[djh]

A quick tale on how painful and arduous the rezoning and expropriation process can be if an existing tenant or landowner does not want to cooperate.

Elsie Roy park, the new park near the Brava towers downtown, was supposed to be double the size it is now, taking up a full city block by removing the alleyway down the middle. The city started the rezoning process before ground was broken on Brava (that was about 3-4 years ago now). A couple of the property owners on the block took the (very generous) deal that the city offered to buy them out. One in particular decided they were not going to move because they held a good location on the block and wanted more. They are still there to this day, facing Brava, happily running their little business.

The city had to change the plans for the park and only build it using half the block. My friend, who was one of the landowners who took the money and ran, is sitting on a nice pile of cash. And the whole of downtown is short of what would have been a very nice park. And now, that block looks a mess because half of the existing buildings are abandoned.

So don't hold out hopes for the city buying land around Canada Line stations and rezoning them for high density. It just takes 1 person to be greedy and the whole redevelopment can either become too expensive or just not happen, if they hold a key location.

[privatejet]

^I assume you are talking about Emery Barnes Park near Brava. That site has indeed been planned as a Park for a long time, over ten years ago. However the City has not changed the plans for the Park and it will be completed covering the entire block (minus the social housing sites) The City expropriated the last three lots this summer.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20070726/documents/a1.pdf

[agrant]

That'll be nice. I've always thought it was too rinky dinky.

[djh]

Yeah, Emery Barnes park. Sorry about the name mistake

[fever]

The city doesn't need to expropriate lands for redevelopment to occur around rapid transit - it needs to change zoning bylaws to permit multi-family and mixed-use development. Neither 29th and 33rd Ave stations are in need of more park space. The complaints arise from residents not because they are forced to sell or redevelop their properties, but because their neighbours may choose to sell or redevelop. I'd prefer for development to occur incrementally, so I think it's perfectly alright to have holdouts.

[paradigm4]

Why hasn't the province taken a more heavy handed approach to force them to overturn this policy if it were going to spend so much money on both the Skytrain and Canada Lines running through Vancouver?

I suppose the fact that many premiers and other important cabinet members had seats in the CoV might have something to do with it.

It was my understanding that the Province is essentially trying to do this as part of their Translink overhaul. Property or development rights would be handed over to Translink from the participating municipalities so the GVTA would bring in some new source of revenue as transit-oriented development occurs (not sure if that's exactly how it works - it's kind of a grey area to me still).

[CoVWatchDog]

re: Emery Barnes: I believe there still is a question as to the City utilizing its powers of Expropriation to complete an already feasable and expandable park site (including much of the lane). It is understood that there are parcels of land [i beleive] not owned by the City, however, one needs to ask themselves, how critical are the remaining parcels if they are not included in the park site? The show could go on! Rumor has it, there is NONTHING holding up the City from providing its citizens with an expanded park to 90% of the block. I understand that the remaining parcels are not [critically] required for the second part of the park and the park may go ahead without the final properties... or at least it should.

[officedweller]

I think there were some funding problems with Emery Barnes Park that also delayed the expansion. The Development Cost Charge revenues collected from downtown south are running out (and downtown south is reaching build-out with litttle new DCC revenues coming up) - and those revenues are what's used to pay for the park space. Even the other one at Smithe and Richards could be in the air.

I can also confirm that expropriation proceedings were commenced this summer on the last properties for Emery Barnes Park.

***************

WRT GVTA or the Province rezoning around rapid transit stations, the only way I could see this working in practice is to have some sort of appeal board to oversee municipal decisions regarding those sites - like the OMB in Ontario.

Administratively, it would be cumbersome to establish a separate GVTA zoning/planning department to oversee the issuance of development permits and zoning approvals for carved-out zones around each rapid transit station since each site would also require a number of City permits (when all City building permits, inspections, etc. would still be required).

So what I could see is an appeal board (or a board of variance) that would review City zoning decisions to consider whether a City decision meets regional transit planning goals. Despite the fact that this has be heavily criticized in Toronto (the OMB having "too much" power to trump the City's decisions and being the "de facto" planning body for the City) it would allow adherance to the region-wide densification goals without being subject to the nimbys that lobby the vote-sensitive politicians at the City.

[twoNeurons]

Vancouver City council has a policy not to rezone purely because of a rapid transit station in the area. i.e. it won't rezone for transit-oriented development for the sake of transit-oriented development.

If the City chose to rezone to higher densities, what would happen in practice wold be that an area would be rezoned to multi-family, and existing single family houses would be existing non-conforming uses and can remain there as long as they want. Developers could "swoop-in" and buy up houses to consolidate properties to redevelop - but that depends on who is willing to sell.

If your house that was worth $500,000 suddenly became worth $1,200,000 because it was in a multi-family zoned area, how long could you put off selling, especially considering the fact that you'll be surrounded by high-rises soon enough.

[twoNeurons]

a transit station tax levy (although unpopular, I'm sure) could be used for properties around the station. It could be grandfathered so only new purchases would be affected, meaning if you BUY a house or a new condo in an area within x hundred metres of a station, you would have an additional tax levy, but current residents need not have any increase.

So all those people who live close to a station in residential houses who don't plan on moving (like for example, all the retired ones who want to keep the status quo of their life) don't need to worry about increased taxes.

In principle, I don't know how this would work, mind you.

[officedweller]

In the above scenario, as you've mentioned, emotional attachment would probably be the key driving force behind remaining in place. i.e. not every senior on the west side has "cashed in" on their property value.

What's the purpose of your proposed additional property taxes near a transit station?

[twoNeurons]

That's true, over time, however, the desirable areas around stations become generally more dense as more people sell or pass their house on to their offspring... that is IF the zoning allows it.

As for the taxation issue, it was proposed that the new translink would have more power over property in proximity to stations, i.e. densifying etc.

As much as people don't like increased taxation, it becomes a revenue stream for translink and is akin to somewhat of a "Convenience fee" and more palatable than a region-wide tax.

Those that are attracted to the convenience of transit are usually more apt to use it. There would be less balking than a flat out property tax across the Metro Vancouver area.

It would also negate the issue of say Langley residents who might say "Why should i have an additional property tax when I don't use transit"

If you live within a few hundred metres of a station, you will generally have used rapid Skytrain a few times a year at the very least.

This revenue stream would increase with density which could help to fund improvements to either the stations or transit in general.

If deemed a controversial tax, this tax could go not into the general translink pot, but only be permitted for either improvements that are deemed to be of benefit to those homeowners. For example, anything that improves frequency on the line or safety or visibility near the station could apply... but there are a WHOLE WIDE RANGE of things that it could be used and deemed as improving transit for the homeowner who pays the tax.

[officedweller]

I could see that having the unintended consequence of encouraging development away from stations - due to tax avoidance.

[Jared]

Slighty off topic, but it does relate somewhat to this discussion:

In the SUB at UBC there is a booth w/ info about the University Square project. According to one of the guys there, everything except the underground bus loop has been scrapped, and they're starting from scratch. They're there through most of the day for tommorow and friday, so make sure you check it out. They also have feedback forms you can fill out.

