Solo crane today.
Vantage crane last year
Vantage crane
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Solo District's Stratus set to rise
This time last year it was Vantage that lit up the sky near Lougheed and Willingdon. This year, the crane to begin construction of the Stratus building at Solo District which will include a Whole Foods below it is ready to go. With the Brentwood Mall Redevelopment at the opposite corner inching forward, we can expect a flurry of activity over the next few years.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
TransLink website not helpful this snowy morning
Having woken up to a snowy morning, I decided to go to TransLink's website to see if the SkyTrain was running on time. Although the snow began to stick to the ground in many parts of Metro Vancouver by 8pm last night, TransLink's website page that displays updates on its service delivery times was not at all helpful by 5:55am this morning. This is what TransLink had on its page:
To further the frustration for transit users, the TV that displays advertising and news tickers along with the message boards that contain month-old "updates" at Brentwood Station had no useful announcements regarding transit issues this morning. To give TransLink some credit, it had an inaudible announcement over its PA system trying to tell waiting transit users something about a delay caused by the snow...
Bus: Operating Normally.
|
Bus
|
Minor
|
Dec 17 2012
11:14:PM
|
|
SkyTrain: Operating normally.
|
SkyTrain
|
Minor
|
Dec 17 2012
11:14:PM
|
|
Power Rail Replacement Project: There will be no single tracking from December 16 - 20, 2012 for the power rail replacement project. SkyTrain will be operating its regular evening service.
The Project will be suspended for the Christmas Holiday after Thursday, December 20, 2012 and will resume Sunday, January 6, 2013.
|
||||
SeaBus: Operating normally.
|
SeaBus
|
Minor
|
Dec 17 2012
11:14:PM
|
|
West Coast Express: Operating Normally
|
West Coast Express
|
Minor
|
Dec 17 2012
11:14:PM
|
|
West Van Blue Bus: Operating normally.
|
West Van Blue Bus
|
Minor
|
Dec 17 2012
11:14:PM
|
|
HandyDART: Operating normally.
|
HandyDART
|
Minor
|
Dec 17 2012
11:14:PM
|
|
To further the frustration for transit users, the TV that displays advertising and news tickers along with the message boards that contain month-old "updates" at Brentwood Station had no useful announcements regarding transit issues this morning. To give TransLink some credit, it had an inaudible announcement over its PA system trying to tell waiting transit users something about a delay caused by the snow...
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Neighbourhood planning; forethought vs afterthought
In his editorial to the Vancouver Sun (below), Bob Ransford explains the importance of timing when asking questions regarding transit planning and the problem of not asking the right questions. Focusing on the "UBC Line" which had been receiving much attention recently, Ransford concludes his piece by pointing out the differing approaches to development between Burnaby and Vancouver around the stations along the Millennium Line.
Vancouver Sun article
The number of stations would have a huge impact on the shaping of neighbourhoods along the rapid transit line
Now that Vancouver city council has decided that a $2.8-billion subway rapid transit line to UBC is the best way to meet the growing public transportation demand along the Broadway corridor, some hard questions need to be asked.
Why ask the questions after the decision has been made?
Well, if history is our teacher, we should know that securing a political commitment to finance a transit project close to $3 billion is a near-impossible task. I can almost guarantee we're facing at last five years of wrangling over transit governance, regional planning priorities, provincial participation, tax policy, cost sharing and a myriad of other issues standing in the way of finding the money. While that wrangling is going on, there will be lots of time for asking and answering questions.
Second, if a miraculous agreement can be reached to secure $3 billion to build a single transit line in a region that needs at least double that amount of money to finance a short list of other transportation priorities, our attention will then turn to another two to three years of serious planning.
It's during this serious planning phase that we can't afford to ignore asking the serious questions and answering them honestly and completely.
These are the serious questions that went unasked and therefore unanswered during the dysfunctional planning that led to the construction of the Canada Line. That's why, more than seven years after the Canada Line station locations were planned, not a single new housing unit along this high capacity transit system has been built in Vancouver. It's also why at least three and perhaps as many as five transit stations are missing on the line. It's why the system was designed with small station platforms, inhibiting expansion of trains to accommodate increased ridership.
These questions weren't asked because all the attention focused on seeking consensus on raising the money to build the system. When a tenuous agreement among a long list of partners was reached to fund the project, after seemingly endless wrangling to, no one wanted to provoke any more serious debates. "Forget the questions, let's just build the system" became the mantra.
We can't afford to repeat that fiasco. Serious questions need to be asked before a contract to build the system is signed.
The first and most important question that needs to be asked is about how this new transit system will shape neighbourhoods along the line. The plan is to build a subway all the way to UBC with only three proposed stations between Arbutus Street and the UBC campus. Research demonstrates that automobile trips are one of the biggest contributors to GHG emissions. We also know that most people make vehicle trips in a range just beyond where they are comfortable walking, primarily to meet their daily needs.
UBC Prof. Patrick Condon has demonstrated in his extensive work comparing transit systems performance and costs that local buses and streetcars extend the walk trip at costs considerably less than SkyTrain LRT, allowing frequent on and off stops for trip chaining (performing more than one errand on the same trip) and accommodating typically short trips to work or to shop when compared to other modes.
Why ask the questions after the decision has been made?
