the Hass-Klau study in 2000, did not include Vancouver, yet it included Calgary and Ottawa!

My own objective /subjective musings on this topic:

Vancouver, and much of the Urban areas seem to crave this "World Class "status

Question is,what IS this world class status?

In my view, its really based on one big 3-D postcard, highly visual and yet paper thin and seriously lacking depth.

Coupland wrote a book re: Vancouver City of Glass. It remarked on all the high rise towers springing up, with huge % of outer glass walls. This gives the facade of clean and transparent, when in fact it is the least energy efficient, ie high heating loss..... much irony and symbolism here. It allows people to look out on the world, but do they look inward in he collective big picture? Those outside looking in are given the impression of a sanitized world.

The City Planners keep painting with their brush...making it all look so cutting edge, hip, cool...like one big Christmas present wrapped up...I recall when Vancouver hired its latest head planner, a headhunting firm's recruiter duly noted that they felt the City Planner was THE most powerful person at City Hall.

THUS, if the Planner is the most important, then their work and focus sets the tone, which in my view is again empire and image building to make that department look good, all the rest takes 2nd place. Planning = the department of First Impressions = only priority ie impressions/reality?

More praise from other experts that they are "world class". Stir and repeat.

Beneath it lays and hides all the "grit dirt" and other social problems,the light shining off the gleaming buildings the buildings creates an often blinding and glazed look in the rest of us...

I think other GVRD cities are following the same path...its one -upmanship on what is effectively the most frivolous.

In the end " World Class ",in my view, has no meaning, given the globalization we see, and the homogenization to some shallow common references and common denominators, which are also quickly becoming the lowest common denominators in far more important things.

Its like an Old Boys club, membership requirements are how nice can you make the City "look", and at the same time cover up its real an deeper problems, many of which are created by these same focusses on shallow initiatives at the direct and indirect collateral cost of the more important ones.

It almost seesm that the cure is Vancouver's "SHOP VAC" is gentrification...the old WoodWard's project will be the anchoring seed to this displacement. Upscale will attract more sanitized glass ..thus a subtle approach to displacement to some other areas....yet to be determined.

Remember the Davie Street hooker displacement....ended the problem errrr...where did THAT problem move to ???

Like the FRAM oil filter commercial, Pay us now or pay us later...if these issues are not addressed but simply painted or "glazed" over.

Interesting. Look at RAV, Vancouver wanted a subway because many on council thought subways are the making of a world class city. LRT on Arbutus seemd old fashioned, though ignoring the fact that at-grade LRT is far better in attracting new ridership than subways.

Transportation Minister Falcon claims that LRT is a yesterday's transit system, yet many in the transportation field claim that our so-called SkyTrain is vastly obsolete!

To may, with nothing to compare with, support SkyTrain, yet the very same people do not use public transport! Despite $5 billion invested in our SkyTrain metro system to date, still only about 10% of the population use public transport!

How is this reflected in these so-called worls city comparisons?

Two points to make: (1) Calling a city "The Most Liveable" means it is deteriorating at a slower rate than other cities around the world.

(2) Vancouver is connected to the Greater Vancouver region: Surrey, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge etc. These satelite cities are urban sprawl. When Vancouver is called the most liveable city, does this survey include the 1-2.something million people who live near but not in Vancouver?

Most livable city? For who? Certainly not for our children. While our generation has been greedily gorging itself on the fat from a hyper inflated real estate market, our children are being left with the scraps cast off from our bloated feast. Our kids are entering into the working world with incomes that have not increased in twenty years. Wages are being driven down in a mean-spirited manner while housing costs have been driven up exponentially. What prospects await our kids who might dream of raising their own families in the neighbourhood they grew up in? It is a sad comment on our avaricious nature that we have allowed this to happen. Sadly, we will watch as our children are exiled to ever expanding exburbia's that seem the only choice left for them.

I am all for immigration and my wife is a visible minority - however, while I welcome new entrants to Canada - I consider it a priveledge and not an entitlement - like some seem to think...

There are work shortages throughout Canada, yet new immigrants insist on coming to Toronto (foremost), but also Vancouver. It costs a lot to live in Vancouver, yet these people still come - probably because there is a safety net in place.

Many Indo Canadians have settled in the Valley, where they can actually afford to start their new life. If you can't afford to live in Vancouver - I have an idea - don't move there in the first place.

We all agree that immigrants have contributed to the social fabric of our town - however this "feel for the immigrant" argument is nothing more than a ploy - it makes you feel like a biggot if you don't agree.

It is foolish - many born Canadian families have moved out of Vancouver where they can live a more comfortable life. You gotta get in where you fit in!

Simply another piece of crap from the "entitled" left. Vancouver is a great place to live, full of opportunity and beautiful. What has made it so great is the commerce - Vancouver has always supported local businesses.

The sky is not falling, it is a beautiful and great place to live...

well said, bpither1.

Geez Grump give it a rest already.

SkyTrain is at capacity at peak hours until they order new cars. 10,000-12,000 per hour westbound at Commercial. How many LRT systems around North America have that level of ridership?

Seattle's LRT is coming in at $3.2 billion US for 22.5km. Looks like RAV is a bit of a bargin at $2.0 billion.

SkyTrain revenue is also covering its operating costs. It probabaly will be running at a bit of a surplus in the coming years once the new cars are on-line. Again, how many LRT systems cover their operating costs.

So the Millenium Line was $1.2 billion and the Expo Line was $1 or 2 billion. That is much lest than $5 billion.

It works out far better for Vancouver because most cities have wasted billions on freeway projects instead of investing in rapid transit.

Our transit mode share is between 10 and 12% for the region. A much larger percentage uses public transit for some trips.

Get you facts straight.

Tell me, who do you think is going to serve you at you're favourite restaurant? Or be the clerk in the office? Or do any other of the mundane jobs that are integral to the functioning of our society if they can't afford to live here in the first place. With most jobs paying eight dollars an hour and the average cost of renting a one bedroom apartment at $1000 per month, who the hell can live here? That's not even considering the costs the ambitious are faced with if they aspire to own their own home. We've lost the balance between assessing a fair value to real estate and assuring the livability in our city for all people.

Grumpy, do you live in Vancouver? The demographics of the people who live in the Abutus area is not a transit riding one. People who live along Cambie and work downtown (myself included) are far more likely to actually use transit.

Most jobs pay significantly more than that. The average salary in Vancouver in 2001 was $34,007. For high school drop outs it was $22,358 and for university grads it was $46,016. Those mumbers are certainly higher now. That is $11.18 and hour to $23.00 an hour. Note the university grad makes more than double than a high school drop out. Scource:

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labor50i.htm

That said, Vancouver is becoming a place where only the extremely wealthy can live. Unless you have been a homeowner for a very long time (like I have been) or you are extremely wealthy, you are priced out of the market here. The housing crisis is being fuelled by overseas speculation, pure and simple. Anyone who works in the construction trades knows this.

The solution is very simple: Unless youa are a Permanent Resident or a Canadian Citizen, you can't buy property. Canada is one of the few places that allow foreigners to buy land.

Really? Unemployment is at a 35 year low. Get some sort of skill and you'll be employed pretty quickly. If you are unemployed in Cape Breton, move somewhere else.

There is also a fair bit of truth about what Capitalism says. If your skills cannot generate the income to live in Vancouver, relocate. Most of my workers live outside Vancouver in the suburbs and commute in in Skytrain. Nobody can expect to pay $800 for a two bedroom arpartment in the West Side of Vancouver but in Surrey and New West it is possible.

If these $8/hour new immigrants (and other Canadians too) decided to live in more affordable places - there would be less (low) skilled labour supply. As a result, wages for cooks, clerks and cleaners would increase.

Don't get me wrong - I have no objections to them coming. I just don't want to hear the complaints (or the left exploiting their cause - for political gain) that they can't afford a decent lifestyle.

It is all about supply and demand - which is one of the reasons why Germany has such high-paid unskilled labour and strong unions - they have little to no immigration. As a result, there is less labour supply, employers are willing to pay more for cooks/cleaners and workers rights groups form.

In Canada, there are always new immigrants who are willing to get paid less to do more. As a result, we have the society we do! I love it!

Salaries are in fact rising now. While they are not as good as the post war boom period (roughly 1945-1975) they are increasing at about 3.5% after inflation.

Scource:

http://www.watsonwyatt.com/canada-english/news/press.asp?ID=16418

No Way! Vancouver has benefited greatly from foreign investment - and we cannot say no to their money now. If they want to buy up property, let them. We have to let the world know that we are open for business. People should be developing New West Quay into the new trendy spot.

It is true that Vancouver/Whister real estate has ballooned because of foreigners. The first Condo I bought about 10 years ago was in Coal Harbour. I bought the thing for around $200K - it would fetch well over $700K now. I do remember that as prices increased, there were fewer residents (which came first, the chicken or the egg) - in fact, the place was 50% vacant. However, ownership was 100%.