Additionally, there will be an info thingy specifically about the underground bus loop on October 5. I'm planning on going, and I'd encourage all our UBCer transit geeks to go. I want to mainly ask about how they're planning on accomodating a future SkyTrain line to the bus loop. I asked briefly today at the general booth, and the guy gave me a blank look like he's never heard of the Millenium Line extention before, and then just said that it won't happen for 40 years or something (when I'm 60! yikes!). Obviously, it will be a lot sooner than that. Does anyone know when the most recent reports/studies on it were done? Didn't the CoV vote on one a couple months ago? Has Translink done anything with it recently? Anyone (*cough* officedweller *cough* ;)) know?

Other stuff I wanna ask about:

Other things I want to ask about:
1) Apparently the bus loop is not high enough to accomodate trolleys?
2) What are they doing with the North bus loop now that all the buses are using this new one?
3) Where are they putting the exhaust vents for the new bus loop? It would be really dumb to have them right near this "wonderful new gathering space" they seem to be planning.

[mr.x]

Does anyone know when the most recent reports/studies on it were done? Didn't the CoV vote on one a couple months ago? Has Translink done anything with it recently?

From what I know, the UBC extension study should've commenced last year but it was delayed until this year when Translink finally had the balls to vote and fund for the study. The last study was done in 2002, and can be found on the City of Vancouver's Rapid Transit Office website, and the current study should be done in 2009.

Thx for the info about the SUB info booth on the underground bus loop, i'll be sure to check it out tomorrow. Where exactly is it though?

[Jared]

From what I know, the UBC extension study should've commenced last year but it was delayed until this year when Translink finally had the balls to vote and fund for the study. The last study was done in 2002, and can be found on the City of Vancouver's Rapid Transit Office website, and the current study should be done in 2009.

Thx for the info about the SUB info booth on the underground bus loop, i'll be sure to check it out tomorrow. Where exactly is it though?

So translink just voted to approve a new study on it, but the study hasn't started yet? And the CoV is in the middle of one?

The info booth is right in the main entrance area, right beside the ticket master outlet. You know where they had all those posters for sale a couple weeks ago? right there.

[mr.x]

So translink just voted to approve a new study on it, but the study hasn't started yet? And the CoV is in the middle of one?

The info booth is right in the main entrance area, right beside the ticket master outlet. You know where they had all those posters for sale a couple weeks ago? right there.

No, the Translink study has been approved and has already started.....and i'm guessing Translink is working with CoV on the study.

thx.

[djh]

On the Mayor's website there is a survey regarding the extension of the Millenium Line to UBC.
Bear in mind this is completely playing into partisan hands, and he will no doubt release multiple press releases to support whatever project he is taking sole responsibility for conceiving this week...nevertheless it would be good to fill this out and help raise awareness of our desire to get this project done!


Mayor Sam Sullivan invites residents, businesses and community organizations to provide their views about plans to complete the Millennium Rapid Transit Line from VCC Station to Central Broadway - and ultimately UBC.


See http://www.mayorsamsullivan.ca/

[Jared]

I filled in the survey. Although I am loathe to give Sam the opportunity to try and take credit for a Broadway extention, I really want the damn thing built.

[mr.x]

Think about region: Corrigan
By DHARM MAKWANA, 24 HOURS

Mayor Sam Sullivan's desire to extend the Millennium Line underground should be tempered by the region's transit needs, according to the mayor of neighbouring Burnaby.

"The reality is that we need much more than simply the Millennium Line through the north east sector," said Burnaby's Derek Corrigan. "We need a rapid transit line to go out into the valley where all the growth is occurring."

Residents in growing cities, such as Surrey, are no longer feeding into Vancouver alone.

"Today, the travel pattern is like dropping a handful of pick-up sticks," said TransLink's Ken Hardie.

Hardie admits transit planners can only key in on areas of high demand on the growing transportation grid because of a lack of funds.

Corrigan, a former B.C. Transit chair, complains that Sullivan's wish to bore under Broadway could sink TransLink further in debt.

"Sam and Vancouver do not believe in surface lines, which are much less expensive and much more people friendly," he said. "What he's proposing now ... is just a foolish expenditure of public money."

The cost of building the Canada Line, which mixes elevated, cut-and-cover and boring technology, is tabbed at more than $2 billion for the 19-kilometre route.

Corrigan added if the Millennium Line extension is built through tunnels, the costs will be off the charts.

"We can't afford to indulge Vancouver, having all of their lines go below ground," he said.

[deasine]

It's not a waste of money... bleh this guy is screwed in the head. Get him to take the 99 B-Line and the 9 Broadway bus and the 44 bus every single day. He'll change his mind then.

I think M-Line extension and rapid transit improvements in South of Fraser is necessary for this region.

[djh]

It does raise one interesting and potentially controversial issue though: if the Canada Line's 19km cost $2 billion, how much would the VCC-UBC run cost? And when that number is released, what would the public reaction be?

I read this story in 24hours today and it had the usual "man-on-the-street" responses. Almost every single one of them was opposed to the extension, citing stupidities such as "we have too much expense on our plate now, with the Olympics" and "th 99 bus is fine, just add a couple more". Is that what the average person really thinks?! So I can really see people being shocked when they hear the estimated cost.

[MistyMountainHop]

As Mayor of Burnaby Corrigan doesn't really have the right to complain about transit access. Burnaby is already well served by two SkyTrain lines. Cities like Surrey haven't planned their cities to encourage transit use. Broadway is a bigger priority.

[vanhattan]

It's not a waste of money... bleh this guy is screwed in the head. Get him to take the 99 B-Line and the 9 Broadway bus and the 44 bus every single day. He'll change his mind.

I could not agree more. The M line should have been built years ago. I used to take the bus via the 99B, 17 or 44. This year I just gave up standing in line in the rain while I got passed up in the am at Granville and Broad by 2-3 busses every morning. When I was able to sqeeze on a bus, it was standing room only, not occasionally, but EVERY DAY.

I am getting up in years and I decided I didn't need this crap anymore. Now I am back in my big, black Mercedes and drive to UBC everyday. Just the opposite of what city planners say they want.

I will not get back on the bus until they expand capacity enough to where I don't get passed up every morning and when I can actually sit down on at least some of my trips. The current over capacity situation is absolutely stupid. I just don't believe that Translink , the province or the city really care about the bus passenger.

[mr.x]

It does raise one interesting and potentially controversial issue though: if the Canada Line's 19km cost $2 billion, how much would the VCC-UBC run cost? And when that number is released, what would the public reaction be?

I read this story in 24hours today and it had the usual "man-on-the-street" responses. Almost every single one of them was opposed to the extension, citing stupidities such as "we have too much expense on our plate now, with the Olympics" and "th 99 bus is fine, just add a couple more". Is that what the average person really thinks?! So I can really see people being shocked when they hear the estimated cost.

IMO, commentary on 24 Hours should not be taken seriously. They take everything negatively....not to mention they're quite left wing. They hate Sullivan.


With regards to costs, I'd say $1.5 billion for about 11 kms to UBC?

The Canada Line cost $2 billion and about 9-10 kms of the 19.5 km line is tunnel - including 8 underground stations. The UBC line will have about 9 underground stations (Main, Cambie, Oak, Granville, Arbutus, Macdonald, Alma, Sasamat, UBC) plus one elevated station (Finning/Great Northern Way Campus). Add in the higher cost of stations (since there will be 80-metre platforms and station entrances will be located 100 metres away from Broadway - requiring a long ramp/escalator, etc.).

Is it worth it? What does "150,000 passengers per day" tell you?

[squeezied]

im assuming that it'll be extended to arbutus first, so that'll be a substantial cost reduction opposed to extending to ubc, which, i believe, would be a very sound investiment for the time being.