Well, if history is our teacher, we should know that securing a political commitment to finance a transit project close to $3 billion is a near-impossible task. I can almost guarantee we're facing at last five years of wrangling over transit governance, regional planning priorities, provincial participation, tax policy, cost sharing and a myriad of other issues standing in the way of finding the money. While that wrangling is going on, there will be lots of time for asking and answering questions.
Second, if a miraculous agreement can be reached to secure $3 billion to build a single transit line in a region that needs at least double that amount of money to finance a short list of other transportation priorities, our attention will then turn to another two to three years of serious planning.
It's during this serious planning phase that we can't afford to ignore asking the serious questions and answering them honestly and completely.
These are the serious questions that went unasked and therefore unanswered during the dysfunctional planning that led to the construction of the Canada Line. That's why, more than seven years after the Canada Line station locations were planned, not a single new housing unit along this high capacity transit system has been built in Vancouver. It's also why at least three and perhaps as many as five transit stations are missing on the line. It's why the system was designed with small station platforms, inhibiting expansion of trains to accommodate increased ridership.
These questions weren't asked because all the attention focused on seeking consensus on raising the money to build the system. When a tenuous agreement among a long list of partners was reached to fund the project, after seemingly endless wrangling to, no one wanted to provoke any more serious debates. "Forget the questions, let's just build the system" became the mantra.
We can't afford to repeat that fiasco. Serious questions need to be asked before a contract to build the system is signed.
The first and most important question that needs to be asked is about how this new transit system will shape neighbourhoods along the line. The plan is to build a subway all the way to UBC with only three proposed stations between Arbutus Street and the UBC campus. Research demonstrates that automobile trips are one of the biggest contributors to GHG emissions. We also know that most people make vehicle trips in a range just beyond where they are comfortable walking, primarily to meet their daily needs.
UBC Prof. Patrick Condon has demonstrated in his extensive work comparing transit systems performance and costs that local buses and streetcars extend the walk trip at costs considerably less than SkyTrain LRT, allowing frequent on and off stops for trip chaining (performing more than one errand on the same trip) and accommodating typically short trips to work or to shop when compared to other modes.
Walking becomes the mainstay mode of movement in streetcar neighbourhoods, with the streetcar itself acting as a sort of pedestrian accelerator, extending the reach of the walk trip.
A mixed-use neighbourhood flourishes when people either walk between their homes and local shops, services or jobs or take a short jaunt on a streetcar and get on or off close to their destination. Typically, streetcar stations are 300 to 400 metres apart. Residential densities within a 400-metre radius of these lines typically average 20 to 30 units per acre. That means low-rise apartments close to the station and townhouses, duplexes and some single-family homes near the edge of the 400-metre radius. With a streetcar, over time along the Broadway corridor, modest redevelopment would occur and the existing retail villages along the corridor would be revitalized and would thrive.
Compare this neighbourhood-shaping influence to a high-capacity, costly subway system with just three stations between Arbutus and UBC, more than a kilometre apart. First, the system is aimed at moving people relatively long distances quickly, rather than serving local neighbourhoods. Hence, three stations.
The idea is to move large numbers of people from the Broadway/Commercial transit node to the Central Broadway jobs centre and others on to the terminus at UBC.
This type of transit line will do little to support the existing retail villages along the corridor. There will be pressure to develop density around the three transit stations. It will be the kind of density most existing residents will find unacceptable and will characterize as "spot zoning".
Densities around transit stations of this type should radiate up to about 800 metres from the stations and should be in excess of 30 units per acre on average, with much higher densities within the 400-metre radius.
This kind of density transforms neighbourhoods. This is the kind of transformation Burnaby has been embracing along the Expo and Millennium lines for years. It's this kind of density Vancouver planners and politicians have been afraid to talk about, leaving seas of low-density housing around a number of existing expensive, high-capacity transit stations in Vancouver years after the stations were built.
So after we've answered the first question about whether or not we can afford to invest $3 billion of public money in a single transit line moving people from A to B and on to C along the Broadway corridor, we then need to ask how that transit line will reshape our neighbourhoods.
Bob Ransford is a public affairs consultant with Counterpoint Communications Inc. He is a former real estate developer who specializes in urban land-use issues. Email: ransford@counterpoint.ca or Twitter.com/BobRansford
A mixed-use neighbourhood flourishes when people either walk between their homes and local shops, services or jobs or take a short jaunt on a streetcar and get on or off close to their destination. Typically, streetcar stations are 300 to 400 metres apart. Residential densities within a 400-metre radius of these lines typically average 20 to 30 units per acre. That means low-rise apartments close to the station and townhouses, duplexes and some single-family homes near the edge of the 400-metre radius. With a streetcar, over time along the Broadway corridor, modest redevelopment would occur and the existing retail villages along the corridor would be revitalized and would thrive.
Compare this neighbourhood-shaping influence to a high-capacity, costly subway system with just three stations between Arbutus and UBC, more than a kilometre apart. First, the system is aimed at moving people relatively long distances quickly, rather than serving local neighbourhoods. Hence, three stations.
The idea is to move large numbers of people from the Broadway/Commercial transit node to the Central Broadway jobs centre and others on to the terminus at UBC.
This type of transit line will do little to support the existing retail villages along the corridor. There will be pressure to develop density around the three transit stations. It will be the kind of density most existing residents will find unacceptable and will characterize as "spot zoning".
Densities around transit stations of this type should radiate up to about 800 metres from the stations and should be in excess of 30 units per acre on average, with much higher densities within the 400-metre radius.
