Since the discussion on the last thread has been primarily about densification and sustainability, I thought it appropriate to copy and paste this full page advertisement which appeared in a North Shore newspaper 4 years ago. It was written by the late Ernie Crist who served as a North Vancouver District Councillor for 25 years.
The North American City is the product of the automobile. It shaped our lives, our culture, and our economic priorities. Land was plentiful, oil cheap and Henry Ford an American hero who turned mass production of cars into a religion.
However, the imperatives for radical change are now upon us. Our reliance on the automobile to commute in the city is past.
Whether we can make the transition to a new 21st century and human environment or not will determine our survival. Global warming is not a myth, the economic cost of single vehicle transportation is not a myth, nor is the waste of land nor is the staggering cost to our health and the depletion of fossil fuel. Change is no longer an option. It is a challenge we will either meet head on or we will suffer serious consequences.
The new 21st century liveable city is designed for people not cars, stated world renowned city planner Hans Blumenfeld on his visit to Vancouver almost 30 years ago. Indeed there are no cars to speak of and to the extent that they exist, they are the exception not the rule.
Transportation in the new city is based on mass transit. It is efficient, convenient, cheap, and pollution free. It is virtually noiseless and pleasing to the eye. It is in harmony with the city’s architecture. It is part and parcel of a new human friendly environment in which people speak to each other and relax while traveling at great speed moving to their destination. It is an antidote to alienation and comprises everything from rapid trains, noiseless street cars, to buses, ferries and mini buses.
The new city has plenty of trees, parks, playing fields, indoor and outdoor recreation and cultural facilities. Most neighbourhoods are self contained for efficiency and yes, there are high-rises. Indeed, compact developments are the rule rather than the exception while total green space is enhanced and pedestrian friendly.
However, the new proposal for high-rises in Lynn Valley is not conducive to this objective. It is the exact opposite. It is outmoded and reactionary.
Far from decreasing reliance on the car it will enhance it. Far from less pollution, there will be more. Far from generating less traffic congestion, there will be more. The reason is that the most important element of enhanced liveability, as outlined in numerous vision statements by the worlds most credible town planners, will be missing, namely a transportation system which reflects this concept and must be its backbone.
If the proposal for high-rises in Lynn Valley, in the name of motherhood and apple pie, is implemented as it will unless the people stand up now and stop it, everything which is outdated now will be worse. Any and all talk to the contrary is at best wishful thinking or an out and out hoax as was the previous densification of the Lynn Valley Core sold to the people of Lynn Valley as a “Pedestrian Oriented Town Center”.
59 comments:
Ernie decried densified living in Lynn Valley and private cars.
Ernie lived in a multifamily complex in Lynn Valley and drove a private car.
Ernie was an astue politician.
Nice non-word astue.
John, Ernie did not write this, we wrote it together.
Wendy
Point being politicians extolling the joy of the massess standing at the bus stop in the rain while they drive by in their private car is a bit much.
Same goes for opposition to densification while living in the same area in a multifamily complex smacks of "I'm alright Jack."
Some densification is a positive step while unbridled densification would negatively impact the community.
Anybody can whine about change. I lived in Lynn Valley before Ernie's apartment was built on Fromme Pl. and enjoyed walking in the pristine woods there but I accepted that the densification of that area was a positive step.
As opposed to criticizing the individuals who sourced the advertisement, why not address the actual issue and argument itself?
For example many people have no choice but, to own and drive a car because there are no practical alternatives. This doesn't mean ideally we don't want change to alternative transportaion(especially in North Van.) or that they are hypocritical. Many elected officials and engaged citizens drive cars but, it doesn't mean their voices shouldn't be heard regarding on this issue.
Whoever wrote that article was opining on outdated urban theory. And then half way turns a 180 and disagrees with what he wrote. Sorry, but I think Ernie really didn't know what he was talking about. Politicians and bureaucrats will end up causing more harm than good.
Forget the 30 year old text books and get out and see what functioning density looks like. Become a student of the built environment and learn what works and what doesn't. And while you're doing that, factor in the automobile, because it isn't going anywhere for a very long time.
Perhaps the word Community can have the second I dropped in the title?
Exactly,
So why do you want more automobiles in Lynn Valley? I already cannot turn left onto Lynn Valley Road out of Draycott Road.
