Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Alex Mackinnon]

The golf course is going to be developed. The only thing stopping it now is that they signed an agreement saying that they won't until 2030 I believe. The Musqueam already made plans for areas not covered by the golf course.

[squeezied]

So some people here are suggesting that if you're not working and paying taxes, you're less important and merit less consideration towards transit funding. Apparently the young, old and disabled don't matter. Even though typical UBC students who commute along the Broadway corridor for an hour one way, their time is less important than average Metro Vancouverite who's commute is 30 minutes one way. Apparently if you don't pay taxes, you don't matter.

It's frustrating reading these comments about the poor guy in Newton trying to support his family and has no option but to drive because transit is so poor juxtaposed to the undeserving UBC student who already has excellent transit service. Here's a thought for you, it's because of institutions like UBC that produce lawyers, engineers and businessmen who end up paying large amounts of tax which undoubtedly ends up subsidizing that poor guy in Newton and his family.

Let's not forget that UBC students (at least the ones who commute along the congested 99 B-Line) come from families who likely struggle to pay for their child's education, on top of paying taxes. Surely the tax-payers in these families would want their child to have have a better commute than spending 1 hour in a congested bus where multiple buses can pass them up.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by logan5

Doesn't UBC have a lot of valuable land? Sell enough land to pay for the UBC leg, then use the money raised from the sale of the Jericho lands to pay for the Broadway leg.

I find it kind of ridiculous that we would have a rapid transit line running through a golf course. Can't a land swap deal be made with the Musqueam so that the golf course can be developed, then a new golf course could be built away from the Skytrain Line.

Except the UBC golf course isn't likely to be a golf course in 50 years.
The Musqueam will likely redevelop the golf course in stages to become a "University Town" between UBC and Vancouver itself.
The west-side NIMBYS and Creme de la Creme won't be able to do much about it because this doesn't involve City rezoning or UBC rezoning -- it is Musqueam land for them to use as they see fit.
When the redevelopment of Block F by the Musqueam is completed, it will likely be a preview of how they could redevelop the rest of their lands in the UBC area.

[a very long weekend]

it's grand to imagine it, given how far urbanism will have come by then. like, it could be a major pedestrian-scale (if that term even makes sense then, with the shifts in transportation patterns on the horizon) high rise zone out there, who knows? there's a sense in which ubc really blew it by not capitalizing on their exclusion from vancouver zoning to create an ultra high-density residential hood on the order of what we'd find hong kong here. i doubt the musqueam would make that mistake.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by nname

For the people who say UBC have nothing but students that contribute little to the economy.. Well.. UBC is actually the biggest buyer of employee pass before it got cancelled. The second biggest, VGH, happens to be on Broadway too...

Excluding UBC that's 10,400 passes. I'd imagine it would be much more with rapid transit all the way out to UBC.

[MIPS]

The Broadway Line is preparation for the future.
Even when I lived in town I hated travelling to 4th and Mcdonald because driving from Victoria and 23rd took half an hour in good traffic and by bus it was 45 minutes or more. All existing transit infrastructure in the corridor has been repeatedly mentioned to be overloaded. In terms of how this can affect the micro economic conditions, if it takes forever to get from point A to point B people will go elsewhere to do business and this would be a disaster. Places like Surrey are still years away from even touching Broadway's congestion. We build the Broadway line now and that problem is addressed, the stations are ready for longer cars and we get the badly needed slack space to plan the next move.
A Surrey expansion gets that "done" but accomplishes nothing else and the last thing TransLink wants is more underutilized stations like we had in the early days of the Millenium Line that did nothing but waste money.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

What do you propose we spend the $3 billion dollars on then? What other area deserves better transit more than Broadway? Keep in mind that I have absolutely no connection to Broadway and haven't even been there in a few months, for what it's worth.

For $3 billion dollars, you can have BOTH Broadway (to Cambie / Canada Line) AND Surrey Rapid Transit! That way, both cities and its taxpayers benefit greatly and the entire region between them also benefits due to increase in destination options accessible by a far more extensive rapid transit network.

The only "looser" in this scenario will be UBC itself, since they won't have their students get too and from the Skytrain lines *FAST*, but if speed is so bloody important to them, let them pay for it, or wait until there is extra funds to build their leg (like how PoCo is waiting for their leg from the Evergreen Line).