This kind of density transforms neighbourhoods. This is the kind of transformation Burnaby has been embracing along the Expo and Millennium lines for years. It's this kind of density Vancouver planners and politicians have been afraid to talk about, leaving seas of low-density housing around a number of existing expensive, high-capacity transit stations in Vancouver years after the stations were built.
So after we've answered the first question about whether or not we can afford to invest $3 billion of public money in a single transit line moving people from A to B and on to C along the Broadway corridor, we then need to ask how that transit line will reshape our neighbourhoods.
Bob Ransford is a public affairs consultant with Counterpoint Communications Inc. He is a former real estate developer who specializes in urban land-use issues. Email: ransford@counterpoint.ca or Twitter.com/BobRansford
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Why is real estate so expensive in Metro Vancouver?
This is not meant to be a political blog but sometimes I need to let out my beliefs when something hits a nerve.
According to a Burnaby NewLeader article below, Burnaby has the third highest real estate prices in Canada. What is the reason behind such high real estate prices in Burnaby and Metro Vancouver?
If you ask provincial politicians, they will tell you that land values in Metro Vancouver have remained among the highest in North America because of things like immigration, overseas investment or the fact that Metro Vancouver is such a wonderful place to live because it is arguably one of the most diverse regions in the world. Ask a real estate agent and you will receive the same cookie-cutter, rah, rah, rah answer. If you ask someone that is really creative, they will tell you that it is a combination of the above factors along with other economic factors that has led to Metro Vancouver having such "valuable" land. Don't get me wrong, the above reasons ARE factors in making property values higher but there is more to it than what the "experts" are always parroting.
What BC politicians will never tell you about high property values in Metro Vancouver and elsewhere in BC is the fact that property tax rates for residents and non-residents* are the same in Metro Vancouver, allowing non-residents to use Metro Vancouver real estate as a shelter/hedge for their accumulated cash against anticipated foreign currency price fluctuations. This is true for locals who own secondary properties aside from their primary residences and pay the same rate as non-locals who own multiple properties. They pay the same rate on non-primary properties.
A simple counter argument to the tax-rate argument is that there currently already is a higher property tax rate on properties that are not the primary residence of the owner. This difference is not only minuscule in comparison to the primary-residence rate, but even that can be overcome by having a non-primary residence address registered as a primary residence of a family member such as a spouse or offspring. Taken even further, non-residents of BC are easily able to own real estate and falsely report a BC property as their primary residence allowing them to pay the same tax rate as BC residents. The fact remains that non-residents pay the same rate as residents.
The best part, for such speculators that do not want to go through the minor hassles of registering multiple homes under different family members or pretending to live here, is the fact that the tax rate difference between primary and non-primary homes is small enough to not even worry about it. It is not unheard of for wealthy non-residents to buy up as many as ten homes in one swoop and sit on those empty homes while they pay a small fee to have them maintained while they sit empty. Those empty homes, not being in either the real estate or the rental market, put artificial upward pressure on Metro Vancouver real estate prices, leaving locals to compete for a smaller share of the real estate pie, whether they are buying or renting, with earnings made locally at rates that have not kept pace with rising real estate prices, putting further upwards pressure on whatever little is left in the local real estate market. Look at high-rise towers throughout Metro Vancouver in the evening from 6pm to 10pm and you will see many darkened spaces, sometimes as many as half are darkened where units are unoccupied but owned by someone.
What does this mean for Metro Vancouver residents? Actual residents of Metro Vancouver that really live in BC and earn BC wages are subject to property price manipulations in Metro Vancouver as non-BC speculators drop large sums of their cash (earned from outside of the BC economy), placing upward pressure on property values. We have essentially been subject to our BC Governments having allowed our real estate market to become a manipulated stock market. This has been allowed to happen under the watch of BC Governments, regardless of party affiliation. Why has this not been identified as an issue? Is it because politicians don't want to make an effort to solve a complex problem or is it because they are not smart enough to identify it as a problem? I believe the truth lies somewhere between the two possibilities depending on which politician you ask.
The well-being of locals that earn local wages is negatively impacted by competition from non-locals that have accumulated their cash in economies outside of BC's. Such negative impacts are felt locally with the need for affordable housing being an important topic for Metro Vancouver today. If we ask our politicians, past and present who have or are currently making a career out of so-called issues while ignoring issues that directly effect the economic well-being of local taxpaying residents, why they have failed to correct a problem that has existed over the span of their political careers, I wonder what their answer would be? I don't believe that any politician has ever been directly asked about non-resident ownership, and believe that they have been given a free pass on this issue while we continue to get bombarded in the media about positive annual reviews about Vancouver's high livability ratings. Why is an inequitable property tax system not an issue considering the efforts provincial and federal governments make to protect Canadian corporations from foreign takeovers while individuals are left to their own devices at the residential real estate level?
We are continually told that local residents must seriously consider paying property tax levies or road tolls to pay for transit and road infrastructure improvements but are continually ignoring the wealthy non-resident property owners that pay a relatively nominal investment fee known as a property tax. There needs to be a benefit for all locals rather than just the benefits that some locals have gained by speculating in higher real estate prices spurred by non-local investment.
