Further to the last item in the post below, here’s my latest column in Business in Vancouver:
Who would vote to, yet again, bump a suburban municipality down the list so that Vancouver can get yet another hugely expensive rapid-transit line?
_______________________________
Tue Jan 15, 2013
Forty years ago Vancouver decided what kind of city it wanted to be. In those tumultuous early ’70s, a time of social and political change, new ideas got taken seriously, and Vancouver, with an Art Phillips-led TEAM council, had a lot of them.
It wanted to create the “livable city” – compact, complete, transit-oriented. And it worked.
Now it’s that time again – only it will be the region and not just the central city that decides what kind of place it wants to be.
The issue will be, as it was then, the kind of transportation infrastructure we build: freeways or transit – and the land use that follows. Only it won’t be that simple, given that in the last decade the province and region have already spent billions on the greatest expansion of roads and bridges in several generations. The next years will decide whether that’s all we build or whether we pay for and build transit on a scale that makes a difference both in the fast-growing fringes and in the high-demand centre.
The problem, of course, is how and who will pay.
Most recently, the premier has ruled out road pricing; the mayors have ruled out property tax. And the Minister of Transportation has laid out some rules of her own.
Minister Mary Polak has required that the regional mayors meet three conditions before she’ll even consider a request for new revenue sources:
•the mayors come up with a consensus for the region’s priorities;
•the public supports new funding tools; and
•the increased revenue sources have “no negative impact on the economy”
That last one is a huge out, but it’s the first requirement – a consensus on priorities – that could divide the region, given that the province will likely insist one municipality’s priority be rated over the other. In other words: who goes first?
Vancouver and Surrey have tried to avoid that conflict.
“We each need transit,” the mayors have said. “Let’s build both together.”
So rather than competing for dollars to proceed with SkyTrain on Broadway or three light-rail lines in Surrey, Gregor Robertson and Dianne Watts were making the case that both could happen at the same time – up until last month.
“Vancouver should pare down its overly ambitious plan for a $2 billion-plus buried SkyTrain line along Broadway toward UBC,” said Surrey mayor Watts in the local press. “We can have all the grandiose ideas that we want, but unless that sustainable funding policy is in place, nothing’s going to happen.”
So what should Vancouver do?
Vancouver should suggest that Surrey go first. And then try to follow as a very quick second.
In part, that’s just recognizing the inevitable: there’s no way Vancouver would find the votes around the regional table to allow the Broadway corridor to go first. Who would vote to, yet again, bump a suburban municipality down the list so that Vancouver can get yet another hugely expensive rapid-transit line? For Broadway to proceed before Surrey would mean depriving a part of the region that has the only tolled bridges, the one with the fastest rate of growth, the one paying over $100 million a year to TransLink, with few improvements to show for it.
And then be asked to pay more for Vancouver’s benefit.
Vancouver would be lucky to get a single additional vote.
Regardless, Vancouver is going to be engaged internally in a huge debate over technology, construction impacts, route and potential rezonings. How likely is it that it could resolve all that before Surrey is ready to lay track – which is practically right now?
Sometimes coming in second is the winning strategy. Vancouver, if it’s realistic, should be getting behind Surrey to ensure a regional consensus, a united front and a chance to come in quickly – with Surrey’s support – to push forward on Broadway.
Meeting the challenges of regional consensus is daunting enough, much less convincing the province to follow through. But we did it before. And it worked. To do so again will be as critical to the region’s future as the decisions made nearly a half century ago were to Vancouver’s.
I think we need to stop talking about transit development in Vancouver as if it is there solely to service Vancouver! The Broadway extension is going to be serving the whole region in a very large way – UBC students tend to come from all over, not just Vancouver itself. The Vancouver portion of the Expo line is probably 70% occupied by folks who don’t live in Vancouver – why would the Broadway extension be any different?
Surrey gets less from the Broadway extension than say Burnaby or the Tri-Cities but it most definitely will be serving the whole region. In contrast light rail in Surrey really only serves Surrey – there aren’t anywhere near as many folks commuting from Vancouver/Burnaby/New West/Tri-Cities to Surrey. Not saying we shouldn’t be making improvements there – god knows Surrey needs it big time. But their development policies over the past few decades haven’t really set them up to be a transit-oriented city.
