Wednesday, January 25, 2017

NSN on Population Changes

If you don't rush to the door each week to breathlessly peruse the North Shore News you may have missed today's lead story by the prolific Brent Richer: West Vancouver’s population shrank in 2016 and the accompanying editorial titled: Blame game(The image above is from the story, and obviously is property of the North Shore news)

In a nutshell, despite the outcry about increased density, the populations of the two North Vancouvers have only seen marginal increases, and West Vancouver has actually lost people.

In their editorial the News makes a very specific and succinct point:
The most commonly blamed culprits are our growing population and residential redevelopment. But, it seems we may have made a wrongful conviction. According to stats released by the province ...  there are fewer people living on the North Shore today than there were a year ago. 
According to BC Stats, in a region where growth and densification are the norm, we’re the laggards despite how it may appear. ...  
It’s time we started having a more evidence-based debate about the problems of and solutions for the North Shore.
If the North Shore is actually losing people it's a significant story, and  one that should frighten any of our local politicians.  I don't think it impossible that the population decline in West Vancouver could make its way across the Capilano River.

As the story in the News suggests, we still need to wait for next batch of statistics to emerge if we're going to have better idea why these changes are happening.

In the meantime, I'm going to agree with the News: lets make decisions based on facts, not emotion, and in the context of this site, let's debate facts, not speculation.


50 comments:

Hazen Colbert said...


Lets assume the population numbers are accurate.

The issue is which metrics are relevant to decision making and policy.

What causes traffic congestion - people/population? No!

Vehicles cause congestion.

So lets use the DNV which saw a 2.5% increase in population over the past 5 years. And a similar change in the previous 5 years period. In fact lets go back 15 years. What was the per capita rate of car ownership. It was .75 cars per person. What is it today - .9! Do the math. That is right. In the DNV there are 12,000 more vehicles on the road than in 2001! But wait, are we sure of those numbers. Actually the .9 is from 5 years ago - today the number is likely higher. So that is why there is congestion. Not because of density but because there are more cars. Why more cars owned in the DNV? Since the policy and decision makers out right refuse to accept that there are more cars, instead clinging to irrelevant metrics like bike usage and walking as material methods of commuting, it is difficult to answer that question.

Lets return to that 0.5% population growth rate. If the population is growing at only 0.5% then we need to add only 0.% of social housing to the inventory each year right?

Whoops. No that is not how it works.

We need to add inventory to the social housing inventory based on need.

In 2010 there were 386 people on the social housing wait list.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/MV_Housing_Data_Book.pdf

Did the list increase by 0.5% per year? NO

Today there are 615 names on the wait list.

Do the math.

Lets look only to the DNV. The DNV plans to add 50-100 social housing units to the supply each year. At that rate it would take 6-12 years JUST TO ABSORB THE EXISTING WAIT LIST. What about the 100 more names each year added?

I have stated for some time we need policy and decision makers who can grasp simple numerical calculations and can understand context as well as causation. We lack those fundamental skills in our talent pool and leadership today. We cling to long outdated metrics for decision making. We debate endlessly the accuracy of irrelevant metrics to decision making.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I will bite. Where did you get your 0.9 cars per person stat?

There is no way it is anywhere near that high. By your math, there are ~76,500 vehicles (Pop x0.9%). When you remove the non-driving public (kids <16, 80+, Ineligible Adults [Visual Impaired, Motor Function limitation, etc]), the District has about 63,400 people who could own and operate a vehicle. By your math there are 1.2 cars per person in that group. I can drive 100% of my car, but 120% is pretty rad, certainly something to shoot for.

The long and short of it is you could theoretically have 500 cars per person and it doesn't make the number of drivers in peak hours any higher, because the law of diminishing returns kicked in somewhere around .75%.

"I have stated for some time we need policy and decision makers who can grasp simple numerical calculations and can understand context as well as causation." --Hazen

I agree with your statement, but what you demonstrated is that you would be the type of decision maker that would dizzy people with numbers, ignore any real analysis, and draw baseless conclusions to suit your particular narrative.


Anonymous said...

