Herb Auerbach is a long-time real-estate consultant in Vancouver. In the following letter to Mayor Robertson, he provides lots of insight and some important information to keep in mind when considering the controversy over the Arbutus Corridor. (My emphasis added in bold.)
.
.
Dear Mayor Robertson
.
In 2003, three years after CP ceased rail operations on the Arbutus corridor, they opened a presentation centre in Kerrisdale as a first step toward getting the corridor rezoned for higher and better uses. They have since lost that fight. CP’s move was a typical real estate maneuver in an attempt to add value to, or demonstrate value of, the land. The problem is, that in my opinion they don’t own the land and I was irked by their move. To confirm my view I read the Transportation Act (sections 135 to 145) and in 2003 I wrote to the City’s then Director Real Estate, Bruce Maitland.
.
In that letter I pointed out that in my opinion the right of way (ROW) was not a “land grant” as were other lands like the vast acreage in Shaughnessy and those along the Burrard inlet (lands later developed or disposed of at huge profits by CP’s development arm Marathon Properties). It is my belief that the ROW was “ceded” to CP for the purpose of running a rail line and under the terms of the Transportation Act, if they fail to do so, CP must then offer it to a third party and if they fail to find a third party they must return the ROW to the Crown.
.
When I heard to my dismay that the City was negotiating with CP and hired an appraiser to determine value, and offered CP $20million for the ROW, I wrote a letter published in the Vancouver Sun, repeating my opinion and suggesting the City get a real estate lawyer instead of an appraiser. Isn’t it coincidental that a week after that letter appeared pointing out their need to run trains on the ROW to retain possession (not ownership) of it, that CP after fourteen years of abandoning the line, announced that they will once more run trains on the track. When confronted with the reality of where will these new trains go from and to, and for what purpose, CP announced they will use the track for “training purposes”. I believe this is a bluff, and the threat to the community gardens a bulling tactic, in attempt to force the City to “buy” the ROW at their inflated price.
.
No one to date has contradicted me on my opinion. Therefore, if I am correct, I urge you on behalf of the City, and its taxpayers, that before putting our tax dollars in the pockets of CP, you explore the CP’s claim of “ownership” under the Transportation Act, and I urge the City to seek on injunction against CP’s actions and force them to return the ROW to the Crown. The City may then deal with the Crown with respect to the long term use of the ROW.
.
It is my own personal view that it should be used as a pedestrian bike path and for a tram that would run from Science World to Steveston. This would be a great tourist attraction and the tram could used by those living along the ROW for local transit if they wish, as do those who live in San Francisco use their trolley cars.
.
Respectfully yours,
.
Herb Auerbach
Real Estate Consultant
Vancouver BC
Well argued, Herb !
I agree with the ped/bike path idea but not a tram as a tram is either too slow or if fast would ruin the leisurely garden / green atmosphere !
Trams in urban areas make no sense today anymore. They block traffic , degrade land value, cost more than buses and are too slow.
I like most of what Herb Auerbach says except for this ” a tram that would run from Science World to Steveston.”
I do not see that meeting any of the purposes he suggests. The City was apparently incapable of keeping the Cambie to Granville Island section going, which would have been very popular with tourists and relieved parking/traffic congestion on GI.
The route has to be viewed as part of the regional transit system – and has to meet a real need if it is going to get funding. It actually can do that, since the Canada Line is experiencing capacity problems already (see recent report on overcrowding at Brighouse). Expanding the Canada Line will be very expensive indeed. Restoring the Arbutus Line to carry modern LRT/tram cars should be much cheaper. It could even be contracted out to CP – though they were unable to win back operation of West Coast Express. I wonder why?
Anyway, stage 1 operation from Broadway to Marine Drive/Cambie with basic tram stops at 16th, King Ed, 41st and Marpole – double track with operating/maintenance centre on the north bank of the Fraser on currently empty industrial land.
Only goes forward if capital cost is less than adding centre cars to Canada Line trains (and locking out end doors at most stops).