I have to spend money on gas to get around. And more pollution.
Just because we pseudo politicos drive cars doesn't mean we are pro-develiopment. We need to get around because our lousy TransLink doesn't look after us.
If I had a viable bus to take, to for example Seymour, for a meeting, I would take it.
It is not available.
Why do you think increased density brings more automobiles. Studies have shown that people who live in higher density typically have fewer cars than those people living in detached forms of housing. The transit is there to be used if you care to adjust your schedule to use it. Many people do so on a daily basis. Is it as convenient as a car? No usually, but it can be done with a bit of planning on your part. I've yet to see any place on the North Shore where traffic is really all that bad. I think people who complain about the traffic, likely haven't got a lot of patience, or think they're too important to have to wait to make a left hand turn.
Translink has repeatedly said, the service won't improve without the density to support the service. I can't say that I blame them. They can't support themselves with the current ridership and subsidies, yet you want them to become even more inefficient with more buses to serve a small population? Not going to happen. Nor should tax payers stand for it to happen.
Create nodes of density so that they can be serviced easily and efficiently by local, or 'intranodal' transit and joined by 'internodal' transit. Use of the low roads between the two Districts and the City would be ideal for linking the communities with branches from their servicing the nodes of density.
Oh, and Wendy, don't blame others for the fact that you're resigned to using your car and polluting. That's squarely on your shoulders. Schedule yourself around the presently available transit like folks without cars do. That or take up cycling.
I would love to know. What is the normal predominant method of transportation for N. Shore adult residents broken down into %?
Once we figure that out, let's demand that $$ are appropriated into facilitating improvements to the various methods commensurate with their use.
Let's put the discussion and $$ into the methods most used and needed by those who pay for them.
If 2% of the population commutes by skateboard then I don't want to see more than 2% of our time, effort and $$ devoted to those issues.
Anon Saturday, February 19, 2011 6:27:00 PM,
You can read all sorts of BC stats on the subject here. I couldn't find anything specific to the North Shore, but suspect you could apply these provincial averages to our communities, give or take a few percentage points.
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/es/ES2008-2.pdf
Thank you for the informative link Anon 9:25.
For those that don't want to read the 13 pages - an executive summary:
The approximate stats are for people commuting to work, in Vancouver, in 2006.
Private car - 75%
Transit - 17%
Walk, cycle, other - 8%
(Cycle is only 2% of the 8%)
These figures don't include "non-commuting to work adults" such as the retired, stay-at-home parenting etc. Also, given the steep hills on the N. Shore I would suspect that the use of motor vehicles may be somewhat higher than Vancouver.
Clearly our preferred method of transportation is the car so the lion's share of our transportation resources should be targeted to ensure that our vehicle transportation routes are as user-friendly and efficient as possible.
For my sustainable community I'd like my tax dollars appropriated to our actual taxpayer use. Actual means real - not some politician's social experiment.
Please tick my tax dollar "transportation" box at 75% streets, highways and bridges, 17% translink, and 8% other.
So when I look at my taxes, I pay 7% (using column A - No Grant). For Column C-Additional grant this rises to 9%.
I forgot to mention that those amounts I pay in my taxes are designated for Translink. Not sure how that relates to the 17% ridership, but there it is.
Anon 11:41. For clarity, I'm suggesting that taxpayers pay proportionately for those goods and services that the taxpayers actually really use.
It doesn't work that way at the moment. We may pay for things we don't want that are the pet theory of politicians.
They decide that we are going to build fast ferries that don't work, put a retractable dome on the stadium for more than $1/2 billion, and install bike lanes for $3 million cost (when 2% of Vancouverites use a bike to commute) etc and we pay for it.
I'm tired of the tail wagging the dog and want to pay for those things we really use in the proportion that the majority use them.
I want to make my community sustainable on that basis.
Ernie and I spent a lot of time writing this. Our quality of life is at stake.