The building manager and I used to joke about it. These units were all owned by Albertans, Americans, Asians (but many from Vancouver Island too) as vacation and investment property.

As the Asian economy slows, the USD appreciates against the CDN (creating an instant gain for Americans) - prices will moderate.

Working man is right - Vancouver is virtually unlivable unless you have a great income or are willing to sacrifice all else to maintain a mortgage. 60% of pre-tax income is going towards housing - this is foolish - and any exodus from our property will kill us.

Capitalism, prices are already moderating due to higher mortgage rates alothough they are still outrageous. I bought my place in 1985. It is "worth" many times what I paid for it but I am not interested in moving so it is all paper. The equity did do alot to kickstart my business, though.

Many of the places in Coal Harbour are owned and vacant. I see it is a travesty. In 1985 the plan was for 30% of all new units to be geared to income. That plan has been given over to greed much to the detriment of this city, in my opinion. Why? Because some of the coolest neighbourhoods in Vancouver such as Granville Island-False Creek are either geared to income or subsadized. They are real nighbourhoods with real families living in them. The sell-out on South False Creek made me want to vomit.

Rac and working man here are some facts about transit.

Capacity is a function of headway. Calgary's LRT offers a peak hour capacity of over 12,000 pphpd, despite your statement Capacity of the Expo Line is only 8,000 pphpd. Many European streetcar systems offer peak hour capacity of over 16,000 pphpd.

Seattle's LRT is actually a hybrid light metro, like the Evergreen line, with much of the route in tunnel (subway)or on viaduct like SkyTrain, with only a few sections operating at grade. Seattle's light metro is called LRT strictly for political reasons.

This is utterly false as SkyTrain is being subsidised by over $200 million annually by the provincial government. TransLink does a neat trick by failing to include debt servicing (which is included in Seattle's hybrid light metro!). Also this statement refers to TransLink's estimation of ridership on the metro, which has never been independantly audited, unlike transit systems in the USA or Europe. Translink can claim what ever they want because they know no one is checking up on them.

Just a note the new LRT systems in Dublin and Nottingham are making an annual operating profit.

The completed Expo and Millennium Lines cost to the taxpayer to date is about $5 billion. The completed Expo Line was over $1.5 billion the Millennium Line $1.2 billion, continual refurbishmnet for both lines and operating subsidy pushes the total up and up. This is how they cost out transit lines in the rest of the world chums!

Why are we now spending $5 billiob on the Gateway highway program?

Only just over 10% of Vancouver's population uses public transit, a number that has remained unchanged for nearly 2 decades! Unlike many new LRT operations, there is no evidence of modal shift, despite $5 billion spent on SkyTrain!

These are exactly the people that modern LRT attracts to public transport! How many people are going to transfer 2 or three times or walk over 1 km. to use RAV. Not many!

Remeber metro and LRT are two different transit modes built to deal with two different transit problems!

So there are the facts chums, I think you best read something about the subject before you criticize!

Grumpy,

Where do you live? Clearly you are out of touch with Vancouver and its needs. There are visible benefits to SkyTrain.

I am happy to subsidize SkyTrain now, while ridership builds. Atleast we are building an infrastructure.

The RAV/Canada line ultimate choice/ locale on the Cambie "heritage" corridor was discussed in depth in the Vancouver Sun a couple of years back.

It was a fascinating read....I will discuss it later. Suffice it to say, and according to the article, it had much to do with politics and very little to do with reality.

P.S. Recall that the Cambie corridor once had a very vigilant opposition and was a NO GO years ago..so what changed?

Some common ground at last Working Man. There are many foreign investor's who have snapped up properties here hoping to make a killing on speculation. They do not care about the livability of our cities, they only want to maximize their investment no matter what the cost to our society.

Why am i not surprised that capitalism's wife is a visible minority?
His general attitude would piss off anyone else is why!

Cappy I'm surprised at your pro SkyTrain Communist thinking. It's alright coz it's someone elses money building it! So Socialistic! I thought you were against government handouts - only to poor people, I see. I thought you were a real free enterpriser, but no, you are a closet socialist as any free enterprise scheme concering public transit opts for LRT.

Here are some facts one may wish to consider.

Just the SkyTrain Expo Line costs about 60% more to operate than Calgary's LRT, even though Calgay's LRT system has drivers and carries more passengers!

Seattle's expensive hybtid light metro also includes USD $150 million for compensation for businesses affected by construction. As of yet InTransit BC, the outfit overseeing RAV, will not compensate merchants for loss of business!

Why is LRT construction not said to be building transit infrastructure and buildin a metro like RAV is? Even though LRT has a proven record of attracting the motorist from the car, it is avoided only in Vancouver.

By the way, in 1990's in Germany there was some 75 km. of unused subway tunnels built, or under construction but not in use. Can this be considered transit infrastructure?

What benefits are there with SkyTrain? Not much, as even the RAV people dumped SkyTrain for a Hyundi built metro! RAV and SkyTrain will be incompatible and thus will not be able to use each others tracks.

As I said before, the percentage of people using SkyTrain has stagnated at about 10%, with increased ridership comming from increased population, hardly an advertisment for success and is a good indication why SkyTrain has failed to find a market anywhere!

As what happened to Cambie St. opposition? Well either they died off or moved away, as well Global & CORUS don't talk to them much anymore.

Ding, Ding, Ding - decisions are always made with a political purpose. That is the limitations with the game, NDP, Conservatives, Liberals - liars, cheats and crooks - all of them.

The Conservatives have been pretty honest thus far - but wait until they are corrupted by power.

You just have to decide who's politics you like best. Now, on this issue - the right decision was made. It'd be cheaper to build down Arbutus - but ridership would be pathetic there. The area is full of affluent people (who don't use public transportation) and housewives. Further, there is nothing along the corridor, but residential property and a couple little villages.

There is much more down Cambie including colleges, apartment complexes - and higher residency within walking distance.

There were two different choices - one if which was expensive, but satisfied its objectives - the other was cheap, but only satisfied one - providing a direct link from downtown to the airport.

Get off the issue. If you don't like the project, the cost, the use of migrant workers - fine, state your opinion. Get off the Arbutus was a viable alternative argument - because, we all know it was not.

I don't get it.

Grump - like any business, there are profit centres and loss centres. For example, a big bank's customer service department loses money - because they don't generate any revenue. Does that mean they should turf customer service - because it is a loss centre? I.T. too - should they stop buying computers, servers and network connections?

Think of the GVRD economy as one big business. Rapid transit reduces congestion, increases disposable income, attracts nearby business, attracts tourists (especially when connected to an airport) and contributes to overall development. The losses in inconsequential as a whole - and I am not sure about SkyTrain (the technology) - but I do agree with above ground rapid transit.

I've been on the C-Line - there are virtually no stops outside of downtown - its operating structure cannot be compared to SkyTrain. Though, I will listen - why is it that much more to expensive to operate SkyTrain - will the system that RAV employs be better?

It doesn't matter if you can't use the same tracks. As long as the connect in the form of stations - you are fine. For example, you can get-off at Broadway and move onto the expo line....

Cappy, TransLink even said there was more population down Arbutus St., than Cambie St., unless there is future massive densification being planned.

SkyTrain is a problem with the so-called livable city as we put all our transit dollars in one egg. One metro line doesn't solve transportation problems, as Gateway can testify to that!

If we built with LRT, in France being built for $11 million per km., we could build for the same price of RAV; LRT from BCIT to UBC, LRT from Vancouver to Steveston in Richmond, on both the Arbutus and Cambie St. routes and a line to the airport. Truely, which would be better, you closet socialist!

Oh by the way Cappy, RAVCo. made sure the private consortiums would not plan for LRT for the PPP, as they made sure it was never was going to be an option, with a very questionable $50,000 study (real transit studies cost $2 million to $5 million).

So bad was the RAV deal that SERCO, a partner with SNC Lavalin, jumped ship, as with many foriegn banks. The only way Campbell could fund this PPP turkey, was to rob public sector pension plans!

Well Cappy, don't want you to stop singing the 'International' over RAV construction, but it is now truely a NDP style mega project! Glen Clark could not have done it better, I'm glad Cappy, that you have seen the NDP light!

Cappy, Cappy, Calgary's C-Train (LRT) has about twice the station/stops than the Expo Line. Problem is Cappy, when other cities want to build with transit opted for Calgary's LRT (built when Kleine was mayor)not Vancouver's SkyTrain.

The public do not like elvated systems and they are avoided by transit planners at all costs.

I love how you spout all of the NDP lines for their support of the Millennium Line, quite refreshing to know that you area closet Socialist.

Gadget Bahnen, like SkyTrain are avoided because all those gadgets cost a whole lot more to maintain. As well, instead of drivers on LRT automated transit systems need attendents and armed police, at added cost.

Oh by the way, JFK's SkyTrain or Airtrain, has only achieved about 30% of predicted ridership. The Airtrain (SkyTrain) service to JFK Airport has lost USD $70 million since opening in December 2003. Passenger numbers are around 10,700/day, compared with predictions 0f 34,000/day.