[usog]

Originally Posted by squeezied

So some people here are suggesting that if you're not working and paying taxes, you're less important and merit less consideration towards transit funding. Apparently the young, old and disabled don't matter. Even though typical UBC students who commute along the Broadway corridor for an hour one way, their time is less important than average Metro Vancouverite who's commute is 30 minutes one way. Apparently if you don't pay taxes, you don't matter.

It's frustrating reading these comments about the poor guy in Newton trying to support his family and has no option but to drive because transit is so poor juxtaposed to the undeserving UBC student who already has excellent transit service. Here's a thought for you, it's because of institutions like UBC that produce lawyers, engineers and businessmen who end up paying large amounts of tax which undoubtedly ends up subsidizing that poor guy in Newton and his family.

Let's not forget that UBC students (at least the ones who commute along the congested 99 B-Line) come from families who likely struggle to pay for their child's education, on top of paying taxes. Surely the tax-payers in these families would want their child to have have a better commute than spending 1 hour in a congested bus where multiple buses can pass them up.

Here's what I see as the marginal benefit breakdown:

Skytrain to Granville:
We connect the Canada Line and Expo Line and provide rapid transit along a corridor everyone agrees is important. People working in the corridor get a nicer commute and those continuing to UBC get a slightly better ride as well. I bet with a B-line terminating at Granville or Alma many of the B-Line issues would go away. Less congestion along the corridor allowing more efficient movement of goods as well. Likely not too difficult to fund or get construction approval for since the need is obvious and there aren't many problem neighborhoods to go through. Furthermore the cost is lower and other parts of the region can be thrown a bone to go along with this extension. New service can be introduced bringing the overall quality of service in the system up, and new users can be brought into the system rather than focusing on current ones.

Skytrain all the way UBC:
On top of previous benefits people going to UBC get a more comfortable transit commute all the way to UBC which may be at most 25% shorter in duration. The majority of users are not on a time-sensitive commute and the current level of service is usable although not ideal. Have to deal with UEL as well as the wonderful people living in Vancouver West. The construction approval process could take god knows how long and the rest of the Metro Vancouver Mayors will be very hesitant to approve funding for. There would be a consensus demand for UBC to chip in and that will be another fight as well. South of Fraser will be up in arms over being passed over for a major project with the capital expenditure of building out to UBC precluding any major improvements to the rest of the region.

My conclusion: Drop talk of UBC and focus on Broadway. Building it out to UBC is a red herring and just delaying the process. If there were a consensus to focus on the needs of Broadway rather than people trying to latch onto the process to get UBC skytrain there'd be a much higher chance of this project being given the green light in good time ahead of that abomination of an LRT proposal in Surrey. Maybe in 20 or 30 years we'd be at the point where rapid transit is extended out to UBC but until then it's just a pipe dream.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by logan5

I find it kind of ridiculous that we would have a rapid transit line running through a golf course..

Considering that that stretch is roughly 1-2km, and will form the main transit route to the province's biggest university, it seems like a decent deal.

Just remember that Toronto is spending 3 billion on a full subway extension to farmland and industrial parks.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by usog

Here's what I see as the marginal benefit breakdown:

Skytrain to Granville:
We connect the Canada Line and Expo Line and provide rapid transit along a corridor everyone agrees is important. People working in the corridor get a nicer commute and those continuing to UBC get a slightly better ride as well. I bet with a B-line terminating at Granville or Alma many of the B-Line issues would go away. Less congestion along the corridor allowing more efficient movement of goods as well. Likely not too difficult to fund or get construction approval for since the need is obvious and there aren't many problem neighborhoods to go through. Furthermore the cost is lower and other parts of the region can be thrown a bone to go along with this extension. New service can be introduced bringing the overall quality of service in the system up, and new users can be brought into the system rather than focusing on current ones.

Skytrain all the way UBC:
On top of previous benefits people going to UBC get a more comfortable transit commute all the way to UBC which may be at most 25% shorter in duration. The majority of users are not on a time-sensitive commute and the current level of service is usable although not ideal. Have to deal with UEL as well as the wonderful people living in Vancouver West. The construction approval process could take god knows how long and the rest of the Metro Vancouver Mayors will be very hesitant to approve funding for. There would be a consensus demand for UBC to chip in and that will be another fight as well. South of Fraser will be up in arms over being passed over for a major project with the capital expenditure of building out to UBC precluding any major improvements to the rest of the region.