[twoNeurons]

I doubt it will be buried past MacDonald. There's no need.

[The_Henry_Man]

I doubt it will be buried past MacDonald. There's no need.

Is there EVEN enough room to build a tunnel portal if decision is to be made to go from underground to elevated around McDonald? Kitsilano and West Point Grey are absolutely notorious for extremely narrow roads. The only place where a tunnel portal can be built is just west of Blanca and W.10th, at the centre of the road. I envision an underground route all the way to Blanca and W.10th . Just west of that it's at-grade or in a shallow trench (possibility to save some money?) and then head back underground as soon you hit University Village.

Another question: Would boring be required for the section where the line would have to pass under the shallow C-Line tunnel at W.10th and Cambie?

[mr.x]

It's way too narrow along 10th and even along Broadway for elevated or at-grade, nevermind a tunnel portal....you could do it on 10th IF you plan to knock down a whole city block of homes and then cut down 30 to 40-metre tall trees on both sides of the road for a 15 block stretch, and then build a guideway on people's front lawns [sarcasm]. These are nothing like those tiny 15-foot trees that Cambie NIMBY's were complaining about.

Don't forget the steep grades west of Alma - which will most likely require bored tunneling. I live in the area so I do know what is and what's not possible.

[deasine]

And good luck convincing residents of the West side to wake up every morning seeing a grey concrete guideway flying in the sky in the front of their house.

I just say tunnel it all until Pacific Spirit Park, have at-grade, then do cut-cover tunnel to UBC.

[officedweller]

The City of Vancouver would never allow an elevated guideway (the only place an elevated guideway would even be technically possible would be along 16th Ave. west of MacDonald).

I could see cut and cover all the way along 10th Ave to UBC but a couple of issues arise:
=> cut and cover would have a detrimental impact on the businesses along 10th Ave near the UBC gates - BUT those businesses would benefit greatly in the long term if there's a station at (say) Sasamat;
=> the escarpment grade along 10th Ave. seems more manageable for cut and cover than the grade on 16th Ave.;
=> where could you transition to an elevated line once you hit the UEL?

Once you get past Blanca you leave the City of Vancouver and enter Electoral Area B (I think it's "B") - which is governed by the Province - so I could see elevated on the UEL. But the 10th Ave. corridor doesn't provide an easy asthetic elevated option once you pass the UBC gates (although future Musqueum development on the University Golf Course lands could be well served by a station). I could see it underground all the way into the UEL.
Alternatively, you could divert the line to 16th Ave. and elevate the guideway there (either in the middle or along the side of the roadway - it would serve the university's development projects out that way and provide a second stop on campus - but where could you divert the line to 16th (west of the escarpment) without boring?
The only option would be to cut and cover to past Blanca and then have a portal somewhere near the edges of the University Golf Course to divert to 16th Ave. - but my guess is that the Musqueum would want a station near their newly acquired lands - maybe they would allow an elevated line through lands that are currently golf course so as to avoid the built-up areas along University Blvd in approaching the bus loop.
Anyone think they'd ever allow an elevated line to take over East Mall south of the bus loop?

Global Air Photo for reference:
http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2007/vch2007_651.jpg

[npinguy]

Cut and cover along 10th?

No way. It'll get shot down by the local residents faster than the Canada line going down Arbutus.


Seriously COMPLETELY get rid of that idea because it's not happening. My parents live on 10th avenue close to Arbutus, and even though they would LOVE a skytrain stop near broadway&arbutus, most of the people in their co-op are HEAVILY against it.

Why? They think it'll bring crime. No joke. They think a skytrain station in the neighborhood would bring crime and they don't want that. With that kind of attitude being prevalent _AND_ a disruption to their commute being forced upon the residents? Cut and cover on 10th is right out.


Either you tunnel, or you dig up broadway, or you dig up another street (11th?)

[djh]

@officedweller:
"Once you get past Blanca you leave the City of Vancouver and enter Electoral Area B (I think it's "B") - which is governed by the Province - so I could see elevated on the UEL."

So I guess that gives Translink some leverage in persuading the Province to pay for that part of the line (i.e., pay for all of the work west Blanca)?

@npiguy
"Either you tunnel, or you dig up broadway, or you dig up another street (11th?)"

Isn't that the textbook definition of NIMBY behaviour? Why would they think it's not OK to dig up their street, but OK to dig up their neighbour's street? Funny, NIMBYism.
Either way 10th is the best solution. It only affects a *very small* number of residents until you get to Dunbar village (who I would feel sorry for), and even then, most people will still be able to get in and out of their houses via the laneways.

Tunnelling would be great. Couldn't the existing Canada Line borer be used (I think Mr. X is the expert on that as he's mentioned it before)? But since the machine is built, wouldn't that save a huge amount of money?

[mr.x]

^ if the Evergreen Line isn't built along the proposed northwest route which requires bored tunneling and instead goes along the southeast route, the Canada Line tunnel boring machine will be free to use for the Broadway extension.


Building an extension along 16th is out of the question....the NIMBY's wouldn't have it and it's in the middle of nowhere. It has to be either under Broadway or under 10th.

[Hot Rod]

build it under 10th and use the TBM or cut and cover, whichever method is fastest and cheapest!!

I suspect cut and cover is the preferred method, since it is cheaper. Perhaps there could be sections where the TBM would be useful, the remainder being cut and cover.

Nevertheless, I wish/hope we could get the planning and funding for this in place so that construction could begin in time to potentially use the TBM. We need to get this done, we're already significantly behind (with regard to mass transit) in Vancouver compared to other world cities.

Wanna make a REAL difference in the region, getting people OUT of their cars - build the M-Line extension to UBC then; this isn't rocket science.

[agrant]

I'm thinking a cut and cover along Broadway would create another Cambie village problem, multiplied by ten, not to mention it is a major commuting route. Tenth Ave would upset the residents along there. I'm all for boring the whole thing. Seems like way less disruption. How much more would that cost? Anyone?

As for the crime around the stations... I think that is something that can and should be improved. Is there some data showing crime is more prevalent around stations? Obviously, having little security or surveillance will invite a little more of that kind of activity.

[mr.x]

build it under 10th and use the TBM or cut and cover, whichever method is fastest and cheapest!!

we used the "fastest and cheapest" method for the Canada Line and we got 50-metre platforms....plus a ghost town. i want to see this line built the right way, the European way.



As for the crime around the stations... I think that is something that can and should be improved. Is there some data showing crime is more prevalent around stations? Obviously, having little security or surveillance will invite a little more of that kind of activity.

there was an article in the Sun two years ago about how there was more crime within a 800-metre radius around SkyTrain stations.

but by then, we would have installed fare gates.

[officedweller]

@officedweller:
"Once you get past Blanca you leave the City of Vancouver and enter Electoral Area B (I think it's "B") - which is governed by the Province - so I could see elevated on the UEL."

So I guess that gives Translink some leverage in persuading the Province to pay for that part of the line (i.e., pay for all of the work west Blanca)?


Hmm. Well, Electoral Area B is still part of GVRD / Metro and hence part of GVTA / SCBCTA - so probably no justification for a separate contribution.

I'm thinking a cut and cover along Broadway would create another Cambie village problem, multiplied by ten, not to mention it is a major commuting route.