If you really care about Lynn Valley, show up at District Hall tomorrow:
Dear Friends of the environment:
Please come out an speak up about this at 7pm, Monday, February 21st
This Fromme Trails Update: to extend Grant work term from March 2011 to October 2011, was added to the Agenda item for DNV Council Meeting, February 21st, 7pm
http://www.dnv.org/upload/documents/Council_Agendas_Minutes/110221RCAA.pdf
The DNV has been dishonest and secretive about much of the mountain bike trail building going on, especially with regards to the Mountain View wetland and upland area. On their trails update website page, they have neglected to mention work done on three trails inside Mtn View Park area, assessed to be of high biodiversity, yet NO trails have been closed, and two new trails, with more in the works, being built!
Check out: www.dnv.org/frommetrails (You will note that three trails built inside Mtn View Park are missing from the trails "roster": King of the Shore, and two new trails: Lower Griffen and Immonator). More are proposed to be built this year!
We need to voice our concern about this travesty, and dishonesty. It is not too late for anything. We must ask that those new trails be restored back to nature, in order to honour the environmental assessment for the area (other like areas are seeing trail closures, so why more new trail building inside Mtn View Park area?)
Also, the NSMBA is starting up a "Trails Adoption Project" on Seymour, with DNV's blessings, ahead of fair and democratic process about this. Many of those Seymour bike trails proposed to be adopted are still considered illegal and officially unsanctioned by DNV, as it has not gone to public process yet! We can't let DNV get away with such things. After all, it is municipal election year, 2011!
Please come out and speak up for Mtn View Park wetland and upland area. We have lost so much biodiversity, and wildlife already! If we do not continue to speak up for our over run forests and wetlands, we do end up getting the forests we deserve... Take care and thanks in advance for coming out to speak up against the use of Grant money to build bike trails, ignoring environmental assessments and hiker safety!
Read: Biking and hiking don't belong together
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/06/in_forest_park_biking_and_hiki.html
Pass this onto other concerned groups and people. We need as many voices as we can get to speak up and speak out. Thanks.
--Monica Craver
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Is that last post by Wendy, or Monica?
Oh I think I got it, sorry for the confusion. Wendy has quoted Monica?
Wendy, exactly just whose quality of life is at stake?
Wendy, spending a lot of time writing something doesn't make it accurate or factual. In that article, you've expressed an opinion with no facts to support it. Adding Ernie Christ's name to it does not give it any automatic credibility. You're going to have to work much harder if you want people capable of critical thinking to take your side.
Anon Sunday, February 20, 2011 10:06:00 AM wrote,
Clearly our preferred method of transportation is the car so the lion's share of our transportation resources should be targeted to ensure that our vehicle transportation routes are as user-friendly and efficient as possible.
What I find alarming is that this promotes further use of the car,
presumably single occupency. I do not find this sustainable. The car is one of the biggest, if not the biggest of our environmental down falls. We need to change the way we think and look for ways to get people out of their cars, not encourage make them think that this can go on forever.
John,
How would you propose to get people out of their cars? As long as an individual can afford to drive his vehicle he will. As long as that vehicle is more convenient than the available public transit, we will choose the automobile. Trends in smaller, more fuel efficient and hybrid vehicles can be seen as part of the solution here in the city. Motorcycles and scooters are another option. Unfortunately, none of our municipalities are doing anything to accommodate the smaller, more efficient vehicles. Where is the motorcycle parking? Where is the parking designated for the new breed of small autos, like the Smart car, Fiat 500, etc? Being rid of the automobile is far, far down the road, as is and adequate public transit infrastructure. You can't force people to do anything until a workable transit system is in place. And that means a density that will support it. If the users aren't there, then we, the tax payer, end up subsidizing and inefficient and unsustainable system.
John.
Individual transportation speaks to the quality of life that the majority prefers and enjoys and is a component of that which I want to sustain in our community.
The car is evolving as we speak.
New motors, new fuels, new light materials, ultra low emissions, highly efficient transmissions, new options for numbers of riders.
Ex. A car has been developed that runs on compressed air. The compressor is fueled by alternate, including solar, fuels.
There's all kinds of options for private vehicles extending well beyond the next century that will be low/non polluting and I intend to be driving one in my community.
This goofy idea propogated by trendy politicians that the North American private car is on it's way out is absolute nonsense.
Majority of my transportation tax $$ to support the car which is the preferred transportation mode of the majority of taxpayers. Please!
a) Cars vs Transit. It is not an either/or question. We can have both!
b) You can't force people to use transit. You can though make transit so good that people choose to use it.
c)Yes, North Shore transit sucks. And how about that third Seabus that never materialized?