You cannot expect Surrey to be a transit oriented city when it is starved of transit. Not just starved of rapid transit – but all types of transit. Development is not going to TOD until there is some transit to serve it!
But there are a lot of things surrey, or any city, can do, planning for potential transit in the future despite a current lack of transit. Most importantly, I would have any city look at land use planning and zoning, for starters.
Look at potential transit corridors and start planning/organizing for them. We already know that CoS wants high frequency transit on KG Boulevard, but I am unsure if they have put feelers out for the city and community. Look at the open houses the CoV ran for the Broadway line with different routes and modes, for comparison..
Even look at Gordon’s recent post on Coquitlam City Centre on an example for planning for planned, not existing transit.
I agree with Mezz. Transit should be a complement to a wonderfully walkable community, not a necessary prerequisite.
Municipalities can zone for Jacobsian walkability – mix of uses, short lots, intersection density, minimum 50% ROW non-car, etc. etc. – and can designate lanes for buses & taxis without needing a penny from Translink.
I can only partially agree with Mezz. Even though there are benefits to planning for future transit, and we can see what good happened in Coquitlam, the problem is with the developers who would be building the TODs. If you were a developer who wanted to get as much money, as fast as possible, which I will assume is the mentality of most developers at the moment, would you want to build in an area with few restrictions, or an area with many restrictions to it, but no benefits like existing transit?
That is the problem Surrey is currently facing. If Surrey is to plan to restrict developers in their creations without having the benefit of nearby transit, many developers will choose to go somewhere else, like Langley, Delta, or less restricted areas within Surrey even (Surrey is a large municipality after all). In the end, until proper transit is provided for Surrey, most of the city will be stuck in limbo, with only the city centre actually receiving the TODs.
@Kenneth
Fair enough, but I would think of 2 examples that stick out: the first one that make me think that civic governments can still exercise strong influence, and the second one where even with transit, other things can hold back development:
1) The recent Ridge theatre project: a project where a long-standing movie theatre will be redeveloped to condos, with controversy in the neighbourhood. I’m simplifying things to some degree, but the site was already zoned to include higher-density condos and the purchase by a developer and the redevelopment plan moved relatively quickly, Here the CoV made it clear what could been done with the land and the invisible hand did the rest.
2) surrey city centre, 1994 to ~ 2007. The king George skytrain extension was finished in ~ 1994, but the area remained moribund for about decade afterwards. The transit was there, an area plan drafted, but the area IMO languished. Lots of things might have contributed to its renaissance (SFU Surrey is a big factor, IMO, plus an improved economy, efforts of a new surrey council and later tweaks to the land use plan.) Paul Hilsdon might know more of the recent history than I do.
http://www.surreyleader.com/news/158206155.html
I think the problem may be that the availability of quality transit service (whether SkyTrain or high frequency bus) to Surrey residents is disportionately lower than their Vancouver counterparts – compared to the regional taxes that they contribute. i.e. 500,000 Surrey residents, 700,000 Vancouver residents. But who has better service?
Vancouver has better service because there is density to support transit. Surrey needs to densify and transit will come.
BTW – if Vancouver doesn’t have its ducks in row over the specifications for the system (exclusive RoW/non-exclusive RoW, at-grade/tunnel/elevated), Surrey had best go first – the last thing you want is the Province sitting there with money and an argument at the munipical table (i.e. Toronto).
For comparison’s sake, how does everyone feel about this question:
As compared to Vancouver’s land use decisions from the 1970s onward (meant generally to facilitate transit-supportable densities), has Surrey been making similar progress?
Or have they in fact been building spread out communities, albeit now with small lot sizes, but that are nonetheless located without coordination and without thought as to transit-supportiveness?
There’s probably $300-500M or so being put into the widening of Highway 1 through Surrey and Langley (incl. significant costs to rebuild overpasses and interchanges, but not including the bridge). Sure, that’s not from Translink, but no other portion of the region has been receiving that kind of roads money. So why is it OK for Surrey to receive 95% of the highways funding, and the rest of the region can’t complain, but if Surrey makes the decision to build spread-out communities, somehow now its a problem that transit-funding goes first to those communities who have chosen to make transit viable via their land use decisions?
Double standard comes to mind.
Boom. Amen, Mr Browne.
Fairness is a distraction, though a very powerful one. We need to talk about what will give the best outcomes.