I think there are way too many utilities under Broadway to cut and cover on Broadway.

we used the "fastest and cheapest" method for the Canada Line and we got 50-metre platforms....plus a ghost town. i want to see this line built the right way, the European way.

Not at-grade!

+++++++++++++++

Refresher - link to the City's previous M-Line extension reports:

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/millennium_extension.htm

See the Phase II Study report for maps etc.

More background info:

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/millennium_extension_bg.htm

This bulletin explains the suggested 10th Ave. allignment, which provides more accessible stations - like Broadway City Hall Station - basically one long ramp to the mezzanine level then stairs/escalators down to the platform. Note how it also "suggests" that the tunnels would be bored and stations "mined".

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/pdf/infosheet1.pdf

On the FAQs, the stations are decsribed as cut and cover:

Why is SkyTrain under 10th Avenue?

Tenth Avenue was selected as the preferred alignment for SkyTrain underground from Kingsway west for several reasons:

Tenth Avenue is at a slightly higher elevation than Broadway. This means that stations under the surface of 10th will be nearer the elevation of Broadway than if the same platforms were under Broadway. This gives a benefit of easier access and allows the distance from the station concourse to Broadway to be covered by a gentle ramp rather than stairs and escalators. A related advantage is that stations can be designed such that passengers are not required to double-back as they enter and exit the station.

There are no major utilities under 10th. This makes construction much easier, more economical and less disruptive than it would be on 8th, which has a major sewer line, or Broadway which has many utilities.

While the SkyTrain tunnel would be excavated using a tunnel boring machine that would not disturb the surface, station construction would be done using the cut-and-cover method. This necessitates large excavations at station locations and it is desirable to keep these on a lightly trafficked street, such as 10th, rather than disrupt a major arterial like Broadway.

Building underground transit lines slightly off the primary arterial that they serve is not uncommon. For example, the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth subway lines in Toronto are just off their namesake streets for much of their length.

[fever]

From the GVRD/Metro Vancouver website:

Electoral Area A
Electoral Area A is made up of the following unincorporated areas:

- the west side of Pitt Lake
- the northern portion of Indian Arm
- a portion of land between the District of West Vancouver and the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (excluding the Village of Lions Bay)
- the islands of Bowyer, Passage and Barnston
- the University Endowment Lands (including Pacific Spirit Regional Park)
- the University of British Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------
I'm also wondering where the suggestion of 16th Ave came up. It would be a bit of a detour, and it would likely face more opposition than 10th Ave.

Cut and cover under 10th Ave looks like the way to go especially until Arbutus. There are a few tall trees along 10th near the hospital, but that's about it. I hope they can avoid having to go under and back up to get to the eastbound platform

[officedweller]

Thanks.
I think 16th is only mentioned because of the boulevard west of MacDonald.

Stacked tunnels under 10th would allow "scissored" ramps to access each platform without any stairs or escalators at all. That wouldn't apply to a station at Granville or any others further west, since the difference in elevation between 10th and Broadway disappears by then.

Just occurred to me that the M-Line would have to pass under the Canada Line at Cambie. That's pretty deep. I suppose it could be cut and covered. The knock-out panel from Broadway-City Hall station is at the west end of the mezzanine - a passage would connect south to 10th Ave (under the roadway) and then down to the platforms. Rough schematic below - note platform depicted would be deep below Canada Line ROW not at the level shown. Alternatively, I suppose they could connect from the east side of the mezzanine if necessary (i.e. more space for a station house on the City-owned land to the east).

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5505/65367584xi4.jpg

[The_Henry_Man]

^LOL....just beat me to it. Well, I think bored tunnel is the only possible way to go underneath the C-Line tunnel. I don't know how cut-and-cover can be done without damaging the structure of the C-Line tunnel.

I think with the M-Line Broadway-City Hall Station (they better use the same name!!!), A LOT of money can be saved for the extension project by utilizing and sharing with the same (and common) station entrances and mezzanine as the C-Line counterpart, but an extra corridor can be built to connect the platform of the M-Line part from the shared mezzanine.

[officedweller]

I think they would be able to excavate around the Canada Line tunnel. They can excavate and support entire buildings on stilts while excavating, so supporting the tunnel should be doable.

[deasine]

there was an article in the Sun two years ago about how there was more crime within a 800-metre radius around SkyTrain stations.

but by then, we would have installed fare gates.

But you have to remember this: fare gates won't solve the problem with crime around the stations but only prevent fare envasions. Like you said, crime happens within 800 metre radius around SkyTrain stations: fare gates won't prevent crime happening outside of the stations. What we need is increase of policing around SkyTrain stations (something the Vancouver Police and RCMP have to organize).

Omg yeah the M-Line would have to be dug real deap =P

Edit: Just pulled this from Ctiy's Archives on the Junction of M-Line and C-Line at Broadway City-Hall Station...

http://members.shaw.ca/clauf/c1.jpg
M-Line Extension Original Doc.

http://members.shaw.ca/clauf/c2.jpg
Remember the M-Line will have to have at least have 80m platforms (with maybe an option to extned to 100m in the future). That means they will have to start digging deap from Ontario St. in order for the M-Line to be under the C-Line and have room for its long platform.

http://members.shaw.ca/clauf/m10.jpg
This is what will the SkyTrain stations look like (rough sketch obviously) if the M-Line was under W 10th.

[jlousa]

Just to clarify an above rebuttal, fare gates will reduce crime around stations, the fact there is higher crime around stations is due to criminals using the trains for free rides. If you conduct a study I bet you wouldn't find the same precentage of increased crime around bus stops.

[WBC]

Cut and cover along 10th?

No way. It'll get shot down by the local residents faster than the Canada line going down Arbutus.


Seriously COMPLETELY get rid of that idea because it's not happening. My parents live on 10th avenue close to Arbutus, and even though they would LOVE a skytrain stop near broadway&arbutus, most of the people in their co-op are HEAVILY against it.

Why? They think it'll bring crime. No joke. They think a skytrain station in the neighborhood would bring crime and they don't want that. With that kind of attitude being prevalent _AND_ a disruption to their commute being forced upon the residents? Cut and cover on 10th is right out.


Either you tunnel, or you dig up broadway, or you dig up another street (11th?)

I don't know that SkyTrain along 10th or even 16th is such a bad idea. Firstly, we have increased crime around sky train stations. Secondly, we have drug lords living in the mansions in the area (as witnessed by the latest bout of gang wars). Wouldn't those 2 things go hand in hand? I mean at least we would have drug lords using transit :-)

[officedweller]

They won't have the same problems with grades and long platforms on the M-Line - the route is relatively flat. It'll just cost more to excavate more soil.

[deasine]

Just to clarify an above rebuttal, fare gates will reduce crime around stations, the fact there is higher crime around stations is due to criminals using the trains for free rides. If you conduct a study I bet you wouldn't find the same precentage of increased crime around bus stops.

True you do limit those. But many of the criminals that haven't been caught aren't riding the system but are like around the SkyTrain stations just waiting for victims. That is what happened @ 29th Avenue Station: the woman that was riding the system came out walking home and finds herself attacked by a bunch of hopeless individuals riding their car around thinking it's fun doing so.

Note i do want a gated system. But I think that we should make sure there is enough security AROUND the stations as well.

[Canadian Mind]

woulsn't it infact also be cheaper because of the small amount of gradient change, even with longer platforms?