'Vehicles cause congestion'. That's kind of a simplistic analysis there Hazen.
It's kind of like my saying that bike lanes cause congestion, or 'pedestrians first at intersections' cause congestion, or 'buses cause congestion', or 'highrises' cause congestion or 'sustainable development policies' cause congestion. It isn't any one of these things that make moving from place to place in a car more difficult that it used to be, but the combined effect of all of them and many more variables.

For example, if you build a 1000 person highrise and each of those persons has a car, you could, in theory, still see no effect on traffic congestion if you started out with roadways that were mostly empty or that were high speed throughways. On the other hand, if your intent is to remove cars from the road, as the esteemed mayor Mussatto has bleated, then you can create congestion with policy merely by restricting parking to an unreasonable degree so that anyone who drives must circle almost endlessly to find a parking space. Sound familiar?

I think these population numbers are a bit misleading, since the full effect of the people who are soon to arrive and fill the highrise developments in Lynn Valley, Seylynn and the other 'Town Centres' has yet to be felt since the construction phase is not yet complete. When they are complete, I am fairly certain those thousands of people will not biking in the rain but waiting to get on the bridge.



Anonymous said...

Thanks Anons for some rational discussion. Yes, circling on Lonsdale due to lack of parking is the norm. Same deal for mall parking. Hwy 1 was backed up to Westview by 3 pm today. Business as usual on the Shore.

Anonymous said...

The population of the region has grown and is projected to continue to do so. If the N. Vans and W. Van populations are approximately static at the moment that is a regional temporary anomaly.

Traffic moving through the N. Shore to Lion's Bay, Squamish, Whistler, the Sunshine Coast, Bowen Island, Vancouver Island and from the other regional munis - all of which have undergone population growth - along with local users are clogging Hwy 1 and that is having a domino effect on our road network.

Future population growth will exacerbate the current traffic congestion experience. Enjoy.

Anonymous said...

The NS News editorial may have been a bit shallow. "The most commonly blamed culprits are our growing population and residential redevelopment. But, it seems we may have made a wrongful conviction. According to stats released by the province ... there are fewer people living on the North Shore today than there were a year ago."

The greatest traffic congestion is in N. Van. Here is the NV population increase over the last decade

NVC population 2006 - 45,170 2016 - 53,794 Increase 19%
DNV population 2006 - 82,562 2016 - 86,602 Increase 5%

The NS News editor deduces from a one-year population comparison that "we are laggards" regarding densification.

Looks like NVC is growing density and population pretty well. Loving all those folks that sternly tell us we need "evidence based solutions."







Anonymous said...

Now the highway 1 backup... this is going south. The main cause is likely not even ON the North Shore but on Highway 1 past Cassiar tunnel and beyond.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the main cause is not entirely on the N. Shore but with NV City pushing 20% growth over the last 10 years, the majority through densification, we have to be part of the problem.

The NS News editorial was superficial to say the least.

Anonymous said...

Top three problems (IMHO)

1) Behaviour Change - Women in the workforce is a great thing for the economy (and women), but it does mean a tremendous bump in peak hour travel over the last twenty years way beyond population increase.

2) Critical Mass - Congestion doesn't kick in until you are near capacity of the bridge. The daily volumes started causing the bridge to fail going back to 2007, and it will continue to get dramatically worse even with small increases as the small increases will cascade across

3) Housing prices - Housing prices are too high for labour, service employees, and transportation workers. As we age and prices go up, we will import more and more workers to the shore causing an escalating afternoon rush.

Solutions,
Low strategic growth. Only build housing that is attractive to the labour pool we are importing, or that frees up supply by looking after a domestic need. That means purpose built rental and seniors housing so locals can down size. No more subdivisions, keep the prices suppressed by mandating mid and low end finishings, smaller unit sizes, and . At this time, luxury units will only attract people whose commuting needs will exacerbate the problem.

Hazen Colbert said...

The absence of regional amalgamation and a regional planning authority leads to analysis by municipality rather than region, regional analysis being critical to transportation planning. Add Bowen Island, Lions Bay and Squamish into the mix with DWV, CNV and DNV and one gets a very different view of population growth and vehicle growth than focusing only on the DWV.