Finally I ask, what is the real root of this fear of density or highrises? I honestly don't think it's traffic, since that claim is debatable at best.
The benefits of density in terms of services, shopping, taxes etc are fairly evident.
At the end of the day I suspect that the opponents of increased density are motivated by little more than "I don't like high-rises!" or "I don't like change!"
One way or the other the automobile will be in decline over the next few decades, and one way or the other the single family detached home will not be the choice for a growing number of people.
The challenge for planners is to anticipate these changes, and move the District in the direction that will accommodate them.
For some it's preferable that the people move the government rather than the government move the people.
At what cost?
The cost of sustaining democratic freedom.
It's much less trouble for the masses to be led by the nanny state.
Is it democracy when vocal minorities dictate government action?
No. That's the point. Democratic government should serve the majority of their electorate not the vocal minority.
Democratic government should not conspire to "lead" the electorate in the direction of social experiments or high cost pet projects unapproved by the electors.
Their service means that the resources of their time and our money should be appropriated proportionate to the approved direction of the majority of the taxpayers.
Problem is government loves to give direction but isn't so fussy about taking it.
Anon Monday, February 21, 2011 10:00:00 AM,
I misunderstood. I was thinking that you were suggesting that a vocal minority be allowed to push government (whether that be local or Provincial) into adapting social engineering policy that goes against the reality of the realities of how the majority copes from day to day. For example forcing us to pay a larger chunk of our taxes to a broken transit organization or towards more bike lanes that get used by a slim number of the population.
Oops, two realities weren't really necessary in the above post. I must remember that proof-reading is a good thing.
Anon 3:48/49. True democracy is often known as a "tyranny of the majority".
We live in a tyranny of minorities financed by the majority.
I've had enough of listening to pundits and politicians who know what's right (now and in the future) for the majority. Let the majority tell the politicans what we want and tell them to get busy doing it or we'll find someone who will.
No. That's the point. Democratic government should serve the majority of their electorate not the vocal minority
Silly me. I always that that a democratic government would serve all of the citizens regardless of how they voted or what they believed.
My financially sustainable community:
1. Each level of gov't, including regional entities such as Translink, provides a "big picture" menu of services and current % of budget spent for each service;
2. Taxpayers may obtain one numbered feedback survey each indicating what % of budget they want spent on each overall service.
2a. If taxpayers want lower taxes overall that will also be included in the survey and taxpayers must identify those services that they want cut in order to obtain the tax cuts.
2b. If taxpayers want additional or improved services, which may result in higher taxes, that can be indicated by service budget choices totalling more than 100%.
3. Taxpayer funding majority preference per service is determined by an independent body such as KPMG, made public, and given to politicians.
4. The key job of politicans is to ensure that expenditures are undertaken in line with the direction of taxpayers.
5. Senior staff adjust annual service budgets and levels in accordance with the direction of taxpayers through politicians.
My community services and quality of life are sustained by ensuring sufficient financial resources are appropriated in accordance with the direction of the funders.
Well Barry. Mom and Dad have to pay the mortgage and put food on the table and times are tight.
So the kids telling us their opinion while demanding to borrow the car is all very interesting but the free ride's coming to an end.
The root of the majority of the issues that affect the constituents on the north shore are symptoms of local government mismanagement. Until local government is held accountable the issues will increase while service levels fall. Constituents are being fleeced by local government but do nothing about it. There is no one to blame but yourselves.
"Constituents are being fleeced by local government but do nothing about it. There is no one to blame but yourselves."
This could also be interpreted that the majority is satisfied with the status quo and aren't interested in doing anything about it.
I love the status quo.
That should be on a T-shirt.
I just got back from the meeting in Seymour. It was well attended by the politicos in the DNV. Mayor Walton and all councillors except Alan Nixon were there.
Unfortunately there was no talk about the upcoming densification of Lynn Valley. The word "traffic" was not uttered at this meeting.
What is missing from this so-called public process is the fact that we have a pro-development community association in Lynn Valley.
"What is missing from this so-called public process is the fact that we have a pro-development community association in Lynn Valley."
