From Business in Vancouver: “Developers step up to pay for transit stations“
The economic benefits of being linked to rapid transit are so important that Metro Vancouver developers are paying millions of dollars to upgrade old stations and even help pay for new stations.
- At the Marine Gateway station, for instance, developer PCI Group paid $2.5 million for access and safety improvements to the existing Canada Line station …
- In Richmond, residential developers Polygon Homes, Concord Pacific and Pinnacle Properties agreed to a levy of $7,800 per housing unit they build nearby to pay for the $25 million Capstan Village, a new stop on the Canada Line. …
- In Coquitlam, a unique funding arrangement between the province, the city of Coquitlam, Morguard Real Estate Investment Trust, which owns Coquitlam Centre Mall, and residential developers was used to cover the $28 million cost of an extra stop, the Lincoln Station, on the Evergreen Line, which completes in 2016. …
- A new Canada Line transit station has been roughed in at Cambie and 57th in Vancouver, and it is expected that private developers will be paying to build it. …
.
Is this:
(a) Another reason why housing is unaffordable in Vancouver.
(b) Another example of Vancouver as a massive real-estate play for the benefit of developers.
(c) Why our rapid-transit lines will be impossibly overcrowded.
(d) _____________________________________
.
(Sorry, no positive, good-news comments allowed. That violates the rules of the ‘No-Win Game.’)
It’s a lesson! New idea: zone for transit requirements like parking, require developers build the infrastructure as a condition of permitting. Bus trolley wires at a minimum. 🙂
Tell that to UBC please which is building housing for students and residents to the tune of 30,000+ without any improvement to public transit under the wrong assumption that we will have less traffic to UBC if more people live there.
A virtualisland, right off Point Grey, or shall I call it a kingdom perhaps ?
I think that building housing at UBC actually helps maximize the efficiency of bus routes that lead in and out of it. Consider that in the morning most people are commuting inbound into UBC (on a ridiculously frequent volley of buses), and buses going outbound to return to the inbound termini at the other end of the line carry less passengers. If there were no housing at UBC at all, then these buses would be mostly empty. Instead, they’re being maximized as anyone who lives at UBC and might commute to Central Broadway, etc. in the morning – and back at night – uses spare capacity. I think this has a marvelous, wonderful effect of freeing up resources for the rest of the system because new transit riders are being created and serviced well without necessarily any need for new service, and new fare-revenue is being generated too for the rest of the region. Similar is true for those who choose to drive.
In addition, as UBC is a very walkable and cyclable area, I don’t think new housing projects in close proximity are likely to generate much more traffic or crowding on transit. Especially, once again, when you consider that most people are going inbound, not outbound, in the morning (and vice-versa PM).
On a much smaller scale, I see a similar process at work in my small BC town (where I work as a planner). The town has regular and substantial annual budget allocations for as much as is necessary to keep the traffic flowing (e.g. no one blinks and eye at $100,000 to repave three short downtown blocks) but when it comes to any type of pedestrian, cyclist or transit related amenity that would benefit non-vehicle infrastructure in town, there is not a single penny in the regular budget, and instead a widespread expectation that these improvements should be paid for solely out of developer contributions. The town won’t widen a sidewalk, install a transit shelter or buy a new bike rack unless there is some kind of amenity contribution to fund it. The prevailing notion seems to be that these are frilly “extras” that, while nice to have, only benefit a small minority of people. while the real funding should be put towards what most people want: better, wider roads (despite the fact that the town’s economy essentially relies on its attractiveness as a pedestrian-oriented tourist destination).
There was one project in particular for pedestrian improvements in the downtown (that obviously would benefit the entire populace, budget: about $100,000) and yet political leaders took great care to make sure that the media understood that these improvements were entirely funded through developer amenity contributions and grants and not regular taxes, as if these improvements were some kind of gift to a privileged few, rather than benefiting anyone who walks downtown. Meanwhile, the hundreds of thousands of dollars for road “improvements” every year goes in the budget without a peep from anyone.
Well, car use is widespread and ubiquitous… Public transit is used only by a few in small towns. But the focus on car is king is somewhat disturbing indeed, especially in congested larger cities like MetroVan.
Since Canada is very sparsely populated it will take decades to change that as most North-Amercian cities were built and grew with the car over the last 120 years or so, while Europe had many dense cities even in the 1700”s. Hence London’s first subway in 1863 as the downtown horse and people and carriage traffic was already so dense then.
I am not saying that the investment in vehicle infrastructure is not necessary, merely highlighting the dichotomy in the assumption of who pays for what.
People walk a lot in small towns, which are often much more walkable than Vancouver due to the relatively short distances to all destinations. I walked tons when I lived in Northern B.C., even in the winter.
D) Evidence that developers have come around to understand the economics and appeal of transit.
-easy and quick access to downtown (and major regional centres)
-car optional housing.
-condo and mid-rise target market preferences (transit)
-comparatively expeditious process (planners and politicians are pushing for it)
E) another example of governments under-funding/building transit?
(d) Another reason why our transit slow down to become both less attractive and more expensive to maintain (developer don’t pay for the maintenance of extra stations – often put in the catching area of existing one – and required extra train to compensate slower round trip on the line, and ancillary extra operating cost).
Since the system is driverless, the cost of running an extra train is relatively low compared to other city’s systems. That, and Vancouver already has a much higher stop spacing than both Toronto and Montrreal. I think the increased in access far outweighs any increase in costs, certainly from the user’s perspective, and I don’t think riders will notice one extra minute on the trip from end to end on the Canada Line, for instance.