We have a situation right now with respect to the Earl's redevelopment on Marine Drive that examples the absence of regional planning. The DWV reports that there will be no traffic impact of the development, but DNV excludes from the analysis the impact of the adjoining Grouse Inn and Larco developments because "they are in the DNV." An example is this map on dnv.org to help people get around the North Shore by highlighting construction projects. Problem is that the map excludes DWV and CNV projects even those literally taking place on top of roads etc used by DNV residents.

http://dnv.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index.html?appid=bda3e32e80ca49d9859d63ad640ffcc0

My analysis is indeed simple. The process is called Occam's Razor. No need for legions of analysts creating hypotheses based on generous assumptions. Pick the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions i.e moving vehicles create congestion, then go forward to test the hypothesis. No need to chatter about bike lanes, parking capacity etc.


Anonymous said...

If the critical mass doesn't kick in until you are at the bridge then the new Lynn Creek bridge will not alleviate the traffic congestion going back up the Cut and, after enduring the usual construction delays, we will be no further ahead just like our traffic woes were not resolved (as promised) when the Cassiar tunnels were built.

Building seniors housing (which I agree with) will not reduce congestion as we will double down. That is, driving seniors will be in the new housing and additional driving families will be in the seniors' former homes.

We need to get some folks off the roads. A N. Shore version of Skytrain from Deep Cove to Cap College to Phibbs to Lonsdale to Cap and Park Royal Malls would serve the east-west axis. Buses could serve the north-south axis until spurs can be built.







Anonymous said...

"Pick the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions i.e moving vehicles create congestion"

or

"We need to get some folks off the roads"

There's Occam's Razor and then there's Occam's Brother's 'Quickly and Easily' Razor.

The latter favours confidence in the availability of Quick and Easy answers to complex problems.

I prefer ANON'S MAXIM which says: "To every difficult, complex problem there is a quick and easy wrong answer".


Anonymous said...

So what's your point and your better solutions?

Anonymous said...

Beautifully put Anon 3:47.

The new exits will do a few things well:

1) It will make northbound traffic flow a lot better as the compaction that occurs at Lynn Creek will be gone and there will be fewer accidents as there will no longer be a dramatic difference in speed between the lanes. Subsequently you will be less likely to have sudden speed changes on the down sloping bridge deck which leads to accidents.

2) It will make westbound traffic flow better since Seymour to Lynn Valley bound traffic will have an additional, more direct route, and will no longer foul up the slow lane of Highway 1.

3) It will make Eastbound traffic flow better because Seymour traffic will not be lulled into a false sense of hope and get stuck on the cut. They will be more likely to use Keith as the primary East-west connection, taking pressure off of highway one and Main street.

4) Southbound traffic will be more separated with dividers hopefully resulting fewer collisions like this morning's debacle.

This is a good thing.

Lyle Craver said...

Population increase doesn't automatically mean more congestion or vice versa.

A big part of our increase in congestion is people moving through North Vancouver and you can't take CNV or DNV in isolation - EVERYTHING the City does impacts DNV transportion and the reverse is true but to a lesser extent. About the ONLY CNV use that doesn't impact DNV is the Seabus.

Right now both municipalities are in a major construction boom. In the natural course of things these new units will be occupied and the resultant increase will be felt. In the meantime the act of building new units particularly along arterials DOES affect congestion - I've twice changed my usual commute to work in the last 5 years for this very reason.

I don't believe the NS News editor would claim we're "laggards" since with the level of construction currently going on only a complete idiot would make that claim and I don't think the NS News editorial staff are complete idiots much as I often disagree with them!

Anonymous said...

And that is all great and it may positively impact North and Westbound traffic which has nothing to do with the southbound bridge congestion. Yes, the drivers trying to get east of Hwy 1 from the west will be assisted. While a contributor, I suspect that they are not the main group in the Hwy 1 Ironworker's daily congestion.