Is it better for the region if Surrey gets rapid transit expansion? I think the answer is yes, so we should be encouraging it.
Is it better for the region if Broadway gets rapid transit expansion? I think the answer is yes, so we should be encouraging it.
If we can have both, let’s have both. But if we have to choose one first, then we should choose based on outcomes. In my opinion, Surrey more desperately needs rapid transit expansion to stave off another 20+ years of auto-dependent development than Broadway does.
It’s also my hypothesis that if Surrey becomes more livable (as it would through rapid transit expansion), it will ease upward pressure on Vancouver housing prices.
This is really pointless and a huge distraction. The business case for transit and especially rapid transit along Broadway is really strong. Instead of quibbling about which goes first, lets focus on getting both done.
The key is having the regional funding agreement in place. Without that, neither will go ahead. With it, both will go ahead. The details about which will start first and be finished first will be more a matter of the design, planning and construction process.
Actually, the real issue is the Pattullo. Surrey needs to chose its priority; rapid transit or an expensive new bridge when there are already two overbuilt expensive bridges over the Fraser. By delaying the new Pattullo, both rapid transit in Surrey and the UBC Line can go ahead at the same time.
Exactly – let them choose. Do you want $1-1.5B for Patullo, or $1-1.5B for transit? You get to pick one.
Richard, Nedil21, Andrew Browne, Mez Bryn Hughes and Colin are all right.
Yes, it is very primitive, if not outright stupid, to frame transit investment on which municipality turn it is to get some rail track. Bryn Hughes is very right on this point.
Fuelling such pariochial approach is at best a distraction as mentioned by Richard
Transit like any transportation investment should be prioritized on what offer the biggest bang for the buck, not on parochial interests.
if the later was true in Europe, Paris could not have got huge RER investments when there is not a single Tram in Versailles: The article basically explains that Paris, like most of European and asian cities story got it very wrong in their transit priorities !!! What is the basis for that?
First thing Surrey should have is a Land planning strategy incorporating future mass transit corridor: go to read what the Surrey Land planning plan is:
“build everywhere and then lobby for more transit” : How people can say Surrey is ready for transit? Mezz is right, There is a lot Surrey can do and doesn’t.
Does Surrey get underserved by Translink? it is what Surreyites want us to believe, but what they get is their fair share of transit:
http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/some-more-translink-statistic/
The region is not responsible for local urbanism choice, like Campbell Height, leading to disfunctional transit service South of the Fraser,…and if some municipalities get underserved, it is on the the North Shore, not on the South of Fraser.
but let’s speak as a region, and apply sound regional transportation planning, which starts with a sound backbone transit…
or to use a plumbing allegory
You could complain of lack of pressure in your kitchen …but putting a new faucet will do nothing when the problem is the main pipe can’t deliver the water pressure…and that is the problem the region is facing today.
It’s 30 years this year since the provincial government of the day took the ‘teeth’ out of the regional planning powers of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. All the horses (municipalities) were let out of the barn to go their own way. And go their own way they did. Try getting them back in again.
30 years later, we lament the lack of, inefficiency of, the need for more of, the lack of coordination of, the who-will pay for it of mentality or reaction of Metro Vancouver municipalities to transit.
A proper Regional Governance structure, while perhaps not ensuring perfection in developing a liveable region, may have prevented much of the mess we inherited today. And not just in transit, but in housing also.
For years, Surrey was a relatively unplanned municipality. Development was allowed where the ball-dropped-over-the-shoulder fell.
It appears to me that compliance to the Liveable Regional Plan cannot be attained with a carrot. What’s next, the stick? I hope so.
Well this is timely…..
TransLink vehicle levy back on mayors’ agenda
“A yearly levy on each vehicle registered in Metro Vancouver is once again being pursued by area mayors as a short-term solution to TransLink’s financial challenges.
…
The TransLink mayors’ council intends to spell out its position in a discussion paper within two weeks and press both the government and opposition parties to respond.
…
Mayors also remain committed to exploring road pricing as a long-term source.
“We don’t know what that will look like,” Corrigan said. “Whether it’s congestion taxes in the downtown or additional tolls on bridges or road tolls. We don’t know what’s going to make logical sense yet, but we need some sustainable long-term source.””
http://www.surreyleader.com/news/187546471.html