Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Vin]

Of course, I have been waiting when they are going to announce this.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-property-tax-increase

8.2% property tax increase for 2020. Who still thinks developers are paying for the viaducts coming down?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Of course, I have been waiting when they are going to announce this.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-property-tax-increase

8.2% property tax increase for 2020. Who still thinks developers are paying for the viaducts coming down?

You understand capital and operating costs, right?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

15 metres confirmed (page 13). Again though, that's still a lot of assumptions and a lot of additional landscaping for just two extra northbound lanes, when City Hall finds it easier to just turn Dunsmuir into a biker/pedestrian ramp and have drivers use Georgia and Expo. I'll point out that current models have the new grid adequately handling current levels of traffic - now slightly declining - and that both City Council and the public want a High Line (which, mind you, would take up the entire street up until the park).

Honestly, I'm liking the Pacific streetcar less and less - especially now that the NEFC team wants it to be a mixed-traffic branch. I think an upgraded 23 would be better.



I don't follow. We're talking about ring roads and the relative size of their cities; Columbus has a ring road which is nowhere near its downtown, and could likely function just fine without the central freeways.

---

Oakland and Century City started out as offices, that's fair, but most of the growth came from new residents. Going back to Bellevue, the place was already somewhat big even ten years before Microsoft moved in - and MS started in Redmond, which is definitely not very dense or tall.
Surrey and Metrotown began as malls, and now they're getting new residents, new universities and new offices. They've had a slow start, it's true, but history is repeating itself.

As for space, even downtown Vancouver's still got room left over. I'm not worried about Surrey running out even in the far future.

Yes, and it would be easier to just remove the viaducts and keep the current ground road network (instead of redesigning it to accommodate better traffic flow as in the current plan). People realized that was dumb and designed a bidirectional system that queued traffic to take turns on the use of the corridor, reducing congestion.

This is the same thing all over again. The difference is that no one cares enough about the streetcar to fight for it, not even the 'urbanist' Vancouver.

But it's clearly a minimalistic path, not a 'High Line'. If it WAS an attempt at a 'High Line', I would agree with you. The view on the top will no doubt be nice, but it's just not that ambitious.

Exactly, you just proved my point. If there was enough space to begin with, 'mixed traffic' wouldn't even BE an issue. There would actually be a purpose to that part of the streetcar, as in it would improve transit service to Yaletown.




Yes. And that image clearly shows a mostly-office oriented center.

Most growth in DTs will inevitably end up as new residents due to the required extra FSR in residences vs jobs (for one, not everyone moving in will work)- mixed-use is the goal of every downtown center. But the core started out as offices.

In Metrotown, Brentwood, and Surrey, there are office developments, but they either end up replacing office space lost to redevelopment (Brentwood) have difficulty filling up (Metrotown), or have difficulty getting built in the first place (Surrey). You can dump as many public institutions into a place as you want. But this is a capitalist country, you can't force companies who don't want to move TO move.

DT Vancouver's pretty much running out of space, with most of the parkades and parking spaces let either being built on or having some proposal at various stages of completion. Most of the areas for redevelopment are either older buildings, on peripheral areas of DT (Yaletown, Gastown, NEFC). One of the only exceptions that comes to mind is the Hudson's Bay Parkade.

Of course, DT can sprawl out into the DTES/Chinatown, Broadway, and the West End, and probably will, but the prime land closest to the core is already practically filled up. The existing office clusters nearby is a positive reinforcement for offices further out, but still nearby.

Surrey, if companies eventually do decide the locate their en masse, may have to deal with that from the get-go, which inherently makes it more unattractive. It's a negative feedback loop.
How many companies want their corporate HQs on Scott Road (or maybe even Gateway) rather than Surrey Central/King George?

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

parking on arterial's is ridiculous. Easy Park is owned by the CoV and as a condicition of development along an arterial developers should be required to build some amount of public-pay parking that Easy Park would manage to replace the meter spots on the arterial.

with the end game being that arterial's are used for the movement of people and goods, not for parking since that is a terribly inefficient use of that space.

Arterials having street parking is generally for businesses or to be used for future road expansions. It's an alternative to make ultra-wide sidewalks/green space on the sides of roads (as is done in the suburbs).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yes, and it would be easier to just remove the viaducts and keep the current ground road network (instead of redesigning it to accommodate better traffic flow as in the current plan). People realized that was dumb and designed a bidirectional system that queued traffic to take turns on the use of the corridor, reducing congestion.