Also, I think all the M-line platforms should be designed to be extendable to 120 meters right off the bat, rather than just the ability to expand to 100 meters. some day we're going to need 120 meter trains, and it will be a right bitch to have to modify designs and dig up the road for a third time once the 100 meter extensions are put in and used up to capacity.

[deasine]

woulsn't it infact also be cheaper because of the small amount of gradient change, even with longer platforms?

Also, I think all the M-line platforms should be designed to be extendable to 120 meters right off the bat, rather than just the ability to expand to 100 meters. some day we're going to need 120 meter trains, and it will be a right bitch to have to modify designs and dig up the road for a third time once the 100 meter extensions are put in and used up to capacity.

i'm not sure if our skytrain system can acutally handle that. According to my knowledge, Expo Line stations are 80m platforms that are expandable to 100m. I'm not sure if that's the case with the M-Line stations. But let's say if the M-Line stations are designed to be expandable to 120m (which I dont' think that's the case) and the Evergreen Line becomes a SkyTrain (rather than a LRT) that is expandable to 120m, then we can build the 120m platforms on the Western Extension and have longer trains running from Coquitlam to UBC but not UBC to Downtown (via Columbia).

[mr.x]

But you have to remember this: fare gates won't solve the problem with crime around the stations but only prevent fare envasions. Like you said, crime happens within 800 metre radius around SkyTrain stations: fare gates won't prevent crime happening outside of the stations. What we need is increase of policing around SkyTrain stations (something the Vancouver Police and RCMP have to organize).


To an extent, fare gates will overall reduce crime and will nearly deplete fare evasion. It's like a Brita water filter :D, it eliminates access to some types of criminals.


The grade along 10th and Broadway isn't as steep as the Cambie rise and fall, so like officedweller said it does eliminate some problems associated with the Canada Line.

[agrant]

there was an article in the Sun two years ago about how there was more crime within a 800-metre radius around SkyTrain stations.

but by then, we would have installed fare gates.There was a blurb on the news about fare gates. If I heard correctly, we'll have them in the new year sometime.

[mr.x]

...which also means a smart card/distance based fare system.

*jumps on bed*

[Stingray2004]

Just to clarify an above rebuttal, fare gates will reduce crime around stations, the fact there is higher crime around stations is due to criminals using the trains for free rides. If you conduct a study I bet you wouldn't find the same precentage of increased crime around bus stops.

To further expand on that issue, BC MoT Minister Falcon was on BCTV Global this evening announcing that all Skytrain stations will have a... well... something akin to a turnstyle for all passengers entering Skytrain platforms.

Interesting stats vis-a-vis a similar transformation on a (?) similar European conversion:

1. Fare evasion reduced from 20% to 2%;

2. Fare evaders caused 60% of crime;

3. As a result of increased perception of security, ridership increased by 30%

You just can't argue with those stats.

[officedweller]

Yeah, the stats were for Amsterdam.

[fever]

just to clarify this... iirc, existing m-line stations are all 60 m long? expo-line stations are 80 m and could be extended to 100 m without realigning the guideway?

[officedweller]

M-Line stations are 80m as far as I know.

[deasine]

just to clarify this... iirc, existing m-line stations are all 60 m long? expo-line stations are 80 m and could be extended to 100 m without realigning the guideway?

u can see that expo line stations can be extended to 100 m: look at 29th Avenue Station: soo much room to extend the platform Eastwards.

Metrotown station is also extending their platforms =)

[mr.x]

^ i remember that too...is Metrotown extending their platforms by 10 metres or 20 metres? i forgot what the diagrams i posted said.

[officedweller]

When the Expo Line stations were built, the guideway was built to allow expansion of platform length to accommodate 8-car MKI trains - i.e. (8 x 12.7m = 101.6 m).

The M-Line west materials http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/pdf/beyondthebline.pdf
mention the 80m length:

Stations - Station amenities, information systems, ticketing, and security are
assumed to be consistent with the Phase I design of the SkyTrain extension.
Stations are designed to accommodate either Mk I or Mk II vehicles.
Single center platforms are assumed, with a 9m to 10m width and 80m length.
Station entries for all stations would be coordinated with both existing and
planned development. Given the importance of connections to local bus
service, and in particular the Broadway Rapid Bus to UBC, particular attention
will need to be paid to providing the most direct path possible between
the SkyTrain entry and the Rapid Bus stop.

Operations - The SkyTrain alternative would operate as an extension of the
line from Lougheed Mall to VCC (north). Trains would stop at all stations,
with train lengths determined by ridership demand. The maximum train
length would be 5 Mk II vehicles, which represents a total capacity of
approximately 650 passengers. Headways as close as 90 seconds can be operated;
however, considerations such as ridership east of the Broadway Station
and the configuration of a Cambie Station if a north-south Cambie
SkyTrain line is implemented will be key determinants of the frequency of
service.

Vehicles - Initial operations assume use of the SkyTrain Mk II vehicles,
which are 17.5m in length. Mk I (12.5m) vehicles could also be used in the
corridor. Future orders could result in vehicles of greater length, although
the working assumption is that any future vehicles would need to function
within the constraints of the 80m platforms, as is the case throughout the
system.

[deasine]

^ i remember that too...is Metrotown extending their platforms by 10 metres or 20 metres? i forgot what the diagrams i posted said.

i don't think it specifically said..."the exisiting station is planned to accomdate 20 m platform extension.blablabalbalbalbalba. An extension to the existing platform will improve passenger flow blablablablaba" I would say they are planning to extend 20.

[mr.x]

heh.....you'd think they'd redesign Broadway Station and lengthen its platform as well.....it's a lot more busier and crowded than Metrotown. looking at the diagrams, i was expecting a complete rehaul (like the Metrotown and Main Street designs) of the station.

[deasine]

Metrotown just shocked me. Broadway was a huge disappointment. They said they were going to have a new roof didn't they?

[officedweller]

Broadway Stn already has the overpass over Broadway - that probably functions like the extension would at Metrotown - and removing the elevator will open up the flow along it. I don't think Broadway Stn can really be improved until the Safeway relocates.
If it becomes necessary, I could see an outside platform added either where the Safeway roof is or on the west side - basically what's being done to Union Station on the Yonge line in TO - but it would have to tie in to the north side of Broadway with another pedestrian bridge.

[deasine]

Broadway Stn already has the overpass over Broadway - that probably functions like the extension would at Metrotown - and removing the elevator will open up the flow along it. I don't think Broadway Stn can really be improved until the Safeway relocates.

well at least they are fully expanding the overpass, though the plans didn't show this. I'm a little worried that when Safeway moves, we will see an ugly concrete wall. Supposedly, they can only take two concrete bays off... but that would look even worst.

[officedweller]

Good article criticizing the City of Vancouver for not densifying around Skytrain Stations:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=17481292-c723-4411-a184-12723a431a15&p=1

Key density growth to SkyTrain stations

Bob Ransford, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, November 10, 2007

Public transit infrastructure should follow dense urban growth. Public transit infrastructure should be in place to attract more dense growth.

Density or urban infill growth and transit infrastructure need to be planned simultaneously and are dependent on each other.

Which of the foregoing three statements is correct when it comes to managing growth in a rapidly growing urban region?

Hopefully, common sense would tell you that we should plan density, or urban infill growth, at the same time we are planning the expansion of our integrated transit network in Metro Vancouver.

Unfortunately, there's a shortage of common sense when it comes to our governing institutions and their decision-makers.