Grump:

Good work - you've caught some of my attention. If I cared enough, I do some research of my own.

But it looks as if though you are well researched. I like the idea of having rapid transit to the Airport, and down that corridor. My understanding was that LRT was no feasible down Cambie, but was down Arbutus.

I've already raised my rational ojections to having it down Cambie - which really makes no sense. I like the route, I like the plan.....but you have certainly pointed out some justified concerns.

The argument goes back and forth why people do and do not like Skytrain and RAV. But why do people still drive? Gasoline prices are higher by 2 to 3 times over 10 years or so (I don't know the actual number). $8000 per year including depreciation is the average cost to operate a car. Every time a new road is built we are subsidising those confounded yet convienient cars.

At what price does it become simply too expensive to own a car? Whatever that price is we haven't found it yet!

Shouldn't ridership go up if we can figure out a way to make owning and driving a car less desirable?

Well, they haven't been in government for long and they have a rather thin minority so they are treading carefully. This will be until it is payback time to their American masters.

People will do what is more convenient for them. It is that simple.

I also might add that for people families, cars are much more of a necessity. I have a small car and we use it mostly on weekends. There is no way I am going to lug a family and a week's groceries on the bus in the driving rain!

vancouver has and will always be a craphole simply because of the bumhole "vancouver is the best place to live" attitude that is pronounced so often by every idiot that lives there.

Cappy, true story.

I was emailed by then city councillor Tim Louis, an answer to a question I sent to City council why LRT could not use Cambie St. According to the city engineer it was because "the grade was too steep for LRT". The maximum grade on Cambie was 8% which could be shaved to 7.5%, but the city engineer said it was too steep for light rail.

I forwarded the email to a chap I knew who worked with Sheffield's PTE (Passenger Transport Executive) to confirm that indeed the steepest grade on Sheffield's LRT was 10% and the trams had no problem climbing the grade.

I emailed the answer to Councillor Louis, who 20 minutes later, sent me another email claimimg the city engineer said LRT could not use Cambie St. because they could not put a station on the steep grade (RAV stations are not on grades). A few minutes later I sent an email to the same chap in Sheffield who again responded that the steepest grade that a station or stop is on, was 9%! I sent the reply to Councillor louis, who a few minutes later sent me an email stating that the city engineer did not want LRT on Cambie St.

Here lies the myth that LRT could not operate on Cambie St. >> The city engineer did not want LRT! Why he had any say in the matter is anyones guess, but he now oversees the City's Olympic construction.

Capitalism; If you don't care, why do you think you spend so much time arguing? It's just some kind of childish bullying thing with you, isn't it?

You think people who don't resemble you are inconsequential? Just a hobby with you, tweaking the socially conscious from a place where you feel they can't get at you?

If you are telling the truth, that you don't care to do research, then whatever you have to say is just so much noise. If you insist on being in these conversations, please bring some real thought and reason and passion to them.

Grumpy, since you do not actually live in Vancouver, why do you care? Perhaps you are in the wrong line of work? Besides, it's a done deal.

Hello everyone.

The idea of only Canadians owning Canadian property is a good one. In South Korea (where I live) foreigners cannot buy property so I can never own an apartment or house. It is also very difficult for us to rent property as well. That is why most jobs for foreigners offer you rent free accomdation. Now, if your spouse is Korean they can own property of course.

Also, why shouldn't cities be livable for those that grew up in them. A city that works is one that has all income levels, and a very mixed citizenry.

Kevan Hudson
Suncheon, South Korea
(formerly Richmond, BC)

Just who exactly benefits from all of this? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and us folks in the middle are paying for it all. In 10 years, we will all be crawling over each other and gagging on fumes as we try to remember what the mountains looked like. The likes of Mr. Campbell and his developer buddies will be laying on a beach somewhere far away, sucking back mai tai's. Yep, all is going according to plan.

Working man, I do care because my house taxes are paying for your subway and not transit in my local. Bad transit planning affects us all. We have had 25 years of bad transit planning and we are paying dearly for it! At least $200 million in provincial taxes annually go for SkyTrain's hidden subsidy and now regional property taxes averging $200 per house per year and climbing for Translink, all affect the taxpayer.

The sad thing about all of this is Vancouver is becoming an international laughing stock with our voodoo transit practices.

Good public transport is essential for a livable city, Vancouver and the region have a third rate system, all show! The failure is evident in the percentage of people using the system, it has stagnated. RAV and the Evergreen Line is more of the same, piss poor planning > hugely expensive show case metro systems huge property tax increases to pay for it > higher rents > businesses leaving Vancouver to locate in cheaper business parks in the valley > more highwaays to service regional communities > even more and higher taxes > major businesses leave the region > even more and higher taxes > and so on!

Re RAV/Canada Line etc.

A couple of years ago, the Vancouver Sun ran an in -depth article about Skytrain. The context was the choice of the (i)Arbutus corridor vs (ii)Cambie corridor to run the line to Richmond/YVR.

Apparently, the article noted that the THEN City of Vancouver manager K.D. had learned that Arbutus area creme -de -la creme -ites were a force to be reckoned with.(aka no way in hell will RAV/Canada line go down Arbutus).

K.D is NOW apparently Gordo's right hand man in the provincial bureaucracy. In my own view, the Arbutus corridor made the most sense....as rail traffic ran through the neighbourhood for years and there was a dedicated route to Richmond. It(Arbutus) was part the original LRT route from Steveston into Vancouver.

However, the Sun article also duly noted and subsequently commented that census documents for the Cambie corridor had a high percentage of ASIAN surnames, the premise being that the Asian community ( likely new immigrants ) was not a political force to be reckoned with, at least not at that time...and there would be very little organized mass resistance to RAV /Canada line being contructed down Cambie.

The other interesting note, and alluded to in other TYEE blogs above..is that Vancouver is running out of land for development, and will now need to engage in densification. This densification will apparently occur down the Cambie corridor.

It should be noted that
most of the GVRD Skytrain lines are increasingly surrounded by hi -rises. This fits the delusional planning model of "build it and they will come".

HOWEVER build what first??? (i)the hi -rises then the skytrain OR(ii) the skytrain then the hi-rises? The feel is that lots of people nearby will then use the Skytrain.

OK ....but to go W-H-E-R-E?

This delusional planning model has a more insidious use...simply a means"excuse" for Local Gov'ts to grab huge Development Cost Charges(DCC's)...its far more profitable for a City to allow hi -rise towers due to minimum City infrastructure investment, VERSUS a more horizontally spread out development aka the taller the development is IS directly proportional to the city "profit". (This scam will help stop the red ink bleedng from the Olympics).

When their lips move on the topic of Skytrain sustainable and enviro friendly...it simply masks another agenda. One white elephant breeds another.

PS Remember, police stats often quoted claim 60 % of property crime is within 1/2 km of the Skytrain lines.

Couldn't help but notice this front page article in the Sun today. Just another example of how out of site real estate inflation has affected the lives of Vancouver citizens. It would be interesting to see the demographic of the people who will be displacing the current tenants.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=66ad8bed-b9ff-4438-b211-2c9284ab76af&k=86101

Salaries may indeed be rising, although the numbers cited in the WatsonWyatt survey might be disputed by many young job applicants. However, it has been a long time coming and still does not represent any significant catch up relative to the impact inflated real estate prices have had on people trying to manage living in Vancouver.

You're employees are lucky they live in close proximity to both the Skytrain and their work. This is not the case for most people who are forced to live farther away from their place of employment. That means they are commuting by car and further contributing to gridlock in our cities. Reckless real estate speculation impacts our society in many more insidious ways than is initially observable.

Back to Skytrain....

Besides our increasingly dysfunctional Canadian political system at the Federal and Provincial levels...its getting very interesting(ie imply "negative" ) at the Local Levels.

The amount of mini- fiefdoms and mini balkanized issues and agendas is amazing.

Just heard on the radio that the "Republic of YVR" is considering tolling the 30 year old Arthur Laing bridge...ie IT(YVR) "owns" it...

Who owns YVR ???
What's his/her/their name...F*ckers.

The RAV/Canada Line issue in my view is and will be a major white elephant with more cost than benefit.

Unless they change the legislation, most people have limited time on this planet, and within that lead busy lives with limited free time. George Jonas, (who I feel is one of THE best NO B.S columnist writers) commented on people's overwhelming choice to purchase vehicles as the favoured mode of transportation. Its one of the last remaining reflections of personal freedom to go where you want when you want, etc .

If one has children, and have them involved in various activities , public transit is THE last resort...realistically a NON option.

Also: work -wise...the use of public transit model can easily add 1-2 hours to the work day via the transfers etc....and that's if you live close to the city and thus nearer to one's own place of employment.

The SkyTrain model is delusional and outmoded. As W.M . alluded to earlier....much of the housing market is driven by speculation, much of this is also foreign. Many of these condos' etc. sit empty. Also people do not have jobs for life, and mobility of both (i) the EMPLOYEES and (ii) EMPLOYERS keeps this a constant state of flux. Vancouver is losing its industrial tax base etc. (due to residential conversion). Where are the jobs going to be and in what sectors ???

