Translink has made a big splash today by announcing more details of the $ 2B Phase One of its 10-year Vision. It’s good news for everyone who moves themselves around the region.
The plan will increase sustainable alternatives to the motor vehicle, and so help to reduce congestion on the roads as the region grows, and further the vision of density and transit orientation. This is smart and necessary. Smart, too, is a focus on integration of transit, cycling and walking.
Phase One also begins to deal specifically with the hidden congestion so prevalent in Metro Vancouver — the transit pass-ups and overcrowding due to high demand. Odd, isn’t it, that we rarely hear about this amid the noise about motor vehicle congestion.
Phase One Deliverables: Click for larger version
The funding for this Phase One is a combination of Federal ($370M) and Provincial ($240M) money for capital only. The 23 municipalities will fund $500M for capital and $800M for 10-year operating costs. As a result, the munis will increase fares and property taxes. They will also borrow money, introduce a development fee and sell TransLink property (such as the Oakridge site, which brought in an astonishing $ 440M).
The big bucks will come in Phase Two, which will see construction of new rapid transit and a new Pattullo Bridge, among other things. There are serious hints of upcoming tolls and road pricing (a.k.a. mobility pricing) to fund Phase Two. The Mayors have already begun lobbying the Feds for infrastructure money via the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for transit, plus other things such as housing. No sign of Provincial intentions yet.
Excerpt from “Seizing the Moment: Budget 2017 Recommendations From Canada’s Local Order of Government”
It’s no coincidence that the world’s most dynamic cities feature some of the best transit systems. People want to spend less time commuting and more time with their families. And those faster connections increasingly attract top employers, skilled workers and innovative professionals.
Local transit solutions will tackle national challenges as well. Getting people and goods moving faster will kickstart economic growth. Getting more cars off the road will reduce Canada’s climate-changing emissions. And we’ll finally start recovering that $10 billion in productivity that our country loses to gridlock each year.
Given the right financial tools, large and mid-sized cities have major transit expansions ready to go. These projects incorporate light rail, streetcars, hybrid buses, accessible transportation and beyond—as the backbone for innovative, lower-carbon models of urban land use and development. In many cases, planning, consultation and engineering are well underway.
Not really ground breaking news, but very positive nonetheless.
… transit pass-ups and overcrowding due to high demand. Odd, isn’t it, that we rarely hear about this amid the noise about motor vehicle congestion?
That’s because human beings are irrelevant when traffic pundits discuss congestion relief.
Too bad it has to be LRT in surrey, I would prefer to cover a smaller area with skytrain rather than a big area with an LRT that is just like a B-line bus.
LRT reduces the road space allocated for SOVs. That creates a bigger incentive to get on public transit than something that maintains road space for cars. That in turn creates more incentive to establish walkable communities.
Much more LRT can be built than SkyTrain for the same cost. That allows for a integrated network of mass transit rather than just spokes. That in turn creates more incentive to establish walkable communities.
SkyTrain has its place. But LRT and streetcars are better at establishing the kinds of urban communities that reduce car dependence.
“LRT reduces the road space allocated for SOVs”
Well, you can do that by establishing bus-only lanes which will get pretty close to the service levels of surface LRT at far lower cost.
The problem with LRT is that it provides not much better than bus service for most of the cost of a grade-separated system which is faster, more frequent, and cheaper to operate.
LRT trains can be twice as long maybe three times as long as a bus. Far more capacity. For good or bad, rail attracts more riders than buses – it is a higher quality ride.
Grade separated is not necessarily faster. It usually travels faster but doesn’t always provide the passenger with a shorter travel time because you have to factor in longer time to get to a station and more time on escalators and stairs.
If you count maintenance and upgrades to stations under operating costs you lose much of what is gained. We’re spending over $30M per station on upgrades on the Expo Line. An LRT station might only cost a few million in the first place and upgrades would be similarly much cheaper.
The key word here Ron is frequency. There are certain geometric / spatial requirements to achieve, say, the 75-second frequency I once timed between 6-car trains in both directions at Burrard Station during an afternoon rush hour. That’s eight trains every five minutes, or close to 100 trains an hour travelling at 80 km/hr between stations. You will never achieve that on King George or Broadway.
Capacity? No argument with longer surface trains — except in mixed traffic where everyone is slowed by accidents. Still, taking out road capacity for dedicated transit medians would have its advantage, but then you’ve got those very inconvenient signalized crossings. This could work on King George where they are far apart, but not on Broadway where crossings occur every 150 metres or so.
As always, LRT fans ignore the substantial cost of relocating underground services. Anyone who boasts you can lay a double track bed over major parallel water, gas or sewer lines needs to talk to the engineering department. I have a good laugh every time I read a breathless op-ed in the Sun that proposes shifting the Broadway subway to trams on 16th Ave where there is a major regional gas line and several major Metro and city utilities. Shifting one big pipe over a few metres will cost in excess of $5,000 a metre (two trenches, realigned multiple lateral connections, etc). Then you’ve got the long-term labour costs with ranks of drivers working split shifts on top of the standard labour force. Further, LRT is never as cheaply constructed as often portrayed because there are an infinite variety of site conditions, and an increasing public commentary to grade separate them. Just ask Seattleites or Calgarians.