This is the same thing all over again. The difference is that no one cares enough about the streetcar to fight for it, not even the 'urbanist' Vancouver.

But it's clearly a minimalistic path, not a 'High Line'. If it WAS an attempt at a 'High Line', I would agree with you. The view on the top will no doubt be nice, but it's just not that ambitious.

Exactly, you just proved my point. If there was enough space to begin with, 'mixed traffic' wouldn't even BE an issue. There would actually be a purpose to that part of the streetcar, as in it would improve transit service to Yaletown.

Leaving Pacific as-is was never an option. Practically every iteration was set to handle existing levels of vehicle traffic (albeit a couple minutes slower at rush hour), and none of them required tampering with Dunsmuir.

Isn't the actual High Line basically just a path?
The Connection's a placeholder right now. There's currently a consultation for the final product, which even in the renders looks about as wide as NYC's.

No, because then you have the exact same thing as Surrey would've had: an expensive, slightly-bigger bus. About three years' worth of posts ago, there was blueprints for a streetcar median down Pacific, and IIRC the consensus was that even that was a bit iffy. Mixed-traffic just downgrades that branch from a "maybe" to a "maybe minus."

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yes. And that image clearly shows a mostly-office oriented center.

Most growth in DTs will inevitably end up as new residents due to the required extra FSR in residences vs jobs (for one, not everyone moving in will work)- mixed-use is the goal of every downtown center. But the core started out as offices.

In Metrotown, Brentwood, and Surrey, there are office developments, but they either end up replacing office space lost to redevelopment (Brentwood) have difficulty filling up (Metrotown), or have difficulty getting built in the first place (Surrey). You can dump as many public institutions into a place as you want. But this is a capitalist country, you can't force companies who don't want to move TO move.

DT Vancouver's pretty much running out of space, with most of the parkades and parking spaces let either being built on or having some proposal at various stages of completion. Most of the areas for redevelopment are either older buildings, on peripheral areas of DT (Yaletown, Gastown, NEFC). One of the only exceptions that comes to mind is the Hudson's Bay Parkade.

Of course, DT can sprawl out into the DTES/Chinatown, Broadway, and the West End, and probably will, but the prime land closest to the core is already practically filled up. The existing office clusters nearby is a positive reinforcement for offices further out, but still nearby.

Surrey, if companies eventually do decide the locate their en masse, may have to deal with that from the get-go, which inherently makes it more unattractive. It's a negative feedback loop.
How many companies want their corporate HQs on Scott Road (or maybe even Gateway) rather than Surrey Central/King George?

Well, you said Bellevue had Microsoft, and I said yes, but they were already big before MS moved in. I'm not going to cross-reference every tower to see which are offices - town centres do need jobs, but jobs need employees; that cycle doesn't really have a beginning.

Good news, Surrey's packed with older buildings! Sure, central Whalley's going to fill up over the long term, but it's not like 99% of the growth will be condo parks (which seem to be scattered throughout the city right now), and they're definitely not going to match Vancouver's saturation any time soon. The lack of businesses interested in the area seems to come from lack of urbanization/amenities, so more residents and more development should attract more offices. Heck, they've got office towers in the pipeline as we speak.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Leaving Pacific as-is was never an option. Practically every iteration was set to handle existing levels of vehicle traffic (albeit a couple minutes slower at rush hour), and none of them required tampering with Dunsmuir.

Isn't the actual High Line basically just a path?
The Connection's a placeholder right now. There's currently a consultation for the final product, which even in the renders looks about as wide as NYC's.

No, because then you have the exact same thing as Surrey would've had: an expensive, slightly-bigger bus. About three years' worth of posts ago, there was blueprints for a streetcar median down Pacific, and IIRC the consensus was that even that was a bit iffy. Mixed-traffic just downgrades that branch from a "maybe" to a "maybe minus."



Well, you said Bellevue had Microsoft, and I said yes, but they were already big before MS moved in. I'm not going to cross-reference every tower to see which are offices - town centres do need jobs, but jobs need employees; that cycle doesn't really have a beginning.

Good news, Surrey's packed with older buildings! Sure, central Whalley's going to fill up over the long term, but it's not like 99% of the growth will be condo parks (which seem to be scattered throughout the city right now), and they're definitely not going to match Vancouver's saturation any time soon. The lack of businesses interested in the area seems to come from lack of urbanization/amenities, so more residents and more development should attract more offices. Heck, they've got office towers in the pipeline as we speak.

Well, yeah, otherwise Georgia would be cut off. That's my point, though, extreme or not. 'Easier' is often not 'better'.