People that can afford to buy in Vancouver, and given the displacement as Kitscommuter just showed us an example of...will choose a VEHICLE because they can afford it.

YVR Sky train line...."conveniently " connects to the River Rock casino , which is at the juncture of a "T" which one can take into Richmond or into Vancouver.

YVR is on some delusion that airplane passengers will line up to take SkyTrain with all their luggage and drag it onto all the required transfer to get to their hotel etc.....did YVR ever here of "courtesy buses" that take people to their accomodations ???

RAV SkyTrain is simply a Bombardier white elephant to support and subsidize another Canadian political scandal. By accepting it...we're on the hook to keep it alive now and in the future.

The icing on the cake was many gutless Civic officals in the GVRD saying NO to SkyTrain RAV line expansion($$$cared $$$hitless...???)then somehow an epiphany to do a 180 degree turn and vote yes....oh to be a fly on the wall....but then the smell is fairly indicative of the backroom bullsh*t now and in the future.

It is my favourite as well. Except when I'm stuck in traffic sucking in fumes from the tailpipe of the vehicle in front of me. Even public transportation (buses) can get caught in the traffic jams that snarl our cities throughways. If the preferred option of more vehicles on the road is the main alternative, we are going to quickly blight the environment with a web of freeways and overpasses. Not to mention the choking fumes that will be emitted from the growing population of conventional internal combustion engines. So it's not possible for everybody to be zipping around in their cars when they want where they want. Alternatives have to be thought of and implemented. How about being able to drop your car off at the Skytrain, RAV station and proceeding downtown on public transport. Maybe give people an incentive to take mass transit by giving them a break on their car insurance if they frequently use public transportation. Here's a novel idea. Why not set up depots where you can rent small electric cars that can get you around the city if you have to be more mobile than public transportation can provide. There seems to be a lack of imagination and initiative at the civic level regarding problems involved with commuting. The most ideal model is to have people live in proximity to their work, hence reducing the need to commute great distances. This gets back to the dysfunctional model where the cost of living (i.e. inflated real estate prices) forces people to live further and further away from their place of employment.

(Whomever):Grumpy, do you live in Vancouver? The demographics of the people who live in the Abutus area is not a transit riding one. People who live along Cambie and work downtown (myself included) are far more likely to actually use transit.

Well, frankly, the point of the RAV line was not to provide good service to downtown for Cambie-ites, but for Richmondites. Who, like people in Kerrisdale, are not really transit users; and those who do use transit are well-served by the B-Line (in fact, the Richmond B-Line is one of the best, fastest suburban services in the metropolitan area - the SFU/Coquitlam and UBC B-lines are DOGS).

And, further, and also frankly, the reason the LRT line (or Skytrain OR a subway) was nixed down the Arbutus Corridor was not because it was "old-fashioned", but because the views of the residents of that oh-so-posh-and-we-don't-want-any-dirty-underclasses-here crowd are old-fashioned. Well, not so much old-fashioned as stuffed up and dried. The ongoing irony is that their little wealth-away-from-the-world colony was created by passenger rail service from downtown, which is why the corridor was there in the first place (the Lulu Island Interurban Line was not a freight service).

And along that route, despite the designer shortbread and tweed shops and such, there are also a lot of transit riders, particularly and notably from the Burrard Bridge are across to 16th and Arbutus, and again in Marpole. Cambie, on the other hand, was touted as having all kinds of things transit users wanted to go to. Mount St. Vincent hospital. Bloedel Conservatory. Shaughnessy Hospital. Oakridge Shopping Centre.

Right. Right after I buy my buspass for the month I'm bursting with a need to go shopping in Oakridge, the most crusty of all the city's malls except maybe Park Royal. And then I need to go to Mt. St. Vincent to wait ten hours to get my bladder checked at emergency, then Shaughnessy to see an old friend, and then I want to go view the butterflies at the Bloedel. The logic of these transit "magnets" put forwards by RAV-pushers was almost comical, and still is.

Deal with the Arbutus route is, even if it HAD been cut-and-cover (and likely would have been given the NIMBYish nature of Quilchena-Kerrisdale-Shaughnessy-ites) it wouldn't have as much impacted traffic or small business as it is currently doing on Cambie. In fact, the clout on the West Side was probably sufficient to get a tunnel from 7th all the way to 70th anyway.

But class politics aside, and back to the notion of the Richmond B line being already a well-functioning beast, it brings to mind the Expo Line's original inanity. To whit, that it supplanted the busiest and most well-served bus corridor in the region, and by being built it monkeywrenched all the local bus lines splitting off from that corridor. As any Burnabyite who takes the bus knows, it often goes several blocks out of its route, generally around in circles, in order to make it to the third or second skytrain along its route; which might be paralleling the Skytrain line as with the 106 and many others.

Point is, they took a working system, and while cutting the downtown-to-burb commuting time and boosting realty offerings along its route, the Expo Line didn't help with the burden on routes that REALLY needed help. Namely Broadway, Hastings and the old Granville-Victoria pairing. And Broadway and Hastings are, of course, exactly where rail transit REMAINS needed; but nowhere along either route do you have masses of real estate that some government-backing realtor-developer can make a boodle on, nor is there the physical latitude for anything but a bored or deep-cut tunnel system. Because there's NO WAY the merchants on Broadway or Hastings (I mean Hastings in Burnaby) would go for anything but a subway, and I don't mean cut-and-cover, given what's happened to Cambie.

As for the ongoing deferral/demurral on the "Evergreen Line" (yawn - can't anybody come up with better public names around here....sheesh!), that would have been the obvious destination area of both Hastings and Broadway lines.

The Expo Line boosted real estate sales and population growth in Surrey...which, uh-huh, led to demands to double-track the Port Mann. But OK, well, car users are car users even if they did buy their condo at Gateway or Surrey Central because of the Skytrain access. But why is there no talk of a Surrey-Coquitlam Skytrain line [I]being built[i/] into the new Port Mann crossing, or a Surrey/Langley-Maple Ridge line attached to the new Golden Ears Bridge.

Is it because our planners and politicians are short-sighted? No, it's because, IMO, they really have no clue at all what they're doing.

PS Oh, and re the Richmond B-line. Every time I've ridden it, it's pretty obvious its ridership represents the growing underclass in ever-increasingly-wealthy Richmond. And onboard it's anything but representative of Richmond's ethnic/class structure. Matter of fact, to be frank, I see more whites on the Richmond B-line than I do on the SFU or UBC ones. And what Asians there are tend to be Filipino and others in Richmond's own particular context of "racially visible minorities" (i.e. non-Chinese).

Might be different if there's a Skytrain line, but I still can't see giving up your Lexus and its right to park wherever you want it and to ignore traffic laws and such in preference to a seat on a Mark III Skytrain car, having to sit next to all those people you're used to not having to shop next to at Yaohan and Aberdeen, where security would quickly get them out of your sight.....

Notes on transit:

Studies (Hass-Klau 2000) has shown that the majority of ridership on a transit route comes from a bout 300 metres from a transit route or a 300 metre radius from each station. Therefore not one transit route will solve transportation problems. Peak hour capacity offered on Cambie St. buses was about 300 more (4 more buses per hour)persons than Arbutus. it is silly to say LRT would not work on Arbutus while a &2.5 billion subway would attract more ridership.

RAV doesn't service Richmond as for the vast majority, they have to take a car or bus to a RAV station. it is a well known transit fact that one can lose upwards of 70% of potential ridership per transfer.

To say that SkyTrain brought a population increase to Surrey is just plain daft. the vasy majority of new residential aread are many km. away from the SkyTrain line!

Modern LRT has a proven record in attracting the motorist from the car, unloke it's much more expensive cousin SkyTrain (metro) LRT is able to both service major destinations and penetrate residential areas.

The fact that LRT is built is that it becomes more cost effective to operate than buses when ridership on a transit route exceeds about 2,000 pphpd. All this talk about rapid transit and densification is pure bureaucratic speak for " we haven't a clue why we built rapid transit, the politicians just tell to do so!"

Rav will be a white elephant because it really doesn't service popular destinations (if so, why isn't there much more bus service on the Cambie buses?) and it is much too expensive to extend into Richmond. Like SkyTrain, RAV will be a testimate to very bad regional planning.

The only winners with RAV is YVR, which for a $250 million investment, get a $2.5 billion metro & River Rock Casino, where drug dealers can easily launder money!

Finally, subway do not attract much new ridership, The Germans found this out in the 60's and 70's where after building Billions of DM for subways, fewer passengers took the new RT than previously used the now abandoned surface operating tramways (LRT)!

It's a known fact that LRT increases revenue for businesses along its route by over 10% Don't believe me? Go to Portland where merchants are fighting to have LRT go down their street!

Cities with LRT are far more livable than cities without (Hass-Klau 2000). Vancouver, by opting for user unfriendly metro has opted for a less livable city!