I believe there is an excellent role for LRT in connecting the suburban SoF cities together over long distances (not to mention commuter rail to Chilliwack and Pemberton) and to touch the outer reaches of the faster and more frequent SkyTrain service. But a suggestion that LRT can replace the grade-separated automated service at an equal level seems a bit devoid of evidence. Parisians and Londoners would be hard-pressed to give up the RER, Metro, Underground and Crossrail for surface light rail, a mode that is more suited for the periphery.
Quality of service and urbanism response should always be the first consideration. Mode and capital cost are secondary.
Alex, this thread IS about LRT in Surrey etc.
It would also work to UBC if it took advantage of the Arbutus/CPR corridors. I’m not suggesting it is the right technology for Central Broadway.
At a certain point grade-separated makes sense. But surface is better when trying to get from low density to medium.
A (tiny) step in the right direction, ever so slowly.
Looking at LRT in Calgary and Edmonton and they have created bottlenecks all over the place namely crossings. LRTs work in less dense areas but not in dense parts of cities. Subway or SkyTrain is far better in congested areas like Broadway corridor and likely in various Langley/Surrey areas.
I agree. I think in 20 years Surrey will regret not asking for Skytrain instead of LRT.
@Ron van der Eerden
A better way to reduce road space for SOV would be expanded sidewalks and bikelanes. Instead of LRT you could have skytrain that connects to the existing network which would save time not only in speed but also connections between LRT and skytrain.
That’s debatable. Forced transfers, when done correctly, can increase the stickiness of a place and create more localized development focus which in turn makes for more walkability. It is far too narrow a measure to say a particular service travels faster if all it accomplishes is to have people live and work farther away.
The measure should be about how long it takes most people to get where they are going, what options they have and how positive the experience is while doing it. Faster transit could undermine improvement in the over-all transportation system.
I predict the LRT-SkyTrain transfers proposed for Surrey will encourage more positive mixed development where people are forced off of their mode. So rather than remaining on SkyTrain for another 40 minutes to their job in Vancouver they’ll walk a block or two to their work in Surrey. Surrey Centre will have 4 rail transit lines radiating out instead of just 2 with a SkyTrain extension – for the same cost.
—
An even better way to reduce road space for SOVs is to have LRT/streetcars, expanded sidewalks and bike lanes.
I can’t help but think that this is all being announced during the pre-election honeymoon period, the “Gee whiz! Look at this bucket of money we suddenly found!” period of grand promises.
I’m more interested to see what really gets done after the Libs have been re-elected. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if all of this largess suddenly became impossible to do, and the government reverted back to supporting only bridges for cars.
How many times over the years have we been promised a third Seabus to increase service? I’ll believe it if it’s still running a year from now.
“• The Plan anticipates $3.9 billion in revenues over 10 years from the motor fuel sales tax. Motor fuel sales are assumed to stay relatively constant.”
I guess they don’t expect to see many electric cars.
The report tells us roughly how many people responded to suggestions and do not want fares raised but, for some strange reason, doesn’t tell us how many people felt otherwise.
One can only wonder what is the rest of the story.
I’m very happy to see a specific reference to improving secure bike parking in the plan. There’s a big need for secure parking downtown and at the major transit hubs and shopping centres.
We love this:
“Forward-looking statements, by their nature, require TransLink to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risk and uncertainties. In light of the uncertainty related to the financial, economy, and regulatory environments, such risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond TransLink’s control, and the effects of which can be difficult to predict, may cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements.”
Further down a change:
• •
Introduction of a new region-wide development fee for transit and transportation.
If this is legal. Will this require another referendum?
Whatever, this can only cause an increase in housing costs. Especially for anyone hoping to buy a new property near current and future transit.
You may not have noticed, Eric, but shiny new rapid transit lines stimulate the construction of tens of thousands of high density apartments and townhouses near stations. These are not the cheapest units on the market, but people regularly buy out entire projects in a few just hours after standing in line at presale centres all night. A good chunk of them are for investment and contribute to the stock of long term rentals (even with AirBnB now on the scene), but the majority are usually purchased for owners to live in due to the substantial economic convenience of having a rapid transit line at their door, lots of shops and employment opportunities nearby, and the savings of not having to commute by car everyday.
A modest per m2 charge on development is common in many cities and doesn’t seem to dampen the demand because people understand that the money will only improve their transit service.
Your continuing narrative on the transit referendum is tiresome. By every measure transit possesses attributes that contribute more to building up the common good than any other form of urban transportation. A failed referendum is indicative of many things (public anger and cynicism being tops), but not one of them counters transit’s efficacy while car supremacy still reigns at a great cost.
Increasing the cost of building dwellings through development charges only widens the gap between the poorer and the richer. This increasing gap cannot be simply dismissed by saying other jurisdictions do it. Nor can it be dismissed using the trickle-down rationale that we should not worry because those that can afford the extra cost might buy units for the rental pool. The gap between the rich and the poor is one of the most concerning issues society is faced with.