The High Line is somewhat wider than a Vancouver than the Dunsmuir overpass would need to be. (10m). Though that still leaves ~1.75 lanes left to work with. I actually can't find any actual examples of what I'd be looking for. The cost would be enormous, but it would be sort of reminiscent of proposals to turn the Port Mann into an elevated park, at least in terms of width (~21.4m to work with). That's enough to build freaking restaurants on. I don't even know if there's something like that out there. Most of the ones I can think of got hammered down.

It would have been a faster and bigger bus on rails. It can be BRT too, but the city wants rails... so I assumed rails. LRT/BRT on Surrey was about 1.2-3x faster on average than Best Bus options.


For Broadway, the improvement is similar (Best Bus in this case involves using very-limited stop services to hit the numbers shown, so the comparison is BAU)


For transit services, the Pacific Spur also provides the possibility to connect Skytrain and Artubus to the West End (the Coal Harbour one both doesn't seem like it would be received that well and would cut through Georgia St to get to the West End).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, yeah, otherwise Georgia would be cut off. That's my point, though, extreme or not. 'Easier' is often not 'better'.

The High Line is somewhat wider than a Vancouver than the Dunsmuir overpass would need to be. (10m). Though that still leaves ~1.75 lanes left to work with. I actually can't find any actual examples of what I'd be looking for. The cost would be enormous, but it would be sort of reminiscent of proposals to turn the Port Mann into an elevated park, at least in terms of width (~21.4m to work with). That's enough to build freaking restaurants on. I don't even know if there's something like that out there. Most of the ones I can think of got hammered down.

City planning's done the math, and the current plan handles traffic fine. Even a feasible Dunsmuir Ramp seems like a high cost, low reward suggestion.

I suppose it depends on which part of the High Line we're talking about; of any random ten images, at least seven give a total guideway width of 10m or less.

Originally Posted by fredinno

It would have been a faster and bigger bus on rails. It can be BRT too, but the city wants rails... so I assumed rails. LRT/BRT on Surrey was about 1.2-3x faster on average than Best Bus options.

For Broadway, the improvement is similar (Best Bus in this case involves using very-limited stop services to hit the numbers shown, so the comparison is BAU)

For transit services, the Pacific Spur also provides the possibility to connect Skytrain and Artubus to the West End (the Coal Harbour one both doesn't seem like it would be received that well and would cut through Georgia St to get to the West End).

Thing is, English Bay to Main Street Station on the 23 is about twenty minutes; 75% of twenty is fifteen minutes. And both Broadway and Surrey's tram pitches were pegged at $165M/km (and since Pacific is on-street and downtown, that price isn't dropping); over 5.5km, that's almost a billion... to save five minutes and carry slightly more people than an artic? We're not even at trolley capacity yet!

Streetcars make sense on False Creek and Arbutus because of the cheap ROW and SkyTrain redundancy, and kinda-sorta on the rest of Quebec because it's a short dash to Waterfront through busy districts with potential for traffic calming or road closures, but the West End would be better served with a SkyTrain extension.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Thing is, English Bay to Main Street Station on the 23 is about twenty minutes; 75% of twenty is fifteen minutes. And both Broadway and Surrey's tram pitches were pegged at $165M/km (and since Pacific is on-street and downtown, that price isn't dropping); over 5.5km, that's almost a billion... to save five minutes and carry slightly more people than an artic? We're not even at trolley capacity yet!

Streetcars make sense on False Creek and Arbutus because of the cheap ROW and SkyTrain redundancy, and kinda-sorta on the rest of Quebec because it's a short dash to Waterfront through busy districts with potential for traffic calming or road closures, but the West End would be better served with a SkyTrain extension.

I'm guessing a Coal Harbour LRT/BRT lane system could supplant the current Georgia bus lane with a full BRT/bidirectional system... Which now than I think about it makes the Coal Harbour Spur make more sense.

Logically you'd be supplanting the 6 AND 23, and running on the 6 (which is the higher use line to the West End. Note that the most current proposals for the Pac Spur exit to Drake St (the modern version would be to go to Drake Street). The 6 is just about maxing out the frequency on mixed-traffic non-artic trolley buses on peak.

A Skytrain would most likely go on Georgia/Alberni/Robson (the corridor with more bus traffic). Davie/Pacific is near the edge of the catchment area (10+ minutes walking). Meanwhile Skytrain on Robson would cost ~$1B accounting for 25% cost contingency (as TransLink's costs always do). And that routing is about a km shorter than Denman-Davie to Stadium-Chinatown Skytrain.