Mayor Sam Sullivan says that today, transit ridership in the Broadway corridor tops 60,000 people a day. He says this justifies the need to extend the Millennium SkyTrain system from Clark Drive all the way west to UBC.

I recall a similar argument being made when politicians were attempting to justify a $1-billion-plus expenditure on the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line a few years ago.

That project, now topping $2 billion as it approaches completion, runs through a continuous corridor of low-to medium-density development in Vancouver. There are a number of nodes south of the downtown peninsula where significant growth could occur along the Cambie Street-Canada Line corridor, but "could" is the operative word. Whether or not growth does occur along the Cambie corridor is up to Mayor Sullivan and Vancouver city council.

One small developer has been working for at least two years trying to get approval to build six fee-simple townhomes on a single-family lot that fronts directly on Cambie, not far from one of the Canada Line stations.

Not only will it be a model development for the kind of row-housing developments that don't yet exist in this city, it is a form of modest density in an area that should welcome even more density.

Plans have been drafted for some modest new infill development around one of the more important Canada Line stations -- Oakridge -- at 41st Avenue. There are four other stations south of the density that will occur near the Olympic Village station on the southeast corner of False Creek. Density needs to occur around each of these stations, just as it is being planned around at least three of Richmond's four Canada Line stations.

We can't afford to build a $2-billion transit system and have it serve an under-built corridor. The Canada Line was supposed to serve a corridor with existing density. It was also supposed to attract new density. Many would argue that the density it served was primarily commercial and institutional density, and not residential density. If the Oakridge plan is any indicator of the type of density increases we can expect to see around the other Canada Line stations, the whole project has failed.

There are already two transit corridors that run east-west through the eastern part of the city where growth has yet to live up to the potential that rapid transit was meant to spur. One line has been in place for more than two decades.

The other, about a decade. There are at least five transit stations along these two lines where the predominant form of residential development within walking distance of the station is still single-family residential.

What is an appropriate density along these transit lines and around their stations? Look at how Burnaby has planned growth around most of the 11 stations in that municipality. Infill development around the Patterson, Metrotown and Edmonds stations has now matured and is a good example of the kind of medium- to high-density development that should be developed around transit stations.

Similar growth is underway around at least three or four other SkyTrain stations in Burnaby.

Surrey is also beginning to see the potential for infill growth around its SkyTrain stations. That city has the potential of developing an entire new downtown around the Surrey Central station.

It seems as though decision-makers and developers in Surrey are beginning to realize that potential.

That leaves Vancouver. Before the mayor talks a lot more about extending the rapid transit system along Broadway, perhaps he can demonstrate what the city is prepared to accommodate in terms of new growth around Vancouver's existing SkyTrain stations.

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. E-mail: ransford@counterpoint.ca

© The Vancouver Sun 2007

[giallo]

It's quite bizarre, really.
29th Street Station is a complete joke. For 20 years this neighborhood has had access to the Expo line and basically no infill, medium to high density, has taken place. City council must have the common sense to recognize this and do some proper rezoning. I mean.....it's the whole point of building rapid transit!!!

[officedweller]

The City of Vancouver's policy is (paraphrased) "do not rezone for high density solely because its next to a rapid transit station" - the City has only upzoned where it goes from industrial to residential (i.e. "improves" the neighbourhood).

[jlousa]

29th and Nanaimo are in the planning stage to upzone, I don't beleive they are envisioning highrises ala Joyce Station but more along the lines of clusters of midrises and townhouses. The strike has delayed everything, but I imagine we'll hear what they have planned in spring/08.

[Hot Rod]

rowhouses would be nice!!!

[officedweller]

That's encouraging - after 20 years!

[alta-bc]

Article in The Province today states that 1.73 million dollars has been approved to plan the Millenium line westward extension.

Is this new or old news?

[mr.x]

Article in The Province today states that 1.73 million dollars has been approved to plan the Millenium line westward extension.

Is this new or old news?

That's new news i think. Translink approved a $1 million study of its own, and the City must be spending money of its own for a separate study.




City plans SkyTrain extension to UBC
Council OKs $1.7-million study of Broadway with its 70,000 commuters
Frank Luba, The Province
Published: Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Vancouver is not trying to jump past Coquitlam in the queue for rapid transit, according to city Coun. Suzanne Anton.

Vancouver council yesterday unanimously supported a staff motion that recommended spending $1.73 million to plan for an extension of the Millennium Line SkyTrain westward on Broadway from its current terminus near Vancouver Community College.

But Anton, a member of the soon-to-be-replaced TransLink board, insisted the Evergreen Line to Coquitlam from Lougheed Mall remains the top priority.

"The Evergreen Line is a project which is ready to go right now," she said. "It is first, it should go first. It could start soon."

But the Evergreen Line, estimated at nearly $1 billion, remains only a proposal with a funding shortfall of about $400 million.

Meanwhile, yesterday's approval for the Millennium Line planning stage means details like routes and technologies will be studied.

"I would imagine it would be four to five years before we put a shovel in the ground," she said.

Planners will look at options like an underground line all the way to UBC, a combination of underground line and LRT or LRT all the way.

"Our staff estimates about 70,000 people a day go along that corridor," said Anton. "It's a huge ridership already and growing every day.

"When the Evergreen Line is built, that will feed even more people into that line."

fluba@png.canwest.com

WHAT DO YOU THINK?




interestingly, a lot of my university classmates think an extension to UBC is "stupid"...but i'm quite sure they have no idea what they are talking about.

[alta-bc]

Planners will look at options like an underground line all the way to UBC, a combination of underground line and LRT or LRT all the way.

I think the only way to go is to continue with Skytrain underground for as far as they can afford, and fill the gap with the B-Line. (wasn't Granville or Arbutus one of the possible termini?) This way it can be extended fully to UBC eventually. Of course it would be great if they could run it to UBC right away but I image that the cost would be incredibly high.

I would be surprised if street level LRT was chosen, (I'm assuming this is what is meant with LRT), think of what a mess it would make on the already crowded Broadway corridor. Also, if they chose LRT all the way, it wouldn't change much from what we have today.

interestingly, a lot of my university classmates think an extension to UBC is "stupid"...but i'm quite sure they have no idea what they are talking about.

Do these classmates drive to school?

[mr.x]

Do these classmates drive to school?

they take transit, but they keep telling me all you have to do is buy more buses instead of spending billions.

[SpongeG]

i kinda agree - expand it to granville arbutus at least and than provide better bus service from points along the canada line and extended m line

they could nick name it the UBC limo line if they go all the way

[Rusty Gull]

^ I politely beg to differ. Name me one employer on the current SkyTrain network -- even one -- that employs more people than UBC. Furthermore, there is significant residential densification at the university.

The ongoing transit crunch to the edge of Point Grey ensures that the need for rapid transit to UBC is only growing. This is why the extension of the Millennium Line is poised to jump to the front of the queue in terms of GVRD transit priorities.

[SpongeG]

but its a waste other areas are more in need

once you get passed arbutus the traffic is pretty light

the worst congestion i seem to notice is along broadway from commercial to burrard after that its not too bad

busses would serve it well - from oakridge, arbutus etc.

are professors too above busses to use them or something?