The answer to propped up real estate prices which negatively impact local residents can and should be a an exponentially higher tax rate for non residents compared to local residents, regardless of whether it is a primary or non-primary residence. How would politicians figure out who actually lives here or not? If they do not already know how to determine this, our problem is much greater than the public thinks considering how many non-residents are benefitting from and draining public services that are meant to benefit local residents and NOT non-residents pretending to live here. What have our decision-makers been doing all these decades while earning great salaries and life-long pensions? The unasked, unanswered questions continue to exist while our politicians come and go with their high salaries and gold-plated pensions at the public's expense.
Burnaby NewsLeader - News
According to a Burnaby NewLeader article below, Burnaby has the third highest real estate prices in Canada. What is the reason behind such high real estate prices in Burnaby and Metro Vancouver?
Politician's Answer
What BC politicians will never tell you about high property values in Metro Vancouver and elsewhere in BC is the fact that property tax rates for residents and non-residents* are the same in Metro Vancouver, allowing non-residents to use Metro Vancouver real estate as a shelter/hedge for their accumulated cash against anticipated foreign currency price fluctuations. This is true for locals who own secondary properties aside from their primary residences and pay the same rate as non-locals who own multiple properties. They pay the same rate on non-primary properties.
* Note: "non-resident" refers to those either not living in BC or not living in Canada altogether.
A simple counter argument to the tax-rate argument is that there currently already is a higher property tax rate on properties that are not the primary residence of the owner. This difference is not only minuscule in comparison to the primary-residence rate, but even that can be overcome by having a non-primary residence address registered as a primary residence of a family member such as a spouse or offspring. Taken even further, non-residents of BC are easily able to own real estate and falsely report a BC property as their primary residence allowing them to pay the same tax rate as BC residents. The fact remains that non-residents pay the same rate as residents.
Real Estate Stock Market
What does this mean for Metro Vancouver residents? Actual residents of Metro Vancouver that really live in BC and earn BC wages are subject to property price manipulations in Metro Vancouver as non-BC speculators drop large sums of their cash (earned from outside of the BC economy), placing upward pressure on property values. We have essentially been subject to our BC Governments having allowed our real estate market to become a manipulated stock market. This has been allowed to happen under the watch of BC Governments, regardless of party affiliation. Why has this not been identified as an issue? Is it because politicians don't want to make an effort to solve a complex problem or is it because they are not smart enough to identify it as a problem? I believe the truth lies somewhere between the two possibilities depending on which politician you ask.
The well-being of locals that earn local wages is negatively impacted by competition from non-locals that have accumulated their cash in economies outside of BC's. Such negative impacts are felt locally with the need for affordable housing being an important topic for Metro Vancouver today. If we ask our politicians, past and present who have or are currently making a career out of so-called issues while ignoring issues that directly effect the economic well-being of local taxpaying residents, why they have failed to correct a problem that has existed over the span of their political careers, I wonder what their answer would be? I don't believe that any politician has ever been directly asked about non-resident ownership, and believe that they have been given a free pass on this issue while we continue to get bombarded in the media about positive annual reviews about Vancouver's high livability ratings. Why is an inequitable property tax system not an issue considering the efforts provincial and federal governments make to protect Canadian corporations from foreign takeovers while individuals are left to their own devices at the residential real estate level?
No Money for Transit Improvements
The answer to propped up real estate prices which negatively impact local residents can and should be a an exponentially higher tax rate for non residents compared to local residents, regardless of whether it is a primary or non-primary residence. How would politicians figure out who actually lives here or not? If they do not already know how to determine this, our problem is much greater than the public thinks considering how many non-residents are benefitting from and draining public services that are meant to benefit local residents and NOT non-residents pretending to live here. What have our decision-makers been doing all these decades while earning great salaries and life-long pensions? The unasked, unanswered questions continue to exist while our politicians come and go with their high salaries and gold-plated pensions at the public's expense.
Burnaby NewsLeader - News
Burnaby the third most-expensive real estate in Canada: study
Burnaby is the third-most expensive market in Canada to buy a home after Vancouver and Richmond, according to a study by Coldwell Banker Real Estate.
The study looked at Coldwell Banker’s average listing prices of four-bedroom, two-bathroom properties on its company website between January and June of this year.
In Burnaby, the average price for the company’s listings was $917,968, after Vancouver’s $1.87 million and Richmond’s $1.18 million.
Burnaby was well ahead of fourth place, Oakville, Ont. at $745,000. The most affordable city in the study was Windsor, Ont., with an average listing price of $170,991.
Arthur Ng, manager of Coldwell Banker Westburn Realty, said Burnaby’s popularity with home buyers is due to its proximity to Vancouver and its central location yet being relatively more affordable.
“I think people are realizing, I only have so much money and I don’t want to be out in the boonies,” Ng said.
Richmond’s market is more influenced by Asian buyers, specifically those from overseas.
But Ng said those buyers aren’t just investors and speculators.
“That’s what the misconception is. I wouldn’t call it an investment ... Their kids are going to school [here] so they buy properties for them and they have plans to retire here, and many of them have come to retire here.”
Ng said many overseas Asian buyers have bought here and set down roots, planting their families, attracted by the stability of Canada, but with the breadwinners sometimes continuing to work back in their home countries.
They often settle in Richmond because they feel at home with its many Asian shops and restaurants.
“Of course the prices now are so high there so that’s why now they’re coming to Burnaby,” which has its own share of Asian shops and services, said Ng.
In recent months, after the study period, Ng said his company’s Burnaby list prices (as opposed to sale prices) have dropped by five to eight per cent.