I'd also argue that the spur to Pacific makes the Artubus more useful for connecting to Downtown, since commuters avoid transfers to the most congested section of the Canada and Expo Line to access DT South /DT East/Yaletown. Part of the point of the Artubus is to increase the longevity of the Canada, not decrease it!

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

...that's almost a billion... to save five minutes and carry slightly more people than an artic? We're not even at trolley capacity yet!

There's precious little margin where street level LRT makes sense in Vancouver. By the time you've maxed out a growing route with frequent local and express articulated buses you've already got enough current and future ridership to justify a grade-separated service. Broadway is a great case study for this.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I'm guessing a Coal Harbour LRT/BRT lane system could supplant the current Georgia bus lane with a full BRT/bidirectional system... Which now than I think about it makes the Coal Harbour Spur make more sense.

Logically you'd be supplanting the 6 AND 23, and running on the 6 (which is the higher use line to the West End. Note that the most current proposals for the Pac Spur exit to Drake St (the modern version would be to go to Drake Street). The 6 is just about maxing out the frequency on mixed-traffic non-artic trolley buses on peak.

Not really, because Georgia itself is a destination; same reason the Broadway extension has to be on Broadway. I understand that Georgia needs all the traffic capacity it can get, but the bus lane's probably staying.

The 6 is nowhere near bursting point though; artics can increase capacity, and a SkyTrain, even on Georgia, will reduce demand. Besides, I've yet to see any streetcar plan that has the Pacific Spur go past Roundhouse, though that might change as the plan gets finalized.

Originally Posted by fredinno

A Skytrain would most likely go on Georgia/Alberni/Robson (the corridor with more bus traffic). Davie/Pacific is near the edge of the catchment area (10+ minutes walking). Meanwhile Skytrain on Robson would cost ~$1B accounting for 25% cost contingency (as TransLink's costs always do). And that routing is about a km shorter than Denman-Davie to Stadium-Chinatown Skytrain.

I'd also argue that the spur to Pacific makes the Artubus more useful for connecting to Downtown, since commuters avoid transfers to the most congested section of the Canada and Expo Line to access DT South /DT East/Yaletown. Part of the point of the Artubus is to increase the longevity of the Canada, not decrease it!

The Canada Line (prior to the new trains) was using 6k out of a possible 15k pphpd; even the best surface bus/rail options have a total capacity of 6k pphpd. When the C-Line overloads, we're going to need a bit more than 1.4x the capacity, but squeezing any more from a tram requires trains too long or frequencies too tight for downtown... at which point you need to bury it... and the cost of doing that means you might as well have built a tunneled line in the first place. Build it once, build it big - especially in a downtown area.

For more information, check the Surrey Rapid Transit thread - tl;dr, effective street rail supplements the RT backbone, rather than being the backbone itself. I'd say that the West End - and the DT Core overall - needs a backbone.

So sure, Broadway-City Hall to Waterfront is going to overload eventually, but then that calls for a second False Creek crossing instead of a "low"-capacity roundabout loop around it. I'm thinking of one branch of a Hastings Line down Burrard/Granville to Arbutus-Broadway and another to Stanley Park (which would help anchor the Coal Harbour tram too).

And on that note, perhaps we should move this to the Transit or Transit Fantasies thread?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You understand capital and operating costs, right?

Did our City suddenly have an explosion of 8.2% of population and corresponding infrastructure overnight, with no increase in tax revenue whatsoever? That's operating costs for you. Keep believing in what you are told, lad.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Vin

Did our City suddenly have an explosion of 8.2% of population and corresponding infrastructure overnight, with no increase in tax revenue whatsoever? That's operating costs for you. Keep believing in what you are told, lad.

No, but a decade of keeping property tax rate increases hovering around 2% are catching up to the city.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's precious little margin where street level LRT makes sense in Vancouver. By the time you've maxed out a growing route with frequent local and express articulated buses you've already got enough current and future ridership to justify a grade-separated service. Broadway is a great case study for this.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not really, because Georgia itself is a destination; same reason the Broadway extension has to be on Broadway. I understand that Georgia needs all the traffic capacity it can get, but the bus lane's probably staying.

The 6 is nowhere near bursting point though; artics can increase capacity, and a SkyTrain, even on Georgia, will reduce demand. Besides, I've yet to see any streetcar plan that has the Pacific Spur go past Roundhouse, though that might change as the plan gets finalized.