[squeezied]

are professors too above busses to use them or something?

i've seen a few of my profs at the ubc bus loop, but i should mention they were relatively young

[twoNeurons]

I would tend to agree. Build it to granville or preferably arbutus, and then if a UBC extension is warranted before say, a Hastings Line, or a Surrey Extension or a 41st Line or another RAV line down arbutus or Main (after the 50m platforms and trains reach capacity... say a few years from now)

Not to go too much off track here... but didn't people call skytrain a "toy train" because it was too short?

[officedweller]

The size/length/width of the cars more than length of trains.
But Chicago's El has cars of comparable size - proabbly has to do with turning radii on elevated systems meant to be built in the inner city.

[jonjacob]

Good article criticizing the City of Vancouver for not densifying around Skytrain Stations:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=17481292-c723-4411-a184-12723a431a15&p=1

The other, about a decade. There are at least five transit stations along these two lines where the predominant form of residential development within walking distance of the station is still single-family residential.

What is an appropriate density along these transit lines and around their stations? Look at how Burnaby has planned growth around most of the 11 stations in that municipality. Infill development around the Patterson, Metrotown and Edmonds stations has now matured and is a good example of the kind of medium- to high-density development that should be developed around transit stations.



Oh Brother.

And what exactly surrounded many of Burnaby's stations before they were built? Could it be *cough* industrial and *cough* undeveloped land to begin with?

Shall Vancouver simply tell all the families that have lived in their homes for years and years to vacate? Density will come.

The author also fails to note that many of Vancouver's stations have densified far more than the Burnaby stations, and he also fails to note the development going on around them, for example: Waterfront, Burrard, Granville, Stadium, Main Street, Commercial Drive and Joyce.

[officedweller]

The point is that the City of Vancouver has not made the "hard" decision to densify at all of its stations - yes - that means upzoning single family residences to allow higher densities - especially where they occupy valuable land within easy commuting distance to the downtown. Look at Paris - it has 6-8 storey buildings as far as the eye can see.

Vancouver has only densified where it has converted industrial lands to residential lands (to the detriment of the industrial land base) - perpetuating low density at locations close to the core (and transit) for the past 20 years, thereby forcing growth (and sprawl?) farther away from the core.

i.e. the City of Vancouver protests that highways are being built to serve the sprawling neighbourhoods of the suburbs, when it is preserving the same low densities at locations close to the core that could provide dense housing and short commutes for many more people. And in some cases, denser uses would probably help make the neighbourhood safer too with more pedestrian activity.

[Hot Rod]

yet, isn't Vancouver's population density the highest in the metro? Even if you take downtown out of it, isn't the rest of the city's density still higher than any other city in the metro (or western canada for that matter?)

Dont get me wrong, I agree that the city should get much more dense but I think it is already pretty darn dense not to warrant such garbage reporting.

[fever]

Families that live in their own houses aren't forced out by a rezoning. They can live there as long as they want, and when they sell they make quite a bit more than they would otherwise. Yes, the neighbourhood around them will change and tenants will be forced out by landlords taking a profit, but more dense housing should increase the number of apartments available for rent.

Municipal densities don't imply much about densities at the neighbourhood level. North Vancouver District, for example, is mostly uninhabited. I'd guess that Vancouver minus downtown would still be more densely populated than North Van City or New West. It could be close, though.

[SpongeG]

commercial drive could really do away with a ton of those ugly 3 storeis and replace them with some higher ones

but replacing rentals with condos would be a bad move

it seems developers just can't build rentals apparently - its too costly for them according to them

i think i read it somewhere on this site that they would need to charge $1800 + or something a month to make it worthwhile

[fever]

A lot of condos are rented out. I'm curious what the percentage is exactly. Anyone have an idea what it is for their condo building?

[bils]

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20071120_013947_4384

Millennium line survey shows enthusiasm for new route
Monday, November 19 - 10:41:43 AM Renee Bernard

Vancouver (News 1130) - A survey on the Millennium line expansion project on the City of Vancouver's website had close to 16-hundred people respond over a two week period.

The proposed line would run from Vancouver Community College along Broadway and perhaps all the way to UBC.

Of the 88-percent of the respondents who say they will use the new line, almost half say they would no longer use the existing bus service, and a quarter say the new line will allow them to leave their cars at home.

Half of respondents want a tunnel system.

Two-thirds want it extended right to UBC.

[mr.x]

^ they mean Sullivan's website right? great news, there's some backing on this project that politicians can ride on...

[squeezied]

they want it along broadway? not tenth?

i wonder what that'll say abt public ignorance.

[mr.x]

they want it along broadway? not tenth?

i wonder what that'll say abt public ignorance.

the public probably doesn't know station entrances would still be on Broadway....which would be the city's fault.

[deasine]

Well it's not the public that actually gets to choose where the line runs on... =D Hopefully the transit officals GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME unlike the Canada Line

[LeftCoaster]

Oh Brother.

And what exactly surrounded many of Burnaby's stations before they were built? Could it be *cough* industrial and *cough* undeveloped land to begin with?

Shall Vancouver simply tell all the families that have lived in their homes for years and years to vacate? Density will come.

The author also fails to note that many of Vancouver's stations have densified far more than the Burnaby stations, and he also fails to note the development going on around them, for example: Waterfront, Burrard, Granville, Stadium, Main Street, Commercial Drive and Joyce.

I dont know if you have been out to the millenium line stations near brentwood on the Vancouver side, but it is pathetic. Not only are the stations in dead areas, but there is UNDEVELOPED land near them... not just under developed or single family homes... but undeveloped empty grass lots. It is pathetic! And they are going the wrong way, as the developments currently taking place involve a recently opened McDonalds drivethrough with surface parking and other low low density developments. It is an absolute joke that vancouver city touts this eco density then does nothing near its already built skytrain stations. At least things look like they will be different with some of the canada line stations, as Oakridge etc are set to be much denser and more populated communities.

And as for kicking families out of their homes, its not like developers can just kick people out, they are given waaaay over market rates for their houses and only chose to accept if they want. I would be ecstatic if a developer wanted to build a development on my land, thats where homeowners can really cash in! Right now a friend of mine's neighbourhood is being bought by a developer and the neighbourhood has banded togther to ask for one large lump some for the land and they are making a killing, everyone is happy from the developer to the residents. The residents will all have alot more money at their disposal, and the developer can make a profit on a large peice of desirable underdeveloped land.

And the development you mentioed... around four downtown skytrain stations? That have been there for 20 years, and were already dense areas before the skytrain station? Come on!

[mr.x]

^ my thoughts as well.

one of my family's friends bought a house on Oak for $500,000. Today, a developer wants to develop the entire block into condos and townhouses and they are offering $1.5 million to everyone.

[jonjacob]

I dont know if you have been out to the millenium line stations near brentwood on the Vancouver side, but it is pathetic. Not only are the stations in dead areas, but there is UNDEVELOPED land near them... not just under developed or single family homes... but undeveloped empty grass lots. It is pathetic! And they are going the wrong way, as the developments currently taking place involve a recently opened McDonalds drivethrough with surface parking and other low low density developments. It is an absolute joke that vancouver city touts this eco density then does nothing near its already built skytrain stations.

Fair enough.

And as for kicking families out of their homes, its not like developers can just kick people out, they are given waaaay over market rates for their houses and only chose to accept if they want.

Yes, I realize this. That's why I posed the rhetorical question:
"Shall Vancouver simply tell all the families that have lived in their homes for years and years to vacate?"
The obvious answer is: no. Hence, you will not get rapid densification around those stations

And the development you mentioed... around four downtown skytrain stations? That have been there for 20 years, and were already dense areas before the skytrain station? Come on!