My conclusion: Drop talk of UBC and focus on Broadway. Building it out to UBC is a red herring and just delaying the process. If there were a consensus to focus on the needs of Broadway rather than people trying to latch onto the process to get UBC skytrain there'd be a much higher chance of this project being given the green light in good time ahead of that abomination of an LRT proposal in Surrey. Maybe in 20 or 30 years we'd be at the point where rapid transit is extended out to UBC but until then it's just a pipe dream.

Okay. Drop all talk of rrt out to UBC .... but surreptitiously do it anyway. Why? UBC is not only students, it is also, research facilities linked to other research and medical facilities along Broadway, employment, and a large, and ever growing residential community at UBC. Plus, the line is not just a West Side priviledge; the traffic would funnel in
from all over Metro.
I am not denying that what you propose has merit, but leaving UBC out of the scheme would be like having Expo Line run to Main Street (or Stadium at the max) .... and no further. Truncated.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I am not denying that what you propose has merit, but leaving UBC out of the scheme would be like having Expo Line run to Main Street (or Stadium at the max) .... and no further. Truncated.

That is a good analogy that has been mentioned a while back. Having the Broadway Line stop short of UBC is akin to having the Expo Line stop short of downtown.

You can make the case that the Expo Line should not have extended all the way to downtown because there is already excellent transit service without any rapid transit. These are wealthy white-collar professionals who don`t need to take transit because they can afford to drive instead. Extending the Expo Line all the way to downtown would be a terrible waste of money. Transit dollars should be directed to poorer neighbourhoods which lack the excellent transit services of downtown. These are the ones who really need rapid transit. It doesn`t matter if there is enough ridership to justify an extension, other areas deserve better transit service before downtown gets rapid transit because it doesn`t need it.

I see the same rhetoric applied towards UBC regarding the Broadway Line which is inane to me.

The fact is the Expo Line extends all the way to downtown for valid and good reasons. In the same way the Broadway Line should extend all the way to UBC.

The obsolete 99 B-Lines can then be put to use in Surrey in order to build up ridership before rapid transit gets implemented. I don`t see anything wrong with that. It`s not like you`re getting an inferior service. People always seem to envy the transit service UBC gets. Implementing these B-Lines in other routes in Surrey would be a vast improvement. I don`t see why Surrey should get rapid transit before building up ridership in B-Lines first. It`s what every rapid transit corrider in Metro Vancouver had to go through first, why should Surrey be any different?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by squeezied

That is a good analogy that has been mentioned a while back. Having the Broadway Line stop short of UBC is akin to having the Expo Line stop short of downtown.

You can make the case that the Expo Line should not have extended all the way to downtown because there is already excellent transit service without any rapid transit. These are wealthy white-collar professionals who don`t need to take transit because they can afford to drive instead. Extending the Expo Line all the way to downtown would be a terrible waste of money. Transit dollars should be directed to poorer neighbourhoods which lack the excellent transit services of downtown. These are the ones who really need rapid transit. It doesn`t matter if there is enough ridership to justify an extension, other areas deserve better transit service before downtown gets rapid transit because it doesn`t need it.

I see the same rhetoric applied towards UBC regarding the Broadway Line which is inane to me.

The fact is the Expo Line extends all the way to downtown for valid and good reasons. In the same way the Broadway Line should extend all the way to UBC.

The obsolete 99 B-Lines can then be put to use in Surrey in order to build up ridership before rapid transit gets implemented. I don`t see anything wrong with that. It`s not like you`re getting an inferior service. People always seem to envy the transit service UBC gets. Implementing these B-Lines in other routes in Surrey would be a vast improvement. I don`t see why Surrey should get rapid transit before building up ridership in B-Lines first. It`s what every rapid transit corrider in Metro Vancouver had to go through first, why should Surrey be any different?

Exactly my thought process. Having B-Lines mirror the proposed rapid transit routes could establish familiarity with the future extensions and still serve the city very adequately.

