Canada Line | Completed

[mr.x]

http://canadaline.ca/gallery.asp?galleryGroup=136&CurrPage=2#larger

[racc]

Originally Posted by s211

Am I the only one at the end of my rope with how ENTIRELY ass-dragging slowly the Canada Line is at getting the intersection of 2nd Avenue at the Cambie bridge back in order. This one-lane each way thing has really gone way beyond put-up-able.

Stop the whining. It is really annoying.

[jlousa]

Many of you will remember that Translink issued an RFS for the design of the Bridgeport bus loop that hinted at the early start date for the Canada Line. Well the design is now complete and the RFP has been issued for the construction of the loop, nothing to interesting in the design but there was an interesting tidbit. The site must be complete and vacated by July 29, 09

[s211]

Originally Posted by racc

Stop the whining. It is really annoying.

Then mission accomplished, hun.

[amor de cosmos]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The problem is that you are dealing with different governmental bodies.

Currently, if a municipality (city) rezones land (i.e. upzones) it may do so in exchange for amenities or even cash (i.e. in lieu of social housing). But those amenities or cash go to the municipality (city) - not Translink and not the Province.

The easiest way for Translink to cash in on a new line is to own the land adjacent to the major stations (i.e. former industrial lands) and then sell it off to developers. Developers would then be subject to municipal zoning requirements. Conceivably, Translink could seek rezoning prior to selling the land so as to increase the value of the land.

Translink could also be granted new property taxing powers that would apply to properties adjacent to new rapid transit lines, but I doubt that would fly politically (i.e. would it apply to both existing and new developments? existing and new rapid transit lines?).

ok I read about some other examples. This sort of thing is called value capture, which is actually an example of a land value tax (according to wikipedia) & although the government called it the "Hong Kong model" it's far from the only city that does it. Back in the 1950s when Toronto added the Yonge St line to its subway system the TTC acquired the equivalent of 22 city blocks around the stations that it didn't really need. & then the city could control how the land was used & could pick & choose which developers developed it, ensured that buildings best for the city got built, the land was "ready to go" (didn't need to be cleared or cleaned up, etc) & in exchange the developer got increased density. in tokyo most of the developers are also in the rail transit business. within 23 ward (the downtown area) the subway & other transit has to be publicly owned, but outside that area anything goes. so property developers are also in the transit business. that makes transit-supportive development a lot more natural, not that transit should be privately run or that it's better, but it's easier for transit & development to be in sync if it's done by the same company. 100 years ago the streetcar systems around here were mostly owned by developers also, it's just that a major part of Tokyo's transit system has continued to be private, while in BC it's run publicly now. A non-transit example of value capture is the Granville loops redesign. Vancouver can make up to $100 million from the land sales, and since it's city-owned land for sale they can make sure they get what they want from whoever buys it.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Many of you will remember that Translink issued an RFS for the design of the Bridgeport bus loop that hinted at the early start date for the Canada Line. Well the design is now complete and the RFP has been issued for the construction of the loop, nothing to interesting in the design but there was an interesting tidbit. The site must be complete and vacated by July 29, 09

That early? Incredible!

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by amor de cosmos

ok I read about some other examples.

Sounds like the City in each case expropriated "excess" land and then redeveloped it. For TO, sounds like the lands around Davisville Station (adjacent to the rail yard) and Eglinton Station (above the bus loop above the subway station). I'm not sure if those lands would have been truly "excess" lands or not. It would be "easy" to sell off and profit from development rights above a right of way (i.e. TO subway).

The question that would come up would be - what is the scope (extent) of [TransLink's/Province's(?)] right to expropriate for the rapid transit line.

In cases where an entire parcel is required for a station, etc. - it is obvious that the whole parcel must be sold and the infrastructure could be designed in a way so as to allow future redvelopment (i.e. like VanCity over an elevated guideway, or like King Edward Station over a station box.) However, if less than a whole parcel is required, chances are that the interest expropriated would simply be a Statutory Right-of-Way (i.e. a corridor across a parcel granting the right to construct and maintain the guideway and limiting the landowner's use of the area).

Typically, the right to expropriate is limited to areas that are "required" for the project - this would apply to TransLink, but maybe not to the Province (TransLink derives its powers from legislation enacted by the Province, whereas the Province, being the higher power, may not be so limited). i.e. It may be difficult to argue that adjacent property is "required" for a project on a wide scale - it may be feasible where staging areas are required, but I'm not sure if it can be used as the basis for expropriating land for redevelopment (without changes to TransLink's enabling legislation)

[wrenegade]

Mr.x2, are those Lego shots from the Science World exhibit? I HAVE to go to that.

[mr.x]

^ yup, from science world.

[Unregistered]

I'm impressed that they built the platforms to scale.

[mr.x]

^ i'm pretty sure the platforms are longer than that.

[wrenegade]

Remember the discussion over the bridge from Sinclair Centre to the 200 Granville plaza? Well it makes a nice vantage point (in addition to allowing fire access) Waterfront station and Granville st:

[osirisboy]

that seriously cant be for a fire truck to travel on??? first it would barely fit on it if fits at all, so anyone on there would what have to jump onto the railings (expect the people in wheelchairs they would just get run over). also i cant really see a fire truck making that turn onto the bridge especially the past couple of years during construction, way to sharp of a turning radius. has anyone ever seen any kind of emergency vehicle using the bridge?

[officedweller]

There are signs along the walkway that indicate that it's a fire route.

[jlousa]

I've seen a firetruck in Granville square on two separate occasions, I didn't see how they got there but the only way would be via that ramp. Both times they weren't doing anything either, perhaps just testing.

[osirisboy]

ok fair enough, that would be weird to see

[SpongeG]

that explains the curvy yellow line

[timtosino]

Hi guys, I used to lurk on this forum years ago but found some dicussion about our YVR Station here. I tried by best to explain as much about the station on the Buzzer Blog, but the station was built in minifig scale. so each minifig is 6 feet tall. As for the platform length was built to accomode the train. The train itself is not to scale and is the 6 wide lego standard. Try to get a better idea from the latter pics in my flickr stream, as the ones on the dining room table are preliminary!

[officedweller]

Global Air Photo of Bridgeport Park & Ride.
You can see Wall Centre Richmond in the upper left corner too.


http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/richmond/2009/rhh2009_045.jpg

[mr.x]

That's one massive park and ride.