The Canada Line (prior to the new trains) was using 6k out of a possible 15k pphpd; even the best surface bus/rail options have a total capacity of 6k pphpd. When the C-Line overloads, we're going to need a bit more than 1.4x the capacity, but squeezing any more from a tram requires trains too long or frequencies too tight for downtown... at which point you need to bury it... and the cost of doing that means you might as well have built a tunneled line in the first place. Build it once, build it big - especially in a downtown area.

For more information, check the Surrey Rapid Transit thread - tl;dr, effective street rail supplements the RT backbone, rather than being the backbone itself. I'd say that the West End - and the DT Core overall - needs a backbone.

So sure, Broadway-City Hall to Waterfront is going to overload eventually, but then that calls for a second False Creek crossing instead of a "low"-capacity roundabout loop around it. I'm thinking of one branch of a Hastings Line down Burrard/Granville to Arbutus-Broadway and another to Stanley Park (which would help anchor the Coal Harbour tram too).

And on that note, perhaps we should move this to the Transit or Transit Fantasies thread?

These remarks are very pertinent to Transit Fantasies, yes, but equally pertinent, IMO to the entire Viaduct Removal issue, because this extrapolates outward to include all of downtown.
Since the entire issue of transportation, and people-moving, by car or transit, in and out of downtown is implicated here. Is not the concept of rrt under Georgia germane to this? IMO, yes.

Or what about - in another thread, Complete Streets, where the concepts overlap somewhat - the idea by someone to "double deck" Georgia with underground road and rrt?
My fear is that "underbuilding," although perhaps considered environmentally friendly now, may catch up to the city in several decades, as it continues to grow and expand.

There will be more building in the downtown peninsula, more LGB commuter traffic, more traffic (pph) in and ouit of downtown from all directions by all means, road and transit.
As such, is it not incumbent on planners to not only enhance the city street-level experience and environment, but also plan for other infastructure to take up the slack?

Planning now and building in the immediate, for road and rrt capacity in and out of the nexus of downtown, is, IMO, a huge responsibility requiring vision and foresight.
It involves handling the traffic that will be displaced by viaduct removal, yes, but also and equally importantly, the entire flow map of central Vancouver in/outbound traffic.
The transit Fantasy thread is for that, if you prefer, but an issue that if not pressing, urgent and critical now, will become so in the future. Thank you for time.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

No, but a decade of keeping property tax rate increases hovering around 2% are catching up to the city.

Property taxes are tied to assessed property values, which are set by B.C. Assessment. The size of the budget is set by the city.
Source:
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...-with-8-2-per-cent-property-tax-increase

The City should be flush with cash from the last 2 decades of property tax increases when assessed property value surged upwards of 150% or even more (both residential and commercial). I wonder where all that extra money goes to.....

Nice try buddy.

[SFUVancouver]

That's not how property taxes work. Cities establish their budget and set a mill rate to raise this. Appreciating property value doesn't automatically mean a proportionately increasing property tax bill.

Year 1
$100 property value.
$1, property's share of city budget.
1% mill rate.

Year 2
$150 property value.
$1.25, property's share of city budget.
0.83% mill rate.

Year 3
$250 property value.
$1.50, property's share of city budget.
0.6% mill rate.

Year 4
$500 property value. (Great year!)
$5, property's share of city budget. (Yikes, the city bought solid gold manhole covers, which were instantly stolen, necessitating costly and continuous replacement.)
1% mill rate.

Year 5
$80 property value (the rampant crime of manhole covers, risk of driving with missing manhole covers, and risk of death from murder robots [see below] has depressed property values and emptied out the city of potential buyers.)
$13,000, property's share of city budget (the City paid a fortune to buy those terrifying Boston Dynamics robots to patrol the streets and kill solid gold manhole cover thieves on sight. Unfortunately, this has exposed the city to enormous settlements as bugs in the Boston Dynamics murder robot software led them to view all road users as thieves.)
16,250% mill rate. (Wait, is that right?)

Etc. Etc.

The variable that affects your property taxes is the city budget, not your property value.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

... Or what about - in another thread, Complete Streets, where the concepts overlap somewhat - the idea by someone to "double deck" Georgia with underground road and rrt?
My fear is that "underbuilding," although perhaps considered environmentally friendly now, may catch up to the city in several decades, as it continues to grow and expand.

There will be more building in the downtown peninsula, more LGB commuter traffic, more traffic (pph) in and ouit of downtown from all directions by all means, road and transit.
As such, is it not incumbent on planners to not only enhance the city street-level experience and environment, but also plan for other infastructure to take up the slack?