Queets@home keeps saying that you shouldn't build a line out to UBC just cause it's faster for the students...well building Skytrain further into Surrey wouldn't add anything other than being "faster" either. The B-Line serves Surrey well right now.

[usog]

Originally Posted by squeezied

That is a good analogy that has been mentioned a while back. Having the Broadway Line stop short of UBC is akin to having the Expo Line stop short of downtown.

You can make the case that the Expo Line should not have extended all the way to downtown because there is already excellent transit service without any rapid transit. These are wealthy white-collar professionals who don`t need to take transit because they can afford to drive instead. Extending the Expo Line all the way to downtown would be a terrible waste of money. Transit dollars should be directed to poorer neighbourhoods which lack the excellent transit services of downtown. These are the ones who really need rapid transit. It doesn`t matter if there is enough ridership to justify an extension, other areas deserve better transit service before downtown gets rapid transit because it doesn`t need it.

I see the same rhetoric applied towards UBC regarding the Broadway Line which is inane to me.

The fact is the Expo Line extends all the way to downtown for valid and good reasons. In the same way the Broadway Line should extend all the way to UBC.

The obsolete 99 B-Lines can then be put to use in Surrey in order to build up ridership before rapid transit gets implemented. I don`t see anything wrong with that. It`s not like you`re getting an inferior service. People always seem to envy the transit service UBC gets. Implementing these B-Lines in other routes in Surrey would be a vast improvement. I don`t see why Surrey should get rapid transit before building up ridership in B-Lines first. It`s what every rapid transit corrider in Metro Vancouver had to go through first, why should Surrey be any different?

I have a hard time taking such a statement about the 99-B ridership patterns like that seriously. A few years ago I did a Surrey->Granville/Broadway commute several times a week at various times of the day for a job for almost two years and that couldn't seem further from the truth. It's also why I have a hard time taking all the angst over "pass-ups" seriously because a pass-up on the B-Line versus a pass-up on a Surrey route are completely different things. 99-B buses were packed and I'd get passed up but another bus would be right behind it within 5-10 minutes often with seats available so no big deal. When you get passed up and the next bus comes in 30-60 minutes, then you've got a case for service upgrades. The incremental improvement in service with a Skytrain over a 99-B does not rank such a project very highly on the list of things Translink needs to spend money on.

This is just personal observation but I still believe the large majority of benefactors for skytrain between Granville/Alma and UBC are in fact UBC employees and students. Traveling westbound, a full bus would pull into Cambie and I'd see a ton of people would get off and on, and the buses would be full pulling into Granville as well. Any further and most people still on it are bound for UBC basically. The percentage of people going to UBC who get on before Cambie are smaller than you'd expect I'm guessing but any statistics on it would be helpful.

So yes UBC ridership would make use of skytrain service and have the numbers for it not to be a waste of money but short of UBC funding it, it isn't happening for a long time. It's not a political or financial possibility and like I said I believe advocating it all the way to UBC just delays getting it to at least part of the way. Do people believe they can do a song and dance about how awesome UBC is and money will rain from the sky the government and the seas will part for shovels in the ground? Having lived in many different corners of the region with differing transit levels I can't say I buy into it. It boggles my mind how people who transit to UBC don't know how good they have it.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by logan5

I find it kind of ridiculous that we would have a rapid transit line running through a golf course. Can't a land swap deal be made with the Musqueam so that the golf course can be developed, then a new golf course could be built away from the Skytrain Line.

Should we move Queen Elizabeth Park because it's right beside the Canada Line?

There's no reason a rapid transit line can't span a golf course if there's a large enough source of traffic on the other side. In principle it's not any different than spanning a river.

[nname]

Last time I checked, Expo Line also go through a park named Central Park...

Originally Posted by queetz@home

For $3 billion dollars, you can have BOTH Broadway (to Cambie / Canada Line) AND Surrey Rapid Transit! That way, both cities and its taxpayers benefit greatly and the entire region between them also benefits due to increase in destination options accessible by a far more extensive rapid transit network.

The only "looser" in this scenario will be UBC itself, since they won't have their students get too and from the Skytrain lines *FAST*, but if speed is so bloody important to them, let them pay for it, or wait until there is extra funds to build their leg (like how PoCo is waiting for their leg from the Evergreen Line).