Anon 12:11 made the statement that "Congestion doesn't kick in until you are near capacity of the bridge". If that statement is even partially correct then the Lynn Creek bridge may be helpful for North, East and Westbound traffic but it will not be any more of a solution for the southbound congestion than the Cassiar tunnels have proven to be.

Anonymous said...

Lyle-

Don't understand how you "don't believe the NS News editor would claim we're laggards." Have you read the text of this post?

The NS News editorial is quoted as follows: "According to BC Stats, in a region where growth and densification are the norm, we’re the laggards despite how it may appear. ..."

Anonymous said...

Laggards by choice. Densifying the downtown core makes a tremendous amount of sense. Densifying other major town centres makes sense. Densifying areas with multiple, unobstructed routes to those town centres and downtown makes sense.

Densifying an area that is already short of infrastructure, has multiple natural obstacles, and is a 40 minutes commute from the employment centres doesn't make any sense at all.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes it is a bad idea to publish that someone else might be a "complete idiot."

Anonymous said...

He said they were not "complete idiots", I think he meant it as a compliment.

Anonymous said...

You have misread the quote (see below). The author "didn't believe" that the NS News editor would say we were laggards when it comes to densification...that is exactly what the NS News editor said (read Barry's post for this thread)...as only a "complete idiot would make that claim".

That being the statement, it was not meant as a compliment. It is a post by a person that didn't read the thread heading and only read the related comments.

"I don't believe the NS News editor would claim we're "laggards" since with the level of construction currently going on only a complete idiot would make that claim and I don't think the NS News editorial staff are complete idiots much as I often disagree with them!"

Hazen Colbert said...

We now know the article is factually incorrect and the mayors' mis-lead the electorate. Who knew? LOL

Census data released this week shows that the North Shore population actually increased by 4% between 2011-2016. In fact, including the Bowen Island, Lions Bay and Squamish populations, which rely on the North Shore's transportation, commercial and social infrastructure, population growth is up nearly 5% since 2011, equivalent to Canada's population growth rate.

An accurate headline should read, "North Shore population passes 200,000 for the first time.

Like filling up a bottle with a funnel where there is no spillage from the funnel until the volume of the funnel is reached and then all hell breaks loose, our transportation funnel reached that point sometime over the past 5 years.

The spillage was predicted more than 10 years ago and our City Hall and Municipal Halls ignored the projections while making the mis-leading statements found in the NSN article.

It will be interesting to see the apologists now lining up, particularly the Walton apologists, with all manner of excuses for their mismanagement.

Our population growth has outstripped infrastructure growth (actually there has been no infrastructure growth). No more dithering and apologizing.

Time for new municipal leadership from those with both real and recent experience and education dealing with contemporary urban & planning issues.

Anonymous said...

Start nominating urban and transportation planners because there's no-one on the horizon qualified to handle these problems. All we see are lawyers, CPA's, high school grads, MBA's, and career politicians. There is nobody with any actual training in the fields that could have a positive impact making the necessary decisions. They certainly aren't listening to their staff (you know, the people with the expertise and education).

Anonymous said...

"An accurate headline should read, 'North Shore population passes 200,000 for the first time.'"

But but but... That's not accurate. The North Shore is the City and District of North Vancouver and West Vancouver with a population of ~180,000. So you are redefining what constitutes the North Shore in order to reach your growth boogey man.

Fast and loose.

Anonymous said...


I recall that in the DNV we do have a professionally trained traffic planner on Council.

He recently put forward and approved a 13-week project for bike lanes on Lynn Valley Road.

We are now 15 weeks into the 13-week project with no end in sight, and the estimated cost has doubled.

Perhaps we are best off with the high school grads :-)

Anonymous said...

Will you hold all projects to the same criticism when they run over projections? Or just bike lanes? At least Mr. Bond doesn't break down in tears when he doesn't get his way.

Anonymous said...

StatsCan info from census. NV City is now the 5th most densified community in the entire country. Sorry NS News editor. No laggards here.



Anonymous said...

Is there a table?