“People are realizing that, the market’s slowing down, if I need to sell I need to adjust my price in order to get some activity on it,” Ng said.
“But by no means are we seeing a fire sale.”
As for whether prices will drop further, he believes that’s unlikely since most people are living in or renting out their homes.
In the United States, people are scrambling to sell to get out of the market after becoming victims of too much speculation, he said.
“But no one here sells their principal residence for no reason just because the market is bad.”
Prospective buyers who have been holding off waiting for prices to drop further are starting to see there are no drastic reductions likely and are jumping back into the market while interest rates are still low.
“We’re seeing a bit of a turnaround already now.”
In 2008 and 2009, local real estate prices dropped by 20 to 25 per cent “but it came back like wildfire within nine months. That was a global collapse, we’re not in a global collapse now.”
Ng predicts prices will continue to go up, but more gradually than in the past when 10 to 20 per cent jumps were common. Instead, in the next few years he sees prices rising two to five per cent annually.
Those larger increases simply weren’t sustainable, he said, but the Lower Mainland continues to be an attractive place to live, drawing upwards of 60,000 new people to B.C. each year which helps fuel the local housing market.
twitter.com/WandaChow
Burnaby NewsLeader - Opinion
COLUMN: Burnaby must do more for the homeless
Burnaby does a great job helping to provide social housing.
For most people of modest means, living with a disability, elderly—or all three—there is a decent array of options. It could always be better, of course, but in general this city's got it covered.
And the City of Burnaby deserves credit for working with developers, the province, Ottawa and local non-profit agencies to help that happen.
But where it falls short is with the city's most vulnerable people. The homeless.
As many will know, there is no permanent shelter for the homeless in this rapidly growing city of 225,000 people. Vancouver, New West, Surrey, Langley, Maple Ridge and the North Shore all have shelters, but not Burnaby.
The only option is during a few months of the year when a local church opens its doors and staff from the Lookout Emergency Services Society operate an extreme weather shelter. And it's only open on nights when weather is severe enough that it can create a higher health risk to homeless people.
So for the rest of the year in Burnaby people can be found sleeping in Central Park, tenting in the forest behind Discovery Park, and using the washrooms at the McGill branch as though they are their private bathroom facilities.
Or they're forced to go to Vancouver. Or New West, or one of the growing host of cities working to fill this vital piece of the housing continuum. The Greater Vancouver Shelter Strategy website shows more than two dozen shelters for the homeless in Vancouver, depending upon the time of year. Many are year-round. In New Westminster, a city of 60,000, there are four.
Burnaby doesn't do permanent shelters.
Why? To prove a point?
Mayor Derek Corrigan says housing is not a municipal responsibility, and under his leadership the city has stood its ground on the issue.
In interviews, he's called the practice of giving people a bed indoors for the night, then pushing them out the door in the morning “ridiculous social policy," that distracts from dealing with the core issues of why these people are on the street in the first place.
He points to provincial government policies that have cut people off welfare, closed mental health institutions and increased the child poverty rate. He points to the fact that until recently, B.C. had the lowest minimum wage in Canada.
And he's also criticized Ottawa for all-but ceasing to fund social housing 20 years ago.
And those are all fair comments. They really are.
But in the '90s when Ottawa drastically reduced funds for health care, social programs and infrastructure did the provinces and cities just hold the line on everything to make a point? No, because some things are essential.
Back in 2006, the provincial government put a call out to cities. They said if you put up a piece of land and waive the development costs, we'll build and fund new housing for the homeless.
Eight cities responded. Vancouver put up 14 sites. Cities such as Surrey, Maple Ridge, Abbotsford and Kelowna also put up sites.
Where was Burnaby?
Why is a city with almost $600 million in reserves—one of the richest municipalities in Canada—doing nothing?
Corrigan says it's a slippery slope: Look at Vancouver's rising property taxes, he says—aren't they exceeding their mandate at residents' expense?
That's a red herring. Burnaby can afford to take the risk. It can make a start by offering a single piece of land, maybe even with a building on it. Near Metrotown, at the edge of an industrial area, near the SkyTrain line.
It's time for a permanent shelter in Burnaby.
This city must do its part.
• Chris Bryan is editor of the NewsLeader.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Brentwood Stn to UBC by train in 35 minutes?
The current online TransLink "Trip Planner" shows that one can get to UBC from Brentwood Station in 41 minutes using a combination of SkyTrain and the 99 B Line bus. However, it doesn't take into consideration the numerous pass-ups that nearly 2000 commuters endure during rush hour periods each morning, adding considerably to the commute time suggested by the "Trip Planner".
A recent report by the City of Vancouver shows that it favours a subway underneath Broadway to UBC from VCC Clark Station on Great Northern Way. This expensive rail option on Vancouver's wish-list comes despite the long-running need to extend rapid transit into Surrey, Langley and beyond. Whereas a subway underneath Broadway would cost upwards of 3 billion dollars, a light surface rail would cost roughly 1 billion in comparison. Incidentally, the City of Surrey is currently in favour of the less expensive, more economical light rail option for use in the Fraser Valley. Many have weighed in on the debate including Mayor Derek Corrigan who is critical of the idea of an underground SkyTrain link.