So you are saying that ridership is decreased by that factor every time there is an additional transfer involved? I guess the challenge would then be to reduce the inconvenience factor for the potential public transit user in order to entice them into considering this option over the car. That would include less wait times between transfers, no overcrowding, no crime, etc. But all this could only be initiated if ridership was increased, since you would have to have more riders to justify the extra buses (LRT routes etc.) running at more frequent intervals. A catch 22 as I see it. It seems that a great leap of faith (as well as a huge investment) would be in order. But I don't see the alternative as the conventional solution of building more and more road infrastructure is untenable and shortsighted at best.

Remeber it was SkyTrain that gave birth to the Gateway highways program, because SkyTrain was too expensive to expand into the 'burbs. With LRT you can because it is much cheaper to build and operate.

The 70% figure is quite well known and even TransLink and BC Transit before realised they lost a lot of potential ridership per transfer.

You think people who don't resemble you are inconsequential? Just a hobby with you, tweaking the socially conscious from a place where you feel they can't get at you?

If you are telling the truth, that you don't care to do research, then whatever you have to say is just so much noise. If you insist on being in these conversations, please bring some real thought and reason and passion to them.

I wasn't arguing - I merely stated my opinion re. - and conceded that Grump presented some interesting comments. I generally admit when I am estimating or guessing.

If you ask me, people that spend the time to corroborate their facts for bloggers on this site are foolish! No idiot (me or you) can be swayed from their rigid stance - and you are either preaching to the choir - or the sinners.

I have a broad general knowlege - though mostly re. economic issues. I am a small business owner and active investor. I follow it for profit, but also for hobby. So, when I speak about the general economy, wealth creation, taxation, etc. - I do know what I am talking about.

When it comes to LRT vs. SkyTrain - I haven't a clue - and I don't care enough to research.

Though - I enjoy the interaction with Grumpy and a few others. Many I won't respond to.

Capitalis/Maybelle:
No you don't, have a knowledge of economics, I mean.

That exaggeration was dealt with months ago on these pages, remember?

I am NOT of the view that a rapid transit route is NOT important and NOT a viable option to roads and vehicles.

However, the RAV /Canada line is one rapid transit system that was shoved down our throats and a blank cheque served as the apertif.

The lack of Public input again creates a breeding ground for more white elephants. To cover their asses the politicians and bureaucrats will find more funding sources, the easiest of which will be property taxes.

The Richmond B Line was one of the biggest waste of dollars to foreshadow and even bigger one. Millions of dollars spent , now #3RD. is a barren wasteland with nothing to show for it except an extra dedicated lane. However current plans indicate the RAV line will be on the East side of #3 rd....NOT down the center where the B line was.

The SkyTrain ridership has been below projections and will likely never meet projections. This SkyTrain system is simply a brass-plaque " notch in the belt " for the bloodsucking politicians and bureaucrats to claim world- class status( the main topic of this TYEE article )...and cost be damned.

PS:... good line about the drug dealers laundering at the casino. Thats' what Skytrain does ...it simply makes crime more mobile.

Also remember, as many news articles have reported , most of the Transit decision makers do not make use of SkyTrain..they prefer their own personal mode aka "at grade vehicular".

Dear Capitalism; Thank you for your response. I agree you do have broad general knowledge and an ability to use words. I don't think I would care enough to be put off by your sloppiness or offhanded remarks if I didn't see the ability to reason in your posts.

If you think I spoke out of place, I'll apologize to you. But I think you missed my point.

A lot of people post here because they have been without a voice of any kind for a long time. The repeal of media ownership restrictions designed to allow debate in public robbed them of all chance of seeing their observations, beliefs and attitudes represented, while the political life of the whole western world seems to be slipping into a sort of corruption not seen since the Medicis and the Borgias held sway over the currencies of Europe.

They thought the world was going one way, improving. Away from slavery, feudalism and bribery. And now they see it all coming flooding back, and they want to talk. They talk with passion. With all the truth they can muster.

And you come here too but you stay aloof, pretending to be above it all, dispassionate and somewhat disdainful, as though suffering fools or something.

Who are you, really? What do you feel? Really believe in your heart? If you don't care enough to do research, because it's foolish to care about all these people here, what DO you care about? Enough to think hard about, look deeper into?

When they offer you things outside your accustomed paths of belief or ideology, give them the courtesy of at least trying to figure out why they say the things they say. You might be surprized to discover that some of what you accept as given is, well, just wrong. While you are here showing others why you think they're wrong.

It could happen. If you're willing to step down among us and really show yourself.

Cappy, et al.....We have never been allowed a Metro - LRT debate in the region because the government of the day forced metro on us. SkyTrain is a proprietary metro system, first owned by the UTDC of Ontario. It could not compete against LRT so the changed the name to ALRT or Advanced light Rail Transit. SkyTrain was/is poorly designed and very expensive for what it does, this translated in no sales.

SNC/Lavalin bought the UDTC and promptly went broke trying to sell SkyTrain to Thailand (Siemens built the existing elevated metro and calls it Skytrain!)Bombardier bought at firesale price, SNC/Lavalin or what is left of it and commenced to design a total new car, which is known as the Mk. 2 car.

Vancouver has two different metro systems: 1) UDTC ALRT - Expo line and 2) Bombardier ART - Millennium Line. Trains can travel on each other's track as both are powered by linear induction motors, but the trains can't be operated in multiple units, onlu mk.1's with M.1's and Mk.2's with Mk.2's.

The GVRD predicted that Skytrain would be carrying over 20,000 pphpd by the year 2,000. It neve happened and now carries about 8,000 pphpd max.

For the cost of the original GVRD planned LRT network travelling from Vancouver to Whalley, lougheed Mall and Richmond, we got SkyTrain to New Westminister!

Sales of SkyTrain just never materialized and only 5 such operations ALRT & ART are in exsitence. during the period that SkyTrain has been on the market (27 years) over 100 new LRT systems have been built and a further 100 are being built or being planned for.

It is interesting to note that the bad taste of SkyTrain still permeates SNC/Lavalin and they opted for a convensional metro system with cars built by Hyundi. RAV will not be compatible with SkyTrain!

Skytrain is costing the taxpayer huge sums of money in hidden subsidies and offering a very poor transit service. What we have is a true transit disaster!

It seems the cities building and operating LRT do not have the same problems!

Here's a question:
Why are there separate Ministries of Health, Transport and the Environment? They're competeting against each other, but isn't this all the same thing, the same problem?

Call me naive, but if we get people out of their cars and start walking, riding their bikes, taking transit we'd solve the transit problem, the problem of rising health costs and it's all cleaner for the environment.

That's why I'd never run for politics: working against my colleagues all for the same common good, all the while asking Mum (Carole Taylor) for money.

I remember thinking the best route for the Richmond line would have been to link the downtown train station via the Arbutus corridor to the airport with LRT. I also thought that designing the cars to handle some amount of extra baggage that passengers would likely have would have been prudent. But as maestro pointed out it is unlikely many travelers would use public transport to get to the airport anyways. Easier to call a cab and through your bags in the trunk. Oh, and as for #3 Road in Richmond, I always thought it to be a barren wasteland even before it was redesigned ;-)

So Grumpy, given that we're stuck with the existing Skytrain system, where do we go from here with regards to any further upgrading, expansion of our transit systems? I'm asking you because you seem to be making the most informed posts on this topic IMHO.

Kits, here is where we stand. To date we have now 3 different types of rail transit, Commuter rail to Abbotsford, Skytrain, and RAV, with each mode incompatible with each other. If the hybrid Evergreen LRT/metro line is built, we will have 4 incompatible rail modes! This means the taxpayer is going for a very long and expensive ride!

It is my belief that the hybrid Evergreen Line, now at $100 million/km., will be converted to Skytrain, just like the Millennium Line was changed from LRT to skytrain a decade ago. This will give Bombardier one more sale of Mk. 2 cars before they close production of the ART/SkyTrain line due to lack of sales. (only 5 Skytrain type systems built in 26+ years!)

SkyTrain itself should be able to trundle its Mk.1 cars there and back for at least another 20 to 30 years. After that there will be a major overhaul of the elevated guideway.

It is my belief that the Arbutus, or what is left of it, will see LRT becuse planners and politicos will come to the realization that one north/south transit route will not do the job. LRT will be chosen simply for cost effectiveness.

The sad fact is the GVRD is pricing itself out of being a livable region, simply because they built and are building hugely expensive transit infrastructure, that will be a huge drain to the taxpayer due to maintanence costs, etc. Hint: subways are very expensive to maintain! Major businesses will move out of the downtown core to find cheaper accommodation and Vancouver will become a sorta major gated community, for the very rich and very poor.

he congested burbs will suffer transportation crisis after transportation crisis, due to the vast sums of money spent on politcally prestigious metros and not good public transport.

I think that within 20 years Vancouver will only be a livable city for the rich, with the burbs as Vancouver's slums. Campbell, Puil, Falcol, Doebell, Price, Harcourt, Sullivan are only a few to blame for this upcoming fiasco.