I checked out the 2016 census dump and North Vancouver City (4,465.1/sqkm) did pass Victoria placing it third in the province behind Vancouver (5,492.6/sqkm), and New Westminster (4,543.4/sqkm), but how does 3rd in BC translate to 5th in the country? I guess with the amalgamation of Toronto all of those kinds of lists were marginalized.

Also the density is more of a function of how small the footprint of the City is vs. real metropolitan heft. Disraeli said there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned Lies, and Statistics. If you carved off the most dense 11 square kilometers of each urban center, North Van City would probably drop to around 20th.

Anonymous said...

Ba$tards!! On the List of BC Municipalities, they have the incorporation dates for the City and District Reversed. Intolerable!!

Hazen Colbert said...

Anon 1:40

Sorry you are incorrect.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170208/t001a-eng.htm

CNV is not only the 6th most dense municipality in Canada, on the list of the top 10, 4 of the municipalities are even smaller than the CNV. If one was to de-amalgamate Toronto, it is likely ONLY the cities of Toronto and North York would be ahead of the CNV.

Forget about the "lies, damned lies" etc. the CNV is one of the most densely populated municipalities in the country. AND.....it is the only one in the top 6 not to be served by a high speed public transit rail system - the only one. If that is not proof of being under served by Translink, then no proof will ever exist.

Some people may not realize that Montreal also has a North Shore (and a South Shore). Both are linked to the island by the Metro.

Oh and another thing. The population of Burnaby and Vancouver is about 1 million, same as Ottawa. Across the river from Ottawa sits Hull population 180,000 same as the North Shore here. How many bridges between Vancouver/Burnaby and the North Shore = 2. How many bridges between Ottawa/Hull = 6.

There should be a Skytrain running above Marine Drive from West Van to Cates Park which then crosses the inlet parallel (either above or beside depending on we build a bridge or tunnel) to the new Third Narrows Bridge connecting Cates Park to Lougheed Highway and the existing Skytrain there!

As I keep saying. These things are SO simple to lay out. Agreed, funding is an issue, and I do not have an answer for that one...yet.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:40.

Here is the link to most dense communities in Canada article. (Correction NVC is sixth not fifth). Vancouver is #1.

http://theprovince.com/opinion/columnists/gordon-clark-are-we-allowing-too-many-people-into-canada





Anonymous said...

I think you missed my point, but thanks for the link.

The point I was making is that within an urban area like Vancouver you could carve off 6 or 7 different 11 kmsq areas, plus three more in Burnaby (Metrotown, Brentwood, Lougheed), and Surrey Central, Richmond No.3 rd, but because those municipalities also contain ten times as much land the density calculation of the urban portion is not showing up in that entire municipality only list.

Yet another selective statistic.

Anonymous said...

I'm not missing your point, you're working too hard to create the selective statistic that you don't like.

Nothing is "carved off" of any of the communities from the StatsCan info as you propose. The actual community sq. km's and actual populations are utilized. Obviously some communities are larger with more green space and some are smaller with less. We get that.

Those are the mathematical outcomes. That's it. Like it or not NV City is the sixth most dense community in Canada as measured by StatsCan.

Anonymous said...

The stats are solid but the referenced article gets better...

"...it’s obvious we can’t keep up with growth, from exorbitant house prices, badly crowded roads, a chronically overburdened transit system, long wait lists for medical specialists and surgery, overcrowded schools and a general over-demand on government services."

Must live on the N. Shore.

Hazen Colbert said...


Regrettably the apologists have again rushed in to deny the facts and stick up for the local councils who are doling out the largess to them hand-over-fist.

The Census numbers are clear. From Squamish to Indian Arm, our population is up 5% over the past 5 years, and is ready to start rising at a much faster rate with unsustainable mega projects such as Emery Village, the Concert Waterfront project, the Grouse Inn project, Larco's Capwest, the Earl's redevelopment, the Horseshoe Bay fiasco and the Cypress Bowl development among many, many others.

We do not have enough roads, bridges, hospitals, schools etc to begin to absorb the growth. So the apologists deny the growth so they can kiss-ass and remain on their Transportation Committees, Advisory Committees etc etc. It is pathetic.

One can barely turn around in the CNV these days but the apologists have a long list of hollow claims which are outright false.