While the debate about rail technology for the UBC line along Broadway rages on as if Broadway should be the only route to UBC, people seem to be ignoring the existing rail tracks that run along False Creek to Arbutus Street. An extension of the Millennium Line from VCC Clark connecting into the existing False Creek tracks would seem like a logical, economic fit, to save the cost of boring a 5.5 km tunnel from Clark Drive to Arbutus. The the cost savings of not having to bore a tunnel to Arbutus would far outweigh the cost of building intermittent north-south overpasses connecting either side of the at-surface rail line running through False Creek and Kitsilano. For some reason, the City of Vancouver is fixated on a Broadway route. Either way, a 35 minute trip from Brentwood Station to UBC would definitely be a nice option 10-15 years from now. But how long does Surrey have to wait for its extension considering that many commuters to UBC begin their journeys from Surrey and beyond?
Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan slams Broadway SkyTrain line talk
By Yolande Cole, November 28, 2012
Georgia Straight
November 28, 2012, 6:54pm PST
A recent report by the City of Vancouver shows that it favours a subway underneath Broadway to UBC from VCC Clark Station on Great Northern Way. This expensive rail option on Vancouver's wish-list comes despite the long-running need to extend rapid transit into Surrey, Langley and beyond. Whereas a subway underneath Broadway would cost upwards of 3 billion dollars, a light surface rail would cost roughly 1 billion in comparison. Incidentally, the City of Surrey is currently in favour of the less expensive, more economical light rail option for use in the Fraser Valley. Many have weighed in on the debate including Mayor Derek Corrigan who is critical of the idea of an underground SkyTrain link.
While the debate about rail technology for the UBC line along Broadway rages on as if Broadway should be the only route to UBC, people seem to be ignoring the existing rail tracks that run along False Creek to Arbutus Street. An extension of the Millennium Line from VCC Clark connecting into the existing False Creek tracks would seem like a logical, economic fit, to save the cost of boring a 5.5 km tunnel from Clark Drive to Arbutus. The the cost savings of not having to bore a tunnel to Arbutus would far outweigh the cost of building intermittent north-south overpasses connecting either side of the at-surface rail line running through False Creek and Kitsilano. For some reason, the City of Vancouver is fixated on a Broadway route. Either way, a 35 minute trip from Brentwood Station to UBC would definitely be a nice option 10-15 years from now. But how long does Surrey have to wait for its extension considering that many commuters to UBC begin their journeys from Surrey and beyond?
Related new stories below:
Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan slams Broadway SkyTrain line talk
By Yolande Cole, November 28, 2012
Georgia Straight
A recommendation from Vancouver city staff for a tunnelled SkyTrain as the best mode of rapid transit along the Broadway corridor is drawing criticism from one municipal leader in the region.
Burnaby mayor Derek Corriganasserts Vancouver city hall is “dreaming in technicolour” with regard to the $2.8-billion proposal. He said he “cannot imagine” the rest of Metro Vancouver’s municipalities identifying the subway as a priority.
“It’s just not on the radar at all in order to try and accomplish that,” Corrigan told the Straight by phone. “TransLink is in massive debt with huge operating deficits, and Vancouver continues to talk about spending more money on massive infrastructure.”
Vancouver council heard a presentation from city transportation director Jerry Dobrovolny on November 27. Dobrovolny said an underground rapid-transit line to UBC is the best approach to accommodate the transit needs along Broadway and avoid “tremendous” impacts anticipated with a street-level light-rail line, including turn restrictions and the removal of over 90 percent of parking spaces.
City staff stressed that about half of the over 100,000 commuters travelling the street daily come from outside Vancouver—a fact that Vision councillor Geoff Meggs says indicates that citizens in every municipality in the region would benefit from a subway line in the corridor.
Corrigan noted he recognizes that Vancouver needs to have a good internal transportation system, but argued it has to be “reasonable” about its place within the broader picture.
“Vancouver has to recognize that they’re part of a region, and the region is bigger than their needs, and that there isn’t a way in which, well, not only does Vancouver get what it wants, but it gets it in a Cadillac form,” he said. “You know, while the rest of the region is in a Ford Focus.”
Patrick Condon, a professor with UBC’s School of Landscape Architecture, also questioned the likelihood of Vancouver securing the funding for the nearly $3-billion subway line.
“I think if the province was going to hand the City of Vancouver $3 billion tomorrow, sure, go for it. But I don’t think that’s at all even remotely likely, is my sense,” he said in a phone interview.
Condon added that lower-cost surface light-rail systems have succeeded in some European cities, and in U.S. locations such as Minneapolis and Minnesota.
In Dobrovolny’s presentation to city council, he maintained that a street-level light-rail system would not have sufficient capacity to meet transit needs along the Broadway corridor, which is expected to see a higher than projected growth in passengers.
TransLink is currently in the midst of conducting a study that will identify potential options for rapid transit on the corridor, which will be followed by a "regional dialogue" with local municipalities on the issue.
Underground SkyTrain to UBC ‘makes sense’: city
By Tyler Orton, 24 Hours Vancouver
Jerry Dobrovolny told council Tuesday it “makes sense” to build an extended underground SkyTrain line all the way from VCC-Clark Station to the University of B.C. instead of going with a light rail transit (LRT) option after Arbutus Street.
The current council already supports a bored tunnel all the way to Arbutus, but there is no official position on what type of transit service should continue to UBC.
Dobrovolny said switching from an underground SkyTrain line to an LRT system after Arbutus would result in narrowed sidewalks, turn restrictions on more than 90% of intersections and the removal of 90% of parking spaces in the area.