I mentioned 7 stations, all on the Expo line, not 4. My argument is this: The density around these 7 stations has exploded since the Expo line opened. I don't have historical population density numbers handy, and I doubt they would be as fine grain as we need them to be anyhow to prove this point. Have a look at the Global Air Photos site as an example:
http://www.globalairphotos.com/

Look at the area's surrounding the 7 stations I have mentioned in 1986 vs today. I believe the sheer volume of high rises would easily tie if not trump all development along all other Skytrain stations combined. That is my argument.

The city can zone everything as ultra high-density, but in the end, a developer has to come in and get it done. If there isn't a business case for it, the developer won't bother.

As for looking to Paris as an example:
Paris has to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world, with an awesome metro system. It also happens to be over 1000 years older than Vancouver. It would be great if Vancouver imposed the strict building standards imposed in Paris, but then no developer would build anything at all due to prohibitive costs. Probably not a good comparison.

I agree with all of you who think more should be done, but I thought the original article was a fluff piece, written to get a reaction out of people.

[giallo]

^^Not too shabby!

Everyone seems to have the right idea about what needs to be done in Vancouver, so why doesn't city council. Does anyone have an ear at City Hall? I can't for the life of me understand why no high density rezoning along the Expo line has been implemented.

[officedweller]

The bottom line is that the City of Vancouver has a long standing policy not to densify around rapid transit stations merely becuase the station is located there. I've seen explicit reference to it in council minutes in the past (i.e. 1990s), but not recently. That's probably why when you ride the Skytrain near Nanaimo Station you'll see a lot of empty lots that have been empty since Expo.
Vancouver has only allowed rezoning for high density (as opposed to downtown stations already in high density areas) at stations where industrial lands have been changed to residential uses (Main St. & Joyce) - i.e. where the NIMBYs are likely to see the change as a benefit. Or on existing large sites (Kingsway and Knight) even if they are far from rapid transit and apt to encourage auto use (I call this opportunistic planning, taking advantage of sites that have less hurdles to clear). Developers' willingness to develop those sites suggest that development of more transit accessible sites would not be a problem. And City Council talks about housing affordability - land is less expensive outside the core - and that would be reflected in lower housng prices (in this market still higher than the suburbs, though). What you essentially have is downtown Vancouver being an island of high density surrounded by a sea of low density single family areas - then clumps of higher density in the suburbs. Those longer commutes increase the burden on the existing rapid transit system. Vancouver has historic precedents like Kerrisdale where a community grew up around a rapid transit line, yet the same isn't being done along the Expo Line.
As the core of the region, it isn't unreasonable to expect Vancouver to develop to a higher density throughout its jurisdiction (which it is attempting to do with Ecodensity) - but it makes sense to focus much of that growth where people have easy access to rapid transit, and that isn't being done.

[mr.x]

Broadway SkyTrain needed: poll
Mayor's survey also suggests city residents don't want a repeat of the Canada Line construction fiasco

Frances Bula, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, December 15, 2007

Metro Vancouver residents desperately want a SkyTrain line along Broadway to replace overcrowded and perpetually delayed buses, an online poll conducted through Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan's website suggests.

But they don't want a repeat of the Canada Line construction fiasco.

Twice as many respondents said they would choose the route that is "least disruptive" compared with the one that is "least expensive." And 90 per cent said the city should be an active participant in the project's formal environmental assessment to protect the interests of businesses and residents.

"The Cambie construction has been horrible and businesses are failing because of it," wrote one.

Another said: "It should be a tunnel where businesses are predominant. The cut-and-cover process is too disruptive."

Those opinions came from an unscientific but popular survey done through Sullivan's website on the proposed Millennium Line western extension. The survey drew 1,600 responses, half from Vancouver and half from elsewhere in the Metro region, over two weeks this fall.

Sullivan initiated the survey as a way of getting an early take on public opinion about the line. The planning process, which will be carried out jointly by city and TransLink staff, is expected to take three years.

The survey appears to have attracted a greater proportion of transit riders than exist in the general population.

The City of Vancouver's statistics indicate that about two-thirds of people travel along Broadway in cars, either as drivers or passengers.

Only 20 per cent use transit, 12 per cent walk, and three per cent bike.

But the survey results indicated that almost 60 per cent of those who responded use the current transit service four times a week or more.

Many of those indicated profound frustration with the existing bus service.

Some of the comments:

"Stopped using the No. 9 from Glen [Drive] to [Vancouver General Hospital] every day due to overcrowding."

"I see mounting frustration every single day as people people wait for, and squeeze into, over-packed buses."

"99-B is horrible. It takes me nearly three hours on the road every day."

About one in five people who said they use the 99-B express bus service on Broadway get passed up by buses at least four times a week.

Almost 70 per cent of those who responded said they think the Millennium extension should be built to protect the environment.

More than half said they'd prefer a tunnel, while a third said an elevated SkyTrain was their choice.

Another 14 per cent wanted a street car or light rail.

The Millennium extension had been a top priority for TransLink prior to 2003. Then the provincial government pushed hard to move the Canada Line, from downtown Vancouver to central Richmond and the airport, ahead on the priority list, while the federal government threw in a substantial amount of money for the project, making it financially attractive.

Councillors from the eastern suburbs supported the line on the condition that their rapid-transit extension, the Evergreen Line, got built next.

That project, projected to cost around $1 billion, doesn't yet have firm financing yet. TransLink has committed $400 million, but has been waiting for more than a year for the provincial government's response.

fbula@png.canwest.com

[Architype]

Metro Vancouver residents desperately want a SkyTrain line along Broadway to replace overcrowded and perpetually delayed buses, an online poll conducted through Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan's website suggests.

But they don't want a repeat of the Canada Line construction fiasco.

The City of Vancouver's statistics indicate that about two-thirds of people travel along Broadway in cars, either as drivers or passengers.

Only 20 per cent use transit, 12 per cent walk, and three per cent bike.


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=b6b5be3c-0aa9-4d42-8eee-4b4d2090d566

My thoughts exactly, the construction of a transit line along Broadway is vital to the functioning of the city.

[SpongeG]

if they were to say densify commercial to clark along broadway with towers etc - most of the low rises and stuff there is rental property - they would have to replace them towers that no one could afford the rent - maybe thats why there is no rush by the city to get something done along the stations?

there was an article somewhere on here where a developer said in order to build rentals he would need to get $3 a square foot - so a 600 sq ft apartment would end up being $1800 a month or something far too high for the market to take

there are already enough renters crying over losing rental units to condos in the city

it would be nice but they can't keep building condos no one can afford

[Lee_Haber8]

if they were to say densify commercial to clark along broadway with towers etc - most of the low rises and stuff there is rental property - they would have to replace them towers that no one could afford the rent - maybe thats why there is no rush by the city to get something done along the stations?

there was an article somewhere on here where a developer said in order to build rentals he would need to get $3 a square foot - so a 600 sq ft apartment would end up being $1800 a month or something far too high for the market to take

there are already enough renters crying over losing rental units to condos in the city

it would be nice but they can't keep building condos no one can afford

It's very difficult to have rental apartments in a new building - the costs are simple too high. A building starts renting out units after it has aged a while. The problem with Vancouver is that most of its new multi-unit housing has been built recently in a relatively short amount of time. Applying the same affordable housing requirements may be a good interim solution.