The simple, inarguable fact is that the CNV is the 6th most dense municipality in Canada, and the only one in the top six with no high speed, public transit rail network. Period.

How is this happening. Follow the money LOL

I am one of the last people to talk honestly about the subject and only because I have the legal background that prevents me from the bullying, threats etc etc that have been used to silence others. The bullies even used the RCMP to go after Kerry Morris' 17-year-old daughter to shut him down. They won't shut me down :-)

Anonymous said...

Mr. Colbert, what exactly are you accusing local councillors and staff of doing? And where is your proof? You seem to be suggesting there is rampant corruption going on. If that's what you believe and you have proof, then out with it. If you have nothing, then knock it off. You sound like that guy who thinks he's the only one with answers but, in reality, hasn't got a clue how ridiculous he is.

Anonymous said...

It's a schtick.

Ernie used it successfully for years with "the struggle continues". You imply all kinds of misty wrong-doing and you have secret inside info and are the one called to try to fix it. Of course, it never can be completely revealed and fixed and so you need to always be there and continue the struggle against the shadow forces. Successfully used by politicians of every stripe for centuries.

Another schtick is the guy who tries to appear very wise by criticizing and rejecting every piece of info put forward. It's a transparent effort to try to control others. No discussion can go forward without endlessly trying to satisfy this guy and, of course, he can never be satisfied.

On it goes.

Barry Rueger said...

Hi everyone, we're veering off on a some pretty speculative tangents, with equally unsubstantiated claims. Let's pull it back to the topics at hand.

Reading back over the last couple of days of comments one thread seems obvious: if, as is claimed by many, we're seeing ongoing population growth on the North Shore, we also need to increase the services and infrastructure to support those extra people. Some of that might be provided by the private sector, but lots of it - recreation facilities, transit, schools, water and sewer, hospitals, policing, social services - is in the hands of government - usually either local or provincial.

Locally those much needed services tend to never appear either because local politicians still want to sell the tired old "lower taxes" nonsense, or because the Province simply refuses to cough up the money for things like buses and high speed transit. Or because both of them are using the other's lack of commitment as an excuse to do nothing.

Anonymous said...

I live on a bus route. I watch empty or half empty buses drive by my house all day long. Yet every time I go on this blog everyone else seems convinced we need more transit especially high speed transit. I am curious how many people are passed by on the North Shore due to over crowded buses. I know it happens heading up to and down from CapU, but where else and how frequently?

Hazen Colbert said...


Anon 9:53, what you do not see is the status of the bus when it arrives at it's final destination in the morning rush, or departs during the afternoon rush.

There are many North Shore buses that are indeed only at 50% capacity when they get to Upper Lonsdale, Lynn Valley and Deep Cove. But go into the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby where these buses depart during the afternoon rush. "Sorry bus full" says the sign as 80 people are left standing at the bus stop at West Georgia and Burrard Street. Have you ever tried to take a bus from the West End or Park Royal to Horsehoe Bay? It is nearly impossible. Why? Because those buses departing downtown Vancouver are full before they reach Denman in the West End, and before they cross the Lions Gate.

Anon 8:55

I have NEVER said or written that there is criminal corruption. I have questioned what have to be considered bizarre monetary profiles and/or situations. For instance. Ken Tollstom of the CNV is the highest paid municipal CAO in the province. That does not make even a shred of sense. The CNV has a small population of 53,000 people. Last year Tollstom received a bonus of some $68,000 but no-one knows why. His income last year was about $370,000!!! CNV Councillors receive a car allowance. What? The CNV is smaller than Stanley Park. What possible reason is there for a car allowance???? That is why I say, "Follow the money."



Anonymous said...

Anon 9:53 am, if you are located mid-route you won't see a full bus. However get to the last stops before heading across the bridge to downtown, it's often standing room only. Especially during the morning rush hours. Try the Seabus. Just because you don't see a full bus when you happen to look out your window doesn't mean the busses don't get filled to capacity. Start actually taking transit and I'll guarantee you will experience something very different from what you just stated. If we're to really be serious about reducing trips by car, we need to make sure transit is frequent, reliable and affordable. Right now the options very clear, cars are easier for the average person who can afford them.