I am so sick of the Olympics, rav, etc.. I live in the now....! And in the now we had a good thing going with our American neighbors coming to visit beautiful BC and its warm and friendly people who cared about one another. And now we are hardened lot indifferent to our neighbors pleight to no fault of our own. I've had to try to stop feeling how else can you see so much disparity and not be effected unless you have feeling of superiority usually followed by a double. I believe many count on our American visiting our fair city $$$$$$$$$$ and all its friendly people and will long after the Olympics but I can quarantee you they will look else where if we continue to turn our backs on those in need. They will have no need to travel for that they can just stay home.

Grumpy sez

Bang-on Grumpy. As a delegate, I submitted a resolution to the Municipal Employees Pension Advisory Committee with backgrounder advising the trustees that there was no backup for the financing available, and that the project was unfunded to the tune of $600 million. In it, I noted that the Pensions Corp, as the only unsecured creditors, would be at the end of a very long list of barking dogs.

Some of the other delegates at the meeting spouted exactly the media crap that you've just finished demolishing. Those of us with the skill to read a balance sheet demolished their witless maunderings, and yet STILL, the majority voted against a motion to required the trustees to divest the pension commission of the investment in RAV.

Some people are just too afraid to do anything but follow. Unfortunately, that includes some of my brothers and sisters in the union movement. Just goes to show that neither right nor left has a monopoly on stupidity.

However, the trustees have, since then, been racing around like lunatics trying to dig up more information, because they are actually on the hook for the due diligence to the pension fund.

Hmmmm..... I wonder if they've found anything? Like perhaps a secret agreement by the BC Government to fully cover the pension fund in case of any losses? Something that would be totally illegal in any civilized country, but might just pass here in loony BC?

Alcibiades:

I agree that my outdated economics minor doesn't make me an expert on theory, and the lord knows I couldn't teach a class. However, I have been able to get a pretty good sense on how the economy operates, how its stages effect my business, the stock market, etc. I feel as if though I've developed some intuition with regard to the subject matter.

Practically speaking, I saw what the tax cuts, interest rate reduction, and commitment to free trade did for our little business. And my wallet hasn't been the only beneficiary.

Bailey:

Thanks for the response. My words pretty much sum it up. I am sloppy, because I care little about detail. I am a broad thinker, and could lose sight of the little guy.

Though, in my own mind, I believe that I am right - that I am not a heartless fool. I believe in a pro-business society - in Canada (even more in the US), the mechanisms are in place to be successful. Sure, life is difficult sometimes - but they are there. You just have to stick your neck out there.

There are good jobs, a good standard of living, and people still have the opportunity to work hard and create wealth. You see making money as an evil thing - I see being successful as an accomplishment.

????

Nice to know xenophobia is alive and well.

You're naive. :-)

Take a look at who the biggest campaign donors are for the provincial Liberals and you'll see why sprawl and auto-centric development is the recipe the current gov't follows to ensure the donations keep rolling in.

A good article by Charlie Smith that "shows you the money."

http://www.bcpolitics.ca/left_puppeteers.htm

Firstly, success can be measured in many ways, not all of them monetary. Secondly, if the way you make money is beggaring your children (I think we could make a strong case for that being the model by which our current economy operates)that's pretty evil isn't it?

Hello Capitalism,
Have you read and do you understand what Ed Deak has said about capital, capitalism, and true wealth? The provincial government did not create the lower interest rates. The rates became lower because the loans of the baby-boomers in the 70s and 80s were paid off. The economy picked up because the world's stock-pile of manufactured goods became smaller - supply and demand theory. Older baby-boomers began saving more and putting more into RRSPs. British Columbians could go back to work because Americans needed wood and the rest of the world needed minerals including: coal, gas and oil. Since cxapitalism began, there have been boom and bust cycles that average 7-8 years. With the US borrowing so much money, I don't see how interest rates will be held in check for too much longer. The real estate boom is settling down. We will see how many speculators get caught with their pants down and can't make payments...From where I live, there seems to be more poor people than ever; there are more closed stores and restaurants on our town's main street while there has been an invasion of franchised big-box stores (Walmart, Canadian Tire, Extra Foods superstore) and restaurants (Pizza Hut, Starbucks, McDonald's etc.) These places are not superior to what we had, they are just more recognizable to the people who travel through - the dollars we try to catch before the visitor goes back to Vancouver or where-ever. They pay their help poorly and do not offer full-time jobs if they can help it. Thus, no benefits either.

A sustainable city is one in which their garbage is not foisted off on "anywhere but here", and where whole rivers aren't dammed (damned?) for the sake of fast food outlets, and lakes not drained so SUVs can be kept sparkly clean.

Get the denizens of cities to even begin thinking of this and "social sustainability" will follow............

Grumpy:

Thanks for all the info and insight.

A family member( now retired ) was a fairly high - ranking executive in the BC Public Transit system. He said way back that the SkyTrain system was a poor investment given other options available.

This issue and many others ( ie Olympics ) are indicative of the ways Gov'ts do the people's business. There is a blank - cheque mentality and sheer irresponsibility and unaccountability.

Interesting comment re: the Arbutus corridor. My feel was that it was a political hot potato. Your comment made me re- visit it, and perhaps the demographics of the Arbutus corridor will change much like Cambie has..and the old " creme de la creme" crowd will move on. Light rail..on grade.. makes the most sense down Arbutus..even Richmond considered it to replace the B- Line.

I don't understand why they don't consider SkyTrain "lite" ie light rail down Arbutus and at the periphery of the SkyTrain routes and ONLY consider elevated track later and only IF demand warrants it in the future.

That's why this whole deal is suspicious, Cadillac's imposed when Chevy's would do fine.

To Kitscommuter..my #3RD " barren wasteland" was with reference to the B-Line's attractive look when it was up and running...and the wasteland left when they tore it all up when it was only a few years old. FYI they uprooted a fair number of large trees from the B-Line route and transplanted them all through the City, and I believe YVR recieved a number of trees too. I recall many of these transplanted trees dying where they were transplanted along the road to the airport.

I really don't understand the public "sheep" and why they don't rise up and challenge all this crap. That's a greater concern than the bloodsuckers in Gov't who only get away with what we let them get away with. Seems like heads would roll in the "good old days".

off topic , sorry but this needs to be aired!

"The Hospital Employees" Union and the B.C. Nurses´ Union are making the demand in
response to a Vancouver Island Health Authority directive barring employees from speaking
to MLAs or MPs without the authority´s permission.

During his September 28 launch of the "Conversation on Health," Premier Gordon Campbell
said that community health forums organized by MLAs would be a key component of the
consultation.

"This health authority´s attitude - that health care workers should be seen but not heard -
seriously undermines the credibility of the government´s conversation on health," says HEU
secretary-business manager Judy Darcy.

"It´s very important that health authorities receive a clear message from government that
participation from front-line health care workers is not just welcome and encouraged - but
critical to finding solutions," adds Darcy."

Thanks Rick W.

I had to read through dozens of posts before I got to one that addressed the really big problem here.

Livability vs social sustainability?

Pshaw.

As you alluded to: without environmental sustainability all the other stuff can't happen.

At the UN's World Urban Forum held this past summer in Vancouver, virtually all the delegates were unanimous in declaring Vancouver one of the most beautiful and livable cities on the planet.

They were also virtually unanimous in declaring Vancouver environmentally unsustainable and could not be used as a model for developing nations looking to solve their burgeoning urban problems.

With Vancouver's ecological footprint at around 7 hectares per person while the world average is around 1.8 it is clear that there is not enough planet for a world of Vancouvers.

Many delegates were quite clear in stating that Vancouver is lovely, but a facade, the dirty work of maintaining this livability occuring out of sight and out of mind.

Our oil and gas are piped in, our garbage is trucked back over the mountains, our factories are located over the ocean's horizon and our sewage is pumped into the ocean depths - only a brown haze against Mount Baker hints at the mess our society generates.

The analogy that LRT is a Chevy while skyTrain is a Cadillac, is wrong. It is best to describe SkyTrain as an Edsel. Remeber, SkyTrain failed the real test of the free market.

SkyTrain is obsolete.

1) The linear induction motors consume too much electricity due to the constant change of the 1 cm. gap between the LIM and the reaction rail.
2) Automatic train control is very expensive to install and maintain. It only has been found to be economic to install on major metro's with high ridership, in excess of 20,000 pphpd!
3)The combination of ATC and Linear induction motors makes SkyTrain uncompatible with other transit modes. Compatibility is a very important in creating an affordable transit system. LRT is a compatible transit mode.

SkyTrain was first concieved as a light metro that could carry more than streetcars but cost less than a subway. It doesn't.

Modern LRT, with articulated cars and the concept of the 'reserved rights-of-ways instantly made SkyTrain obsolete. Lack of international sales certainly confirm this!