The Broadway corridor is the second largest employment centre in B.C., trailing only Vancouver’s downtown core. There are about 80,000 transit trips to both UBC and the corridor daily, according to the latest figures from 2008.
Dobrovolny said introducing rapid transit along the Broadway corridor, where buses pass by 2,000 riders during peak hours each day, is key to realizing its “tremendous potential for economic development.”
The transportation director cited estimates for a rapid transit line that range from $2.8-3.2 billion, but he expects to find more “efficiencies” once a plan for an extended line is underway.
In the meantime, both Surrey and Vancouver must talk to the province and TransLink about securing funding for their respective plans for rapid transit.
Patrick Condon, senior researcher at UBC’s Design Centre for Sustainability, said LRT along the entire Broadway corridor would be a more economical choice for the city and the university, costing anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion.
“The challenge here is to shift people out of cars and into transit,” he said, adding problems with parking and turning restrictions will be minimized if there are fewer vehicles on the road.
He said the city will have a tough time acquiring the amount of money needed for a SkyTrain line along the entire corridor.
City manager Penny Ballem also told council there is “not a whole lot of difference” in the relative cost of a SkyTrain line compared to a light rail system once a tunnel is built along the Broadway corridor.
“What’s really remarkably different, (are the) operating costs for SkyTrain technology versus LRT,” she said, noting unmanned SkyTrain cars cost less to run.
THE UBYSSEY
By: Andrew BatesNovember 28, 2012, 6:54pm PST
Nobody knows where funding for a rapid transit Broadway line will come from, but it won’t be UBC.
Vancouver City Council is trying to figure out how to make rapid transit along Broadway cheap enough for TransLink, the cash-strapped Lower Mainland transit authority. But UBC has rebuffed a suggestion that it could help fund the $2.8 billion proposal.
“We are not a business; we are a publicly funded institution,” said Pascal Spothelfer, UBC vice-president external. “If we talk about a contribution, we would certainly be looking at infrastructure around having a station at UBC, but to lay the rails? I don’t see that.”
City staff presented the case Tuesday for rapid transit along the Broadway corridor in the form of a below-ground SkyTrain like the Canada Line. At 80,000 trips each in 2008, the Broadway and UBC areas are the second- and third-largest transit centres in the region. The #99 B-Line busses have to pass up thousands of people in peak times, according to the city’s presentation. City staff could not be reached for an interview by press time.
“When you look at how much population we have here,… it more than justifies having SkyTrain or some similar heavy technology right away,” said Kyle Warwick, AMS vice-president external. “That means not waiting, and not doing it in two different stages.”
Warwick said transit services benefit not just UBC residents, but the whole region. “There’s the people who study or work at UBC, and those people come from municipalities all throughout Metro Vancouver,” he said. “It’s really a responsibility of governments throughout the whole region to contribute to this.”
TransLink is currently completing a study to be released in the new year on which methods of transit — underground subways or street-level light rail — would be best suited for Broadway. “I think there’s about seven different options that we’re currently studying,” said Derek Zabel, TransLink spokesperson. Zabel said TransLink would begin to consider how to balance Broadway transit with calls for more expansion into Surrey.
“Once that study comes out, that would be the start of a regional dialogue about … different needs that different areas [have].”
Warwick said the demands from all sides highlight the need for increased funding. “Realistically speaking, there’s merits to this project, there’s merit to projects in Surrey that are being proposed, there’s merits to a number of different projects and right now the funding that’s there is not sustainable, even to maintain current levels of service,” he said. “We’re really trying to push the decision-makers to negotiate amongst themselves, in the most efficient and prompt manner possible, some distribution of funding.”
One of the proposed methods of completing the project would be to split it up into two different stages, with SkyTrains extended to Arbutus street and rapid bus the rest of the way to UBC. Spothelfer, however, does not favour a split model.
“Our approach has always been we want it to be one project,” he said. “There may be a staged opening along that line, but … the goal is to have a connection all the way to UBC and then operate stages to open all the connections.”
The City of Vancouver projects the planning and construction of a Broadway line to take five to seven years. It’s still unclear, however, when funding might be available or when the project might get off the ground. Spothelfer pointed to the Evergreen Line, a route to Coquitlam currently under construction, which was first proposed in 2002.
“We have seen with the Evergreen Line how long these processes can take,” he said. “If we’re not participating in the discussions, if we don’t make our case now, then we might be losing out on the solutions we desperately need.
“Even if it’s 10 years out, we have to be at the table and we have to work on it.
Vancouver and Surrey working together despite being rivals for scarce funding
Surrey and Vancouver are using their combined clout to push for rapid transit projects in Metro Vancouver, despite being rivals for the scant transportation dollars available.
Vancouver Councillor Geoff Meggs said the two cities can't afford to fight over which one should get a new rapid transit line first, noting both projects have regional significance. About 50 per cent of transit users using the Broadway corridor, for instance, come from outside Vancouver.
"There's a strong need for regional investment," Meggs said. "We have a lot of people going back and forth from one city to the other."
His comments come a day after a Surrey planner joined Vancouver transportation manager Jerry Dobrovolny at City Hall as he outlined a vision for a $2.8-billion subway for the Broadway corridor.
The proposal, along with a rapid transit line for Surrey, are the next two high-dollar rapid transit projects earmarked for Metro Vancouver, although no decision on which will be built first, or when, has been made.