TransLink and everyone else, including Surrey, is most likely the loser in this case. So far, everyone only care about the 3B capital cost, but how about operational cost? How much can TransLink save if the line goes to UBC and they can cut service to duplicate routes?

- The 99 can be completely canceled - that saves $12M a year
- The 44, 84, 480 can all be canceled, as the main purpose of them is to alleviate the load of 99 to bring people to UBC. With the majority of UBC traffic moved to the new line (via Canada Line or Millennium Line) - this saves $8M a year
- Surface route on Broadway can be dramatically cut - namely the 9 and 14 - $4-6M/year can easily save from here
- Service on parallel routes such as 25 and 49 can be reduced too, since people would prefer the faster service - maybe another $4M/year?

The service "optimization" above saves about $30M/year - the value is estimated from cost of the route performance report + 30% for layover/deadheading.

Then the new line is expected to attract 54k new riders a day, about 17.3M riders a year (low estimate), which gives $33M of fare revenue

Finally, minus the $13M operating cost of UBC line... This gives a operating saving of $50M a year. If they use that money to build new rapid transit line, that equals to a contribution of about $650M according to Evergreen Line number. If the Province and Fed are also contributing 1/3 each - we suddenly got a new $1.95B rapid transit line!

So the end result, for $3B we got the FULL Broadway Rapid Transit AND the Surrey Rapid Transit - if only Broadway line goes about 5 or so years ahead and if they can transfer the operating "efficiency" into another rapid transit line.


But what if the Surrey Line build first... Lets use the LRT1 option the the City of Surrey loves so much...

- Lets say the 321 can be cancelled completely - that's a $7.5M saving there
- It is harder to estimate the saving on Guildford portion - lets assume that and the Fraser branch equal a complete cancellation of 502 - that's a saving of another $7.5M
- Throw in the saving if the cancellation of 96 B-Line - this gives $7.2M more saving on top of the 321, assume the full route to White Rock is implemented, which is not the case [Note: this cost I assume is the net cost on top of the saving of reduced 320/321/394 service, so part of the B-Line cost should be included as part of the saving in 321]
- Improved feeder service, local service along rapid transit route, and other optimization saving on parallel are very hard to estimate here - I'm pretty sure this will result in a net increase of service but lets just leave them out from the calculation here

Total saving of bus service in this case would be $22.2M. New ridership from the rapid transit line is expected to be 12k, this gives about 3.85M of annual ridership and fare revenue of $7.3M.

Finally, the operating cost of LRT1 is expected to be $39M, as the lines will need drivers and are more than 3 times as long as Broadway Line. So this would give an operating loss of $9.5M per year! The RRT option is doing a bit better, but still result in a net operating loss of $7M/year. This is actually much worst than the case for Evergreen Line, which is expected to have an annual operating revenue of a mere $0.3M/year (after Millennium service redesign and bus integration)


The numbers above are just my pure estimates from the numbers available. But it somewhat gives an idea why I'm supporting Broadway Line to go before Surrey Lines..

[Rico]

Here is my take. Forecast peak travel is close to 13,000 people per direction on Central Broadway but only 5,000 west of Arbutus. That is close enough to what can be handled by proper bus BRT that phasing is not an issue. It is also far enough West that a large majority of operational savings from elimination of parallel bus lines will still occur. Obviously a line all the way to UBC is best but phasing makes sense. It also makes sense to acknowledge political reality will mean Surrey must get some rapid transit investment....even if it does not help....and even if it hurts the bottom line. Phasing Broadway could help with that political reality.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

You guys know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean. I think Broadway requires a subway the same way that the PMB required more lanes in 2006: it is the most urgent transportation issue in Metro Vancouver.

[s211]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

While funding from the Feds is needed for the Broadway Line, I think calling it a "national significance" is a bit delusional. I doubt some guy in the Maritimes or Ontario would benefit if a UBC student gets to school faster. The people at the CDC don't need to be connected to UBC at lightning speed either in the name of research. And in cases that they do, I doubt they would be transporting viles of biohazard samples via a subway train anyway...that's just silly.

The best course of action is to stay in course to lobby for funding with the reasons that infrastructure needs to be upgraded to cope with demand, which everyone already knows about. But "national significance"....oh dear....I dunno if its desperation or sheer size of one's ego. Broadway Line is important, but NOT THAT IMPORTANT, especially on a national level.