Planning now and building in the immediate, for road and rrt capacity in and out of the nexus of downtown, is, IMO, a huge responsibility requiring vision and foresight.
It involves handling the traffic that will be displaced by viaduct removal, yes, but also and equally importantly, the entire flow map of central Vancouver in/outbound traffic.
The transit Fantasy thread is for that, if you prefer, but an issue that if not pressing, urgent and critical now, will become so in the future. Thank you for time.

Thing is, if you've only got the resources for one project, shouldn't it be the one that gets you the most value for money? Given the ability of the existing NEFC plan to handle existing traffic, and the increasing number of drivers opting to walk or ride instead, underground roadspace is becoming more and more of a white elephant as compared to a subway.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Thing is, if you've only got the resources for one project, shouldn't it be the one that gets you the most value for money? Given the ability of the existing NEFC plan to handle existing traffic, and the increasing number of drivers opting to walk or ride instead, underground roadspace is becoming more and more of a white elephant as compared to a subway.

No argument! A subway is preferable to underground roadspace: cleaner, faster, more capacious, safer .......
However, there are instances where underground "purpose-built" roadspace provides a linking, or "express" function when built on a limited scale, is effective.
Examples that spring to mind are Geary Street in San Francisco, the Hyde Park Underpass in London, and the new underground expressway under central Stockholm.
Rapid transit is the preferable option, of course, but as cars are going to be here for a while yet, they have to be dealt with and handled. Perhaps 'Metro' might agree.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

No argument! A subway is preferable to underground roadspace: cleaner, faster, more capacious, safer .......
However, there are instances where underground "purpose-built" roadspace provides a linking, or "express" function when built on a limited scale, is effective.
Examples that spring to mind are Geary Street in San Francisco, the Hyde Park Underpass in London, and the new underground expressway under central Stockholm.
Rapid transit is the preferable option, of course, but as cars are going to be here for a while yet, they have to be dealt with and handled. Perhaps 'Metro' might agree.

But do we need one when congestion is mostly due to pedestrian conflicts, additional signals and lack of turn lanes, and traffic is technically declining? And when we only have the resources for a car tunnel OR a train tunnel?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But do we need one when congestion is mostly due to pedestrian conflicts, additional signals and lack of turn lanes, and traffic is technically declining? And when we only have the resources for a car tunnel OR a train tunnel?

The TRAIN tunnel, most certainly. Just hope that the engineering and planning is done right with maximum catchment area, and most effective station locations & tunnel routing.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

That's not how property taxes work. Cities establish their budget and set a mill rate to raise this. Appreciating property value doesn't automatically mean a proportionately increasing property tax bill.

Year 1
$100 property value.
$1, property's share of city budget.
1% mill rate.

Year 2
$150 property value.
$1.25, property's share of city budget.
0.83% mill rate.

Year 3
$250 property value.
$1.50, property's share of city budget.
0.6% mill rate.

Year 4
$500 property value. (Great year!)
$5, property's share of city budget. (Yikes, the city bought solid gold manhole covers, which were instantly stolen, necessitating costly and continuous replacement.)
1% mill rate.

Year 5
$80 property value (the rampant crime of manhole covers, risk of driving with missing manhole covers, and risk of death from murder robots [see below] has depressed property values and emptied out the city of potential buyers.)
$13,000, property's share of city budget (the City paid a fortune to buy those terrifying Boston Dynamics robots to patrol the streets and kill solid gold manhole cover thieves on sight. Unfortunately, this has exposed the city to enormous settlements as bugs in the Boston Dynamics murder robot software led them to view all road users as thieves.)
16,250% mill rate. (Wait, is that right?)

Etc. Etc.

The variable that affects your property taxes is the city budget, not your property value.

I never said it would be a proportional to the BC Assessment rate, did I? I knew someone like yourself would come in to "prove me wrong". Since you are so good at doing the calculations, let me ask you a simple question: "what is the total percentage increase of property taxes across the board for the last 20 years then?"

Would it also be much more than the 2% increase mentioned by CanSpice? As you must have read the previous comments, the point of the argument here is that CoV cannot claim they are justified to implement the 8.2% increase in property taxes, as they had already received a windfall from the past 2 decades. Conclusion: CoV's desperation for cash is meant for something else, ie. tearing down viaducts.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

The City should be flush with cash from the last 2 decades of property tax increases when assessed property value surged upwards of 150% or even more (both residential and commercial). I wonder where all that extra money goes to.....

Nice try buddy.

That's not how property taxes work. Do a little research.