How is this a problem? If the community being affected by density, supports it, then you should respect their wishes and let them have the character they seek. If you live outside the area, why stick your nose where it isn't necessarily wanted? Density may not be desirable in your neighborhood, but that's not to say it isn't desirable elsewhere.
My neighbourhood is Lynn Valley. The people of Lynn Valley who I speak to every day DO NOT WANT IT!
I have spoken to over 1000 people in the last year, the people who signed the anti-HST petition in Lynn Valley and other areas of the DNV to name but a few.
These people are sick and tired of governments professing democracy and as soon as they are elected become dictators. Public process is diminishing exponentially in BC.
Wendy, is that you?
Sorry, but didn't you just say that the community association supports development in the area? Democracy is just fine. Don't think for a second that a vocal minority represents the interests of the majority. Not even during elections or HST petitions (the total number of signatures was far form any kind of majority representation).
True democractic process is watered-down here as we don't employ referendum as much as other countries. I'd love to see it but our voter base is about as apathetic as is possible and they barely get out to vote in an election.
I wouldn't get too excited about people signing petitions or shooting the bull. People will often agree in conversation just to be polite or sign a petition for the same reason.
Some years ago I had the opportunity to telephone people who had signed a petition to confirm that they meant to support or oppose the petition subject. At least 70% said they just signed it and had no real idea of the details of the issue and, in retrospect, actually didn't really support the petition that they had signed but they had liked the woman with the petition so they signed to be socialable.
Ordinary petitions are often destined for the garbage can but petitions demanding a referendum can get the politician's attention as it takes power back to the people.
You can pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hands. Seriously though I am sick of transit huggers preaching the end of days if we don’t abide by their ways of thinking. The hard cold calculations says the only way to make transit work is to densify an area to it’s maximum and destroy the current culture. Translink has to make life difficult for car drivers in order to make them switch, because Translink can’t afford to compete with private car ownership on a level playing field.
transit for the most part is a niche form of transportation, it only functions well moving a large number of people along selected linear routes. The more you attempt to diversify from those major routes, the cost exponentially go up for less and less gain. You can’t transport goods on transits, you can’t for the most part use transit for repair calls or anything that requires moving large amounts of supplies or tools. You can’t attach your trailer to the bus and it can only care a small number of bicycles compared to the numbers of passengers. Don’t forget that labour costs here are a significant factor in any bus service, unless you intend to contract the service out to non-union companies.
Meanwhile cars and light trucks have become far more fuel efficient, cleaner and more reliable than ever, to the point where many jurisdictions had to raise gas taxes to make up for revenues shortfalls based on unrealistic numbers. I suggest that translink and the bus huggers actually start paying for the real cost of transit, by actually paying how much it really costs for each route. While we are at it, I think it’s high time those bike riders pony up to the bar as well.
Colin - thank you for a reasoned and balanced post.
It's pretty obvious to any thinking person that the future isn't a choice between mass transit and private vehicles. It will be a hybrid of the two.
We need the most affordable, effective and efficient systems that we can afford.
Calling for the elimination of all private vehicles is so unrealistic that it's proponents appear stuck in an outmoded, trendy and silly dogma .
Would like to see private (non commercial) vehicle licensing tied to "fuel efficiency per passenger" with a registration premium levied against the Hummer/SUV guzzlers and a licensing reduction incentive for the highly efficient vehicles all the way down to, and including, licensed bicycles.
I took a lower paying job that is closer to my home so that I can walk to work. Not the most ideal job but I don’t have to fight traffic and waste time commuting so there are other benefits.
My SUV is used for camping and taking the back roads. I would find it unfair if a registration premium was levied because I drive an SUV.
No problem. If you use your vehicle infrequently then ICBC allows you to buy insurance for a day, week, month etc. and the annual vehicle charges are pro rated. You will only pay a premium to drive a large vehicle for those few times that you use it and not the full annual premium.
Anon 10:24
Sorry that sounds like a stupid idea.
Anon Saturday, February 26, 2011 9:11:00 PM,
It's not a stupid idea. It's a suggestion of what can actually be done. You have options on how you insure your vehicle. If you don't use it often, why not pull insurance for the times that you do use your vehicle? I've done this for my RV and motorcycle. Since I don't use them year round, I purchase insurance only for when I use them. Why pay for a full year of insurance on something you use for only a month or two. Now that's a stupid idea.