If SkyTrain was carrying 300,000+ passengers per day, per route, there would be little argument against the mode. It ain't happening. Ridership on Skytrain is anywhere between 100,000 to 200,000 a day (both the Millennium and Expo Lines) depending who you wish to believe. Certainly there has not been an independant audit of ridership on SkyTrain, as is so common with European and American transit systems.

SkyTrain has now created the myth that we need density for rapid transit. We do not have the density for metro in the valley. We do have the density for LRT right up the Fraser Valley to Chilliwack!SkyTrain has indeed forced the Gateway highways program upon us. Failure to build LRT has eroded Vancouver's livability!

Transportation is a very important factor for a cities livability. Subways and elevated transit systems don't.

Sorry I know this will piss off some people but LRT on the Arbutus corridor would have been the better option.
1) The right-of-way is there, graded for two track operation. This would greatly reduce construction costs!
2) Unlike Cambie St., LRT on Arbutus would not disrupt traffic or business dduring construction.
3) The GVRD could purchase the Arbutus for 'scrap' price ($1 million or $2 million) from the CPR under federal laws on abandoned rights-of-ways.
4) Cost of RAV subway $120 million/km. cost of LRT $11 million/km.
5) potential capacity for LRT and metro about the same!
6) Money saved building LRT on Cambie could have been spent on rail transit in other locals.
7) Potential ridership would have been greater on Arbutus, due to major densification of the route.
8) LRT on Arbutus would mean the closure of the Arbutus trolleybus. This would mean LRT would save money.
9) LRT on Arbutus could have been an international showcase. RAV, well is just another ugly and expensive R/T system.

I'm no t against 'Rail' transit on Cambie but if we built LRT on Arbutus, we could build LRT on Cambie as well! Two LRT routes, cheaper than one subway!

Grumpy:

BTW:...The Cadillac vs Chevy analogy was used in the context of economic argument.

The issue is best bang for the dollar with respect to public transit. The Capital costs for SkyTrain are one white elephant, and the Operating costs for SkyTrain will be another white elephant.

I agree with your expanded Edsel analogy, but the problem is the witches' brew of Public apathy and the peckerheads in charge...it's not their money,... so why should they care ?

Sky Train "works" or shall we say "moves people"...that's the depth of many people's understanding, the details either go over their heads or become overwhelming. ( Remember someone ELSE is paying for it..right??? )

Re Arbutus : No need to fear pissing anyone off, I think the whole RAV issue started to reek when the Arbutus corridor was NOT chosen nor the original choice.

FYI: a local reporter years ago put me onto another citizen into due diligence and research when the YVR runway was built. Apparently, the YVR runway had plans to be located more NORTH of its present location, but the Vancouver hoi polloi got involved,.... "somehow", and the NEW YVR runway, and hence flight paths, were built in their present location/orientation. The lawsuits from Richmond residents commenced shortly after it opened.

Just a note: The Edsel failed because it was too expensive for the market. It was the first car designed by mass marketing; the marketers asked the public what they would like to car to have, not they would pay for in a new car.

Same with UTDC, they asked all the wrong questions and designed an obsolete transit system.

It's not an irrational fear of people from other countries that makes me think that limits of some sort should be put on foreign ownership. Rather, I'm fearful of the negative impact on Canadian citizens that unrestricted speculation engenders. Foreign owners have no concerns for the livability of the communities they invest in. What matters to them is their return on investment, not the impact spiraling real estate prices has on the community and its inhabitants.

I'd counter that there's plenty of local investors that don't give a tinker's damn about the effects of their investments both at home and abroad.

Make investing illegal... and if there's profit to be found, people will find a way around the rules probably with the help of less than scrupulous individuals and organizations, probably making the problem worse. I would put forth marijuana laws as a great example of bad laws funneling money to criminals.

Well I suppose, but at least you'd be limiting the pool of these reckless opportunists. They may indeed find ways around it, more than likely by lining the pockets of some pliable politician. But I'm sure the net effect would be to dampen the escalation of housing prices to a more sustainable level. That would allow people who live and work here a shot of owning their own dwelling. Which to me would be a good thing.

Well, except your solution won't change a thing except the passport of the opportunist. Better our scoundrels than someone else's doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.

The reality is that most people CAN afford to buy a home, just not the one they want in the neighbourhood they want, and not without giving up some of the things that we've come to take for granted.

I think people have become less willing to make the trade-offs and sacrifices that previous generations understood to be necessary to own a house without drowning in debt.

With all due respect to the debate and debaters on speculation and speculators, foreign or domestic.

Years ago I met a gent who was originally from Switzerland and was a trained chef. We talked about European vs North American lifestyles , incomes and expectations. He stated that in his home country and likely most of Europe, many people RENT, don't own , due to the high cost of real estate.

However, he said that the pay and benefits were generally very good, and that if one excluded the costs of purchasing a home/apartment, etc.in Europe , one could acheive a very nice lifestyle, one of which was more $$$ to spend on travel. This European trend makes sense, as Europe has been settled for centuries and its own mass densification etc. has resulted in real estate prices out of reach for the average citizen.

A few years back the media reported a trend that many people were actually selling their residences and choosing to rent...and preferred greater mobility, as they didn't want all the hassle of ownership.

Here in North America, as populations grow and especially in and around the Urban centers, perhaps we are simply NOW experiencing what has happened in Europe and elsewhere . We in B.C, especially within the GVRD are PRIME real estate in the global context, and we are not a well - kept secret anymore.

Given all the economic reports usually published during these boom times, one sees the high percentage of household income required to purchase a home. Perhaps this " must buy " should be re-evaluated, though admittedly it seems the cost of "average" monthly mortgage payments are kept close to average rental payments...with the lenders and realtors saying " Why RENT when you can OWN ??? "

We in BC were insulated in past years , but we are simply becoming "world class",and all that comes with it...and the horse is long out of the barn, thus accept it and also adapt accordingly.

PS Artificial land shortages have only made the situation worse as well. (....I'll see if my favourite TYEE sparring partner takes the bait on THAT point .)

peefer:

I read somewhere and sometime back that the average land requirement per human being world-wide, was something like 2 hectares (5 acres) of agriculturally viable land. If this holds true, then for Vancouver to be "beautiful", each citizen is consuming some 3-1/2 times the world requirement. And at 1.8 hectares, it is obvious many parts of the world are are starving, so that Vancouver may be "sustainable"..........

Do you mean the artificial land shortage created by people living in monster homes with three car garages to keep all their crap in when the same amount of space could probably comfortably house a couple of families, or the ALR?

:-)

Re Monster houses, crap and 3 car garages.

The Monster House phenomenon became more the norm over the last several years...and peoples' perception often revolved around the view they were almost "illegal" and some sort of conspiracy by various Local Gov'ts who changed the rules to allow bigger Single Family homes.

However, various Local Gov'ts have had bylaws allowing Monster Homes for decades, many in existence prior to the two World Wars and the Great Depression.

After the two World Wars (and the Depression) there was a need for housing for returning servicemen as well as the subsequent rebuilding of domestic economies.

However, between the 1940's and the 1970's one notices many homes built in the approx. 2000 sq. ft range( give or take) ie...bungalows/ranchers, split levels and two storey homes. The CMHC at the time was involved with much of this. I'm sure many of us recall large families that made do with small homes.

However, as these homeowners reached retirement age, etc. a new class of purchaser appeared and was interested in the lot, but not the seriously depreciated house. This new generation of purchaser was fully aware that the lot that once had a small UNDER-sized approx. 2,000 sq. ft house could instead have a much larger house ie 4,000-6,000 sq. ft. as these allowable square foot bylaws had been in effect for decades, but simply not used given the times and the economics surrounding them when they were built.

Thus, the property owners who build Monster Houses are simply following old established guidelines...in place for decades, and simply maximizing what they are permitted, and realtors will also advise them to do so or risk entering into a compromising investment.

The "blame" for Monster Houses in theory lies with the Local Gov't...However, given that these bylaws were decades old and reflective of the times and their needs..they were simply grandfathered forward. If the Local Gov't tried to change them and downsize, it would create a hornet nest of class action lawsuits, given the resulting affect on property values.

Also notice no hue and cry about the sizes...that issue is often quickly defused once the facts are presented...though design guidelines have been enacted in some areas ie Shaugnessy.

Right or Wrong, the Monster houses full of crap and 3 car gagrages are here to stay, and thus the status quo.

However, one trend experienced decades ago was the Monster Houses were turned into mass rental rooming houses, many of the mansions in Shaugnessy have done this, many since the Wars , and after the owner had gone broke from the Depression.

I once helped someone move into a NEWER monster house approx. 20 years old that had room rentals....not the first time I've seen this...just watch that trend swing into high gear more and more the older these more RECENT monster houses get, as the rich owners turn their noses up on older houses and seek newer ones.

Nwere Monster house = THE NEW rooming house rental source in the very near future.

History has a funny way of repeating itself, right?

To " S "

Re Artificial Land Shortage " to be continued "

I see " my favourite TYEE sparring partner " hasn't offically entered into this discussion as of yet. ( Probably selling their last monster house and pouring footings for the next one ??? )

However,...I'll give them a few hours...