Meggs argues the Broadway corridor has been in line for rapid transit for at least a decade and has more population density and economic activity than other areas with access to rapid transit.
Serving the University of B.C. and the central Broadway business district, the route sees about 160,000 daily trips. The 99-B Line, for instance, runs frequently on the Broadway corridor, but an estimated 2,000 people are passed up by overcrowded buses every day.
And it's no faster to drive. A recent report by the Urban Futures Institute found UBC is one of the least accessible areas by car in Metro Vancouver.
"Even if there's no traffic on the road, it takes a long time to get there," said Andrew Ramlo, director of Urban Futures Institute.
TransLink is studying seven options for the Broadway line, including adding extra buses at a cost of $325 million to light rail ($1.1 billion), rapid rail ($3.2 billion) or a combination of the three. A recommendation is expected next year after a technical study on the corridor is completed.
Richard Walton, chairman of the mayors' council on regional transportation, said any decisions on what's built will "depend on the funding available and the politics at the time."
He acknowledges it's "good politics" for Surrey and Vancouver to work together, noting they have significant clout because combined, they represent nearly one-third of B.C.'s population.
This should bode well ahead of the provincial election next May, Walton said, because "the size of infrastructure projects in Metro Vancouver are a huge part of provincial needs.
"There's no question that with the funding impasse the way it is, anything that goes ahead is going to require significant capital funding in the future," he said. "Surrey and Vancouver are going to have to continue to lobby the business case. They're doing what every community should be doing and advocating for their needs."
Both projects would take at least five years to design and another five to build, meaning they wouldn't even be likely be built until 2020-2022.
"We need to get the wheels turning and the finances in place," he said.
Meanwhile, Adrien Byrne, spokesman for the Urban Development Institute, said Vancouver should be developing a land-use policy for the Broadway corridor. This would allow the city to get buy-in from the community and developers, which would help finance the project through community amenities.
Developers are now cashing in on projects along the Canada Line, he said, yet the city isn't using developer levies for transit. And the city has failed to reap benefits along the Expo and Millennium lines as many of those stations haven't realized higher density. Richmond, on the other hand, has built its new Capstan station using development funds.
"Many of those stations (along the Expo and Millennium lines) haven't been leveraged with developments," Byrne said. "In many other jurisdictions transit and land use go hand in hand and in Vancouver, that's not the case."
ksinoski@vancouversun.com
Vancouver Councillor Geoff Meggs said the two cities can't afford to fight over which one should get a new rapid transit line first, noting both projects have regional significance. About 50 per cent of transit users using the Broadway corridor, for instance, come from outside Vancouver.
"There's a strong need for regional investment," Meggs said. "We have a lot of people going back and forth from one city to the other."
His comments come a day after a Surrey planner joined Vancouver transportation manager Jerry Dobrovolny at City Hall as he outlined a vision for a $2.8-billion subway for the Broadway corridor.
The proposal, along with a rapid transit line for Surrey, are the next two high-dollar rapid transit projects earmarked for Metro Vancouver, although no decision on which will be built first, or when, has been made.
Meggs argues the Broadway corridor has been in line for rapid transit for at least a decade and has more population density and economic activity than other areas with access to rapid transit.
Serving the University of B.C. and the central Broadway business district, the route sees about 160,000 daily trips. The 99-B Line, for instance, runs frequently on the Broadway corridor, but an estimated 2,000 people are passed up by overcrowded buses every day.
And it's no faster to drive. A recent report by the Urban Futures Institute found UBC is one of the least accessible areas by car in Metro Vancouver.
"Even if there's no traffic on the road, it takes a long time to get there," said Andrew Ramlo, director of Urban Futures Institute.
TransLink is studying seven options for the Broadway line, including adding extra buses at a cost of $325 million to light rail ($1.1 billion), rapid rail ($3.2 billion) or a combination of the three. A recommendation is expected next year after a technical study on the corridor is completed.
Richard Walton, chairman of the mayors' council on regional transportation, said any decisions on what's built will "depend on the funding available and the politics at the time."
He acknowledges it's "good politics" for Surrey and Vancouver to work together, noting they have significant clout because combined, they represent nearly one-third of B.C.'s population.
This should bode well ahead of the provincial election next May, Walton said, because "the size of infrastructure projects in Metro Vancouver are a huge part of provincial needs.
"There's no question that with the funding impasse the way it is, anything that goes ahead is going to require significant capital funding in the future," he said. "Surrey and Vancouver are going to have to continue to lobby the business case. They're doing what every community should be doing and advocating for their needs."
Both projects would take at least five years to design and another five to build, meaning they wouldn't even be likely be built until 2020-2022.
"We need to get the wheels turning and the finances in place," he said.
Meanwhile, Adrien Byrne, spokesman for the Urban Development Institute, said Vancouver should be developing a land-use policy for the Broadway corridor. This would allow the city to get buy-in from the community and developers, which would help finance the project through community amenities.
Developers are now cashing in on projects along the Canada Line, he said, yet the city isn't using developer levies for transit. And the city has failed to reap benefits along the Expo and Millennium lines as many of those stations haven't realized higher density. Richmond, on the other hand, has built its new Capstan station using development funds.
"Many of those stations (along the Expo and Millennium lines) haven't been leveraged with developments," Byrne said. "In many other jurisdictions transit and land use go hand in hand and in Vancouver, that's not the case."
ksinoski@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)