Hazen Colbert said...


Anon 4:26

I have never alluded to anything that violates the criminal code.

I have specifically laid out activities which violate the Community Charter. An example is that the Community Charter requires that an OCP be reviewed every 5 years. It is there in black-and-white. There is no gray area. Yet we have had, on the North Shore, a councilor vote against the legislated 5-year review. He should either be recalled, censured or simply locked up. Why? Because that is exactly what would happen to any of us if we knowingly violated an enactment! And as important, if the party will violate that enactment with the expectation of no consequences, God knows what other mischief the person has been up to. In any event and to borrow from a legal decision in the United States last week, no one is above the law.

It this type of special privilege to which I object. And I do so publicly not cloaking my identity while I skult about apologizing for bad behavior in order to kiss ass :-)

Anonymous said...

Lots of citizens go to their local council meeting and make policy, procedure or bylaw violations by staff or council or others public. Sometimes it even makes the NS News. Done it myself within the last year. Made the paper. Their identity is not "cloaked" and others who aren't interested aren't "skulking" etc. Good grief. It isn't exceptional behaviour.

Anonymous said...

I am not a daily transit user and typically only use it to get to the airport, go to sporting events, or for events at the Vancouver convention center area. From time to time I have a peak time trip that I have never had a problem getting on a bus. I have been on full buses leaving Lonsdale Quay but they are usually half full by the time I get up onto third street and most of the rest ride it to Phibbs. No problem.

My house is about halfway along two routes so I suppose it is not surprising that the buses are usually half empty in both directions, but a family member of mine commutes daily by bus and never has a problem. Most days he gets on the direct bus from downtown, and is willing to wait 15 minutes if it is too full, but on days he is impatient he takes a different bus with an exchange. To me that doesn't sound like a horribly broken system but a fairly robust flexible system, yet everywhere I turn I hear outrage and dissatisfaction with our system.

We can't afford the all-things-to-all-people transit system and want to know if there are some small things we can do to make it run a little better.

I heard that one of the problems with CapU traffic is that if you end up at Phibb's you can get stuck fro a few rotations because the buses come in full from other centers, why not have a shuttle loop back and forth to CapU only so it completely empties every time...

Anonymous said...

So, the bottom line is that NV City is densifying contrary to the NS News editorial quote. Now the traffic congestion etc. make sense.

Anonymous said...

No, you haven't been paying attention. The traffic is a result of growth all over the region and people commuting through the North Shore to home and work. This in addition to the traffic within each municipality is compounding things. Need to get people working closer to where they live or provide a more robust transit system to make it actually viable for people to leave cars,at home and free up space on the roads.

Barry Rueger said...

We can't afford the all-things-to-all-people transit system and want to know if there are some small things we can do to make it run a little better.

I'm obliged to note that we can ALWAYS afford big multilane bridges for cars, so the argument that we "can't afford" transit is really not true.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Anon 8:47, I agree that you are correct. The regional population, as a whole, has exploded as has NV City over the last decade. All of which support the observations as posted by Anon 10:04 at the link:

http://theprovince.com/opinion/columnists/gordon-clark-are-we-allowing-too-many-people-into-canada

With a level of growth that places an untenable stain on services and resources, it begs the question, "are we allowing too many people into Canada?"

Anonymous said...

Correction sp. "stain" should be "strain". Apologies.

Anonymous said...

"are we allowing too many people into Canada?"

The national growth rate, including refugees and immigration, has hovered around 1% for 30 years.

"I'm obliged to note that we can ALWAYS afford big multilane bridges for cars, so the argument that we "can't afford" transit is really not true."

The concept of a third crossing to the North Shore was first discussed in the 1930's. So I have to challenge your assertion that we "ALWAYS afford big multilane bridges". The big bridges have been because there are a million more residents south of the Fraser than there were thirty years ago.

When bloggers suggest we build rapid transit to Deep Cove and have zero regard for costs, I get a little squirrely.