The possible requirement for a referendum exits unless this is not a new tax. That just happens to be the law.
“The possible requirement for a referendum exits unless this is not a new tax. That just happens to be the law.”
Really? I thought it was a Clark election promise. Applied selectively.
Then it was a good promise and 100% of the citizenry love it when politicians keep their promises.
Increased building costs doesn’t increase housing costs if developers just pay less for the land in the first place.
Less than what? How do you do that?
Correct Don, the price of something is determined by supply and demand, if the supply/demand price is 100 but the cost of building it goes from 20 to 30 it will not affect the price.
Only a fool thinks that if costs go up prices will remain flat. But yes, likely sellers would take a small hit with lower land prices and condo prices would go up.
The missing link in MetroVan indeed is the lack of transit & traffic improvement fees charged to developers of high density units. They pack in more and more condos all over the place, for example N Van and then wonder: gee, we have a traffic and transit issue. Ditto at UBC, UEL, soon Jericho land .. where is this debated ? At Mayors Council of Transportation ?
@Don: If I buy a lot, then build on it, I add my costs to determine the price I sell at.
If the city is adding a a new region-wide development fee for transit and transportation, then who ends up paying it, do you think the land seller will reduce his selling price, or the trades and suppliers reduce theirs? I doubt it. If I am paying it as developer it has to be incorporated into the number that determine the selling prices. Thereby making the units more expensive than without the new fee.
“Increasing the cost of building a dwelling …”
The effects of applying the cost of underground parking to apartments is supremely inflationary. One space will jack the unit price up by $50,000. Towers and townhouses built near transit do not need as much parking, therein any savings through eliminating them (or going to car share) will be very beneficial to a family budget. In this case, the convenience of not owning a car while paying a transit surcharge would likely be higher than the inconvenience of adding the parking to the unit price and throwing in the annual auto operating costs.
It used to be 33/33/33 Fed/Prov/Metro. Last year the Feds said they’d jump their contribution to 50%, a 50% increase from 33%. The Prov is still 33%, so the Metro chunk is now reduced to 17% from 33% and they still want another new tax.
I guess we must understand that when it comes to these transit boys and girls, they will never be happy until they have all our money.
So your complaint is that Metro needs to find 17% additional funding, and that they say they will have to use a tax to fund that. Yes, Eric, math is hard. 17 is more than zero. If you don’t want a new tax, advise the provincial government to step up their contribution to 50%.
No Jeff. Nobody is fooled with that. You’re not that clever. The standard has been one third each. This includes Metro and their one third. After the Feds raised their offer to 50% it’s now down to 17% for Metro.
If you’re suggesting Metro should pay nothing then you get the joke-of-the-day award.
The previous 1/3-1/3-1/3 share in practice was as lopsided as crooked dice when you look at the revenue levels.
The feds have taken 50% of tax revenue out of the Metro for a long time, and the province 42%. Meanwhile the province under the BC Libs, which controls municipalities and often mistreats them, allows the Metro to keep 8%, but forces it to pay 17% for transit, and chides it for struggling to make up the net loss to fund essential infrastructure.
The feds are merely equalizing their expenditure to revenue. The province needs to do the same, otherwise one day the Metro may revolt and become a city state and take its wealth with it. The provincial economy would collapse without the Metro. It’s in everybody’s best interests to ensure the Metro has: i) the right kind of infrastructure to attain high levels of urban and economic efficacy; and ii) a solid return on the public investment.
Citation required on those numbers. Where does 8% come from?
What was the spread during the construction of the Millennium Line?
“The standard has been 1/3 each.”
Why? What is the logical basis for it? How long has it been the practice? Which prime minister initiated it? If you are going to lobby for it you should know the background on it.
See StatsCan for the data that supports the 8%.
But also consider that the sharing is only for capital, not operating costs. And not every cost qualifies. So the real share is less than the published 1/3 figure.
“If you are suggesting that Metro pay nothing…”
I suggested no such thing. It was your suggestion that Metro not collect any more taxes. I just gave you a hypothetical.
IMO 10% for Metro seems reasonable. Province should come up to 40%. And work constructively with Metro to authorize their collection of new taxes to cover the 10%, eg road pricing. Preferably more than 10%, so that fuel taxes could be reduced, leaving a 10% net increase.
Land values are determined by the market. If you want to build x and it costs y, you pay z. If you pay z+, you can’t then turn around and whinge that y costs too much.
But if you increase y you may pay less than z and/or charge more for the condo.
You pay less than z. IE. The affordability of the housing you’re building is the same.
You can’t just charge more for the condo. The condo will sell for market rate, regardless of how much the developer paid for the land, or how much development fees were.
Note that the door is still open on SkyTrain for the King George to Langley segment.
Note the difference in terminology – “LRT” for the Newton-Guildford segment and “Line” for the King George-Langley segment.
http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Images/content/plans_and_projects/rapid_transit_projects/surrey/surrey_lrt_map.png