It's all about knowing your options.
Much better idea, Insure the driver with only a plate fee for the vehicle and perhaps a surcharge if expensive to fix. A driver can only drive one car at a time. I have owned landrovers all my life (My diesel 1968 landrover got 32mpg by the way) Currently we own a Rangerover (funny enough they come in gas guzzling here, turbo diesel the rest of the world, thanks to California) & a Honda civic. I would buy a third economical car for commuting but insurance cost makes it not worth while.
It is a stupid idea.
If I seldom use the vehicle and consume 200 litres of fuel per year while someone has a highly efficient vehicle but uses the vehicle every day and consumes 2000 litres of fuel per year, I should subsidize this person? Give me a break.
It should be based on consumption and charged at the pump.
The issue was not how to save on insurance but why should I have a premium levied against me for driving an SUV.
It's a smart idea.
Each owner pays for the vehicle type and it's environmental impact.
Those with the efficient vehicles don't have to subsidize those high polluters.
i.e. The inefficient vehicles are usually larger and heavier. The vehicle's weight has a relationship to wear and tear on our road system which we all pay for. By paying a surcharge the inefficient vehicle owner makes a higher contribution to help cover street/highway maintenance - which he should.
The inefficient vehicle emits more pollution than the smaller efficient vehicles so the inefficient vehicle owner pays a premium to pollute.
The inefficient vehicle owner only pays for those times that he uses the vehicle so it's fair.
The $$ derived from the inefficient vehicle owners goes to provide incentives for vehicle owners to purchase efficient vehicles.
How much an inefficient or efficient vehicle owner drives their vehicle per year is irrelevent as the gas tax addresses those issues.
The efficiency tax addresses an incentive to drive efficient vehicles and a disincentive to drive polluting guzzlers.
Good idea.
It's a smart idea.
Each overweight person pays for being overweight and its healthcare impact.
Those with that are not overweight don't have to subsidize those obese people.
i.e. The overweight person is usually larger and heavier. The vehicle's weight has a relationship to the health care system which we all pay for. By paying a surcharge the overweight person makes a higher contribution to help cover health care maintenance - which he should.
The overweight person results in more healthcare costs then the active in shape person so the overweight person pays a premium to being fat.
The overweight person only pays for those times that he uses the healthcare so it's fair.
The $$ derived from the overweight persons goes to provide incentives for overweight people to get active and in shape.
How much an overweight or in shape person uses health care per year is irrelevant as the taxes provide the care.
The efficiency tax addresses an incentive to get in shape and a disincentive to being overweight.
Good idea.
Well my "inefficent" 4x4 does not need the roads to be plowed when it snows. So I think if it snows, those of you driving "efficent cars" that requires plowed roads should be charged a surtax depending on the amount of snowfall, sounds like a great idea.
Don't need a plow here. I can wait a day or two for the snow to be washed away with the next rain. Besides, proper snow tires and patience will handle most situations around here. This isn't the interior. Ever notice after a snow storm, most of the vehicles in the ditch are 4-wheel drive?
Sorry Colin. We already pay the taxes for road plowing.
But you should be paying a luxury tax for driving a vehicle far bigger than needed to transport a person from A to B at the cost of aditional wear and tear on the roads, additional pollution for all to enjoy, just a larger environmental footprint for personal recreational purposes.
If you want to play then you should pay.
Yes I know we pay for snow plowing, but vehicles like mine don't require it. So it's purely for vehicles like yours and I do pay extra at the pump. so if they put road tax money into roads I would be fine with that. I just don't like supporting the Translink Barons
As for "efficent" vehicles, mine can tow large trailers, go off-road, carry 1/2 ton of goods and people, use unplowed roads, recover other vehicles to name a few abilities. Also I bet that pounds pers square inch of surface traction is very close to yours. Add a TDI I can get 25-30mpg. not to mention my old Landrover was 100% recyclable and can use parts from a 35 year span of models.
The use of renewable energy and the utilization of eco-friendly technology in every life are examples of such. London couriers are all following such guidelines, in so far as I see it.
Post a Comment