"Gagrages" I like that. They make me gag, they make me rage (a little).

Anyway, I don't think they're here to stay in their current form. I think economics will rule as always and a lot of people soon won't be able to afford the house, the cars, or the crap. And then, as Maestro says, there'll be a lot of pink stucco rooming houses.

Hold up - "blame" - you commies make me sick. What about the right to own property? Are you that envious that you would want to put restrictions on how people live.

I am sorry - and I really feel sorry for you all. You must be miserable if you really resent those people that have worked hard and afforded themselves the luxury to build - and live in - the home of their choice.

This notion that some of you urban liberals have - where everybody lives in tight areas, etc. does not fly with most people. You obviously don't have kids - nor any real family values.

" Cap "

Don't you dare call me a F'n commie ...LOL.

I put the term " blame " into a subjective interpretive context. Many tend to find and seek "blame" and also " blame" the wrong parties.

I am simply stating what the background to MONSTER HOUSES is. Discussions are more productive when the facts are presented. If it's LEGAL people will often do it (or do it even if it's illegal, but that's a whole different argument).

I am not making a judgement call on one's right to build a MONSTER House nor am I initiating another class warfare discussion.

Some Local Gov'ts actually have Bylaws that force you to build to maximum allowable use.

As I clearly stated, on THIS topic , people are legally building Monster Houses, the Bylaws to allow this have been in place for decades and they are doing what they are permitted to do in a free and democratic society.

To UNdo this , or cater to those opposed to Monster Houses, would be a legal hornet's nest.

The NEW monster houses have too much value to tear down, but the rich will choose to buy or build new ones..correct? This will result in others purchasing what is becoming a depreciating building asset(ie OLDER Monster Houses) and seeking a return via the rooming house rental mode.

The old original Shaugnessy MONSTER HOUSE area had numerous rooming houses...However the nouveau monster house issue in the last 20 years is so wide spread, all over the GVRD, I had predicted a parallel rooming house situation years ago(ie history repeats itself)....and it's proving true.

You'll eventually see rooms rented and lots of cars in the driveways, and as a further adjunct they are NOT illegal suites...ie legit for various reasons. This will cause a whole new set of problems that Local Gov'ts may be forced to address, though it will help the affordability issue to SOME degree.

Simply Objective comments...anything commie in that ???

PS....BTW I'm "happily married with children" though at times my spouse is far too socialist/borderline commie for me, but eventually,inevitably, they come over from the dark side when they finally see the light on my side.

Well, for me its not the choice, as everyone should be free to make choices that aren't infringing on others, but the attitude of "more, more, more" that is both selfish, and in the long run, unsustainable, that makes me take issue with the concept of monster houses.

I'm not sure how true 'conservatism' translates into communism, but perhaps you will enlighten?

Nor do I 'resent' the people that own them. I just find their choice doesn't reflect my values. Inasmuch as free speech is a value that we all hold dear, I get to air my opinion... and you get to misrepresent it! What a country!

Are you suggesting that zoning regulations equal communism? As a society we regularly tell people how to live. For instance, Vancouver doesn't allow livestock in the backyard. Personally, I wouldn't mind a few chickens and roosters in my neighbourhood, but the rules (that tell people how to live) say 'No'.

Found this article on the web concerning the subject of monster houses in Vancouver. Thought it a good read.

http://www.vancourier.com/issues03/111203/news/111203nn1.html

Stump:

Good comments..insightful re: "As a society we regularly tell people how to live ".

Oh so true !!!

KitsCommuter: good link about Monster Houses.

I vividly recall that the Monster Houses evolved from full square basements to rather bizarre internal basement configurations. Large portions of basement ended up as crawl spaces. Served no practical purpose other than to reduce the square footage and make people feel that smaller houses via square footage were being built.

However, the same " above ground " size look "footprint" was maintained, so what was REALLY achieved? ...NOTHING !

What Local Gov'ts don't want to admit is that basement suites serve a mutually beneficial function to the landlord and tenant, and provide the social housing that Gov'ts have never been able to establish.

Gov'ts used to be vigilant about basement suites as "illegal" , but came to realize that they would create huge displacement to seniors , students, lower income parties etc. Practicality trumped political -bureaucratic dogma

The last time I can recall that Gov't tried to attract rental housing was with the long defunct MURB program. However, too many people, including professionals , got burned by this MURB program, but some current Vancouver developers started out with the MURB program and its perks.

My own view is that Vancouver will continue an ever increasing gentrification process, and there will be a proportional social displacement to outlying areas. Further postulation is that the Downtown East side...and the Main and Hastings area will rid itself of the overt drug problem via this gentrification process...people want to live in Vancouver...buy where its relatively cheap... thus the process starts.

It's a vicious cycle, and further compounded by the protest many will have ie " NO Social Housing in MY/OUR neighbourhood " , unless it is the co-op model where a mix of income levels seems to be the main viable working and operating model.

Unfortunately much of this was predictable, but Gov'ts , in typical Gov't fashion, will create an even bigger mess in trying to fix it.

Hear! Hear! Well said, RickW

Thanks KC,

Interesting article which brought back lots of memories for someone like me who has lived in several west side homes over the years. Now a newer version of the monster house is going up across my lane here at Heather and King Edward costing me all of my view and most of my light. What to do? The obvious is to cut two or three of the trees in my backyard in order to get back some sky. Sad but that is the what happens when peope want and can legally have 4500 square feet on a 40x122 property.

The problem with monster houses is that there are more than one familly living in them, yet the house is taxed as a regular house. Some monsterhouses in the region may house 4 or 5 famillies, complete with kids going to school, yet paying the same rates ans a retired couple in a cottage.

This why the UK went to the poll tax, or a municipal tax on every person living in a house. In the 60's and 70's many south asians were living 3 or 4 families in houses that were designed for one familly. The stress on borough resourses were huge. Maggie Thatcher brought in the poll tax to even the playing field. So strong weas the opposition, it nearly toppled her government, but the poll tax prevailed and today is working very nicely!

The same should be true for monster houses and would greatly change the demand for such large houses!

Vancouver is a SHIT PIT! end of story. everyone who lives there is a posing homo. fuk off.

Grumpy:

Your demographics are correct in some cases, but many of these monster houses contain a single family only..ie a family of four to five, give or take some elderly in-laws. This is not much different in many cases than smaller homes.

Other groups do turn the monster houses into a literal rooming house for extended family. However, some parties , even tenants , have fought this in court ie their " illegal suites " have been closed down, but the same house with even a larger number of people who are blood relations is exempt, even though people are "supposedly ALL equal".

Where do you live Spanky?

I'm going to guess "Internet-Tough-Guy-Land"

Liveable? Maybe for the affluent!

Affordable? Maybe for the affluent!

Sustainable? Maybe if you are an elder whose affluent!

Certainly the fossil fool (sic!) dependent transportation system and proposed upgrades (Gateway) will find out how sustainable they are when the costs of energy soar next winter'/spring/summer/fall, or the near future!

Grumpy

Thee current ridership at Broadway is 10,000-11,000 ppdph. The 8,000 you quote was the projected ridership for 2004 (or 2005) which has been greatly exceeded. If you don't believe it, go there and count the cars per hour. It would be pretty easy to estimate the number of passengers. Until you do, maybe just reserve comment please. It will be higher when more cars are delivered. The max capacity is 25,000 ppdph.

Arbutus is best left for a bikeway and greenway and perhaps a streetcar although I'd rather see street cars in the street.

The only LRT system in North America that ridership levels similar to SkyTrain (213,000 per day) is the one in Calgary (230,000 per day). Even then it is likely only because there is free service downtown. It is also 3 lines compared to SkyTrains 2 (or 1.5). In Calgary, all three lines connect to downtown. The ridership per line is only an average of 80,000 per day. Expo Line ridership is around 150,000 per day while Millenium Line is around 60,000.

Once the Canada Line and the Millenium Extension are in service, our rapid transit ridership (380,000 passengers per day or so) will be much greater than Calgary's.

Hey Cap!

If you live in a typical suburban setting,Try growing carrots and corn in your front yard.......then setting up a stand in your driveway to market them. Throw in a few pigs (the best way in the world to keep weeds down!), and perhaps some chickens...........

In South Delta the major story out here is the possible development of Southlands {Spetifore} property. The developer Sean Hodgins of Century 21 got Smart Growth BC into putting on Smart Growth workshops here last winter and spring. Since then he has used the Smart Growth name putting full page ads in the paper. Most out here equate Smart Growth and Southlands development as one in the same. Smart Growth B C has put letters in the local press stating that they are not involved with the Southlands development but too most it is a moot point.
This area is valuable habitat and a few of us out here are trying to counteract the deluge of "green" coming from Centruy 21. Of course Southlands development is the prize, Sean Hodgins and Century 21 will become very very rich if it is allowed to go through. The loss of this habitat will affect generations to come and will make the area less livable.