Stage 2 is a bit of a stretch but doable would be to take over the Fir Street ramp and the centre lanes of Granville Bridge and then run on street to Waterfront.
Only goes forward if cheaper than adding another train length to platforms on all Canada Line stations
Forget a tram. Far too slow. Too expensive for the passenger volume, and as you stated the OV to GVI tram a total disaster passenger volume wise.
Doable would be a subway fir the Arbutus line and a bike / ped path on top but only if corridor is upzoned .
Stephen is English so “tram” means light rail, i.e. a train made up of vehicles smaller and lighter than those typically used for intercity travel. There are intercity LRT lines in Europe, but not on this continent where antiquated freight railway laws prevail.
Speed is a function of the quality of right of way and station spacing. Stephen’s proposed stop spacing would allow speeds equal to Canada Line on the stage 1 route.
Capacity is a function of train size and frequency. Most of the light rail systems I’ve seen can carry more passengers per train than Canada Line.
So Arbutus could easily have a system equal to Canada Line in all but frequency.
Or we could spend 5 times as much non-existent money to build another subway and bike path for “rich, west side residents”.
As for up-zoning, Arbutus has had greater average density than Cambie for decades and it will take some of the really huge projects currently being built on Cambie just to catch up.
Without looking into it, if he’s correct, the following may result:
CP Rail -> Crown (Federal Government, not City) -> Aboriginal land claim -> access corridor to service reserve lands under Burrard Bridge.
***********
WRT Canada Line capacity, the first step would not be to insert middle cars into the trains. The first step would be to buy additional 2-car trains – and that would likely be cheaper than double tracking the Arbutus Line and building station platforms (no matter how “basic”).
Currently, the Canada Line has 20 2-car trains, but only 16 of those are used in regular peak hour service (the others being on standby in case of an emergency or failure).
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/short-platforms-trains-skytrain-canada-line-built-nearing-capacity/
**********
Ultimately, I think Arbutus will move forward when the Millennium Line is extended to Arbutus. I think the Fir ST. ramp is at too high an elevation for a streetcar to access from the Arbutus RoW ( the ramp flies well above the substation below). I think it would be easier for it to access the Granville Bridge at-grade via 6th or 7th Ave. or following the RoW to about the substation and burrowing under the south loop and emerging in the centre lanes of the bridge.
The concern, of course, is given the City’s plan to build a raised walkway / bikeway down the middle 2 lanes of Granville Bridge – will there still be room for a streetcar or LRT in the future? It’s even shown on the Vancouver House model, here:
http://bbscalemodels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/IMG_0026_1.jpg
http://bbscalemodels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/0737-1.jpg
http://bbscalemodels.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/0740.jpg
The Canada Transportation Act has provisions that require railways that are abandoning rail lines in municipal areas to offer to sell them to the municipality at the “net salvage value” of the line. The Canada Transportation Agency, which gives ruling on this, defines the net salvage value as the appraised value of the corridor plus the scrap value of the rails less the expenses of removing the railway infrastructure and any pollution. This is basically the market value of the land. This is a link to a decision of the agency going through this process:
https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/360-r-2013
A complicating factor in determining market value if the zoning as a rail corridor. The City put this zoning in when CP was first abandoning the line, and CP and the city had a big court case which the city won about whether the city was allowed to do this. But I would suspect that we would be in court again about the valuation of this land if the railway were removed. Obviously if the railway were removed, the zoning and use would be changed even if the corridor was maintained for future rail use, so there would be a new basis for valuation.
There might be strategic reasons for the city to get a net salvage value done under the Act, but there might be strategic reasons not to if the value came out too high.
And a final caveat. This land may be governed by specific statutes that date from the time that CP was originally given it, so it might not be under the general provisions of the Canada Transportation Act.
City ought to expropriate the land as the $20M offered is pretty high for a bike/ped path with hardly any commercial value.
CP Rail has no business case for a commercial rail line whatsoever there.