Thank you for what you've written. It's right on the mark. Does anybody honestly think that somebody in, say, Flin Flon would one day wake up and all of a sudden say "hell yeah, please divert my tax money to those poor deserving souls in Vancouver"?

[SFUVancouver]

The rhetorical arguments against SkyTrain to UBC sometimes seem to get tied in knots. If I've followed the recent and previous debates correctly, the level of service that currently serves the Central Broadway-UBC corridor (99 B-Line limited stop express service & #9 local stop trolley service) is considered excellent - or at least more than sufficient - and SkyTrain is not required despite the acknowledged presence of the region's greatest density and diversity of trip generators along the route, second only to the downtown core. However, the same level service (99 B-Line & local stop bus service) South of the Fraser in Surrey, with connections to the City of Langley and White Rock, would be unacceptable and only an investment in LRT, and possibly SkyTrain, is sufficient to meet the respective corridors' needs. This is despite the general absence of trip generators, low residential and employment densities outside of the route termini with some stretches of undeveloped ALR farmland in between, an entirely car-dependent built environment with limited pedestrian infrastructure and wide spacing between blocks and crosswalks, and initial ridership projections that would likely require subsidy until such time as land-use changes and development come on stream in quantity.

As others have noted, capital costs are only part of the equation - a small part in the life of a project - and it is operating costs that eat a transit system alive. This is the same debate - new rapid transit in the suburbs to shape growth and one day be warranted by use versus higher capacity service and new subways in urban areas where the current system is saturated and generating revenue surpluses - that has been going on in Toronto for years. The argument played out as it only being downtown elites, who could walk everywhere and chose to live in a dense urban area and they don't even know how good they've got things, and freeloading university kids who don't pay a dime in taxes, except that they do, who would benefit from new rapid transit, while the hardworking, salt of the earth, overburdened and overtaxed suburban families have been chronically short-changed by transit and they just cannot see why they shouldn't get a subway or two when there are already subways downtown so why build more?

It's the serve-versus-shape argument. Both sides have merit and in the absence of cost both should be followed. However, when you add operating costs to the equation, it simplifies matters. Build rapid transit on the corridors where it is needed most and will have its operating costs and debt servicing easily covered at the farebox, extend it incrementally out to suburban areas to connect to other urban centres in polynodal regions like ours after having first implemented high-capacity bus service (B-Lines & commuter express buses) to build ridership and begin shaping land use changes.

Having said all of that, there is a third dimension and that is politics and it cannot be ignored. Rob Ford is proof of this and the damage that they can wreak is substantial. I think that there is a very real likelihood that a Central Broadway to UBC extension of SkyTrain will have to wait and at least one LRT line will built in Surrey in the relatively near future. I maintain that combining the projects is the ideal way forward and if bundled as a single RPF, it could lead to lower costs for both projects than if they were issued separately and years apart. Furthermore, the likely poor operational economics of a LRT in Surrey could be blended with the likely revenue surpluses of the Central Broadway to UBC line, making the whole picture look better.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The rhetorical arguments against SkyTrain to UBC sometimes seem to get tied in knots. If I've followed the recent and previous debates correctly, the level of service that currently serves the Central Broadway-UBC corridor (99 B-Line limited stop express service & #9 local stop trolley service) is considered excellent - or at least more than sufficient - and SkyTrain is not required despite the acknowledged presence of the region's greatest density and diversity of trip generators along the route, second only to the downtown core. However, the same level service (99 B-Line & local stop bus service) South of the Fraser in Surrey, with connections to the City of Langley and White Rock, would be unacceptable and only an investment in LRT, and possibly SkyTrain, is sufficient to meet the respective corridors' needs. This is despite the general absence of trip generators, low residential and employment densities outside of the route termini with some stretches of undeveloped ALR farmland in between, an entirely car-dependent built environment with limited pedestrian infrastructure and wide spacing between blocks and crosswalks, and initial ridership projections that would likely require subsidy until such time as land-use changes and development come on stream in quantity.

As others have noted, capital costs are only part of the equation - a small part in the life of a project - and it is operating costs that eat a transit system alive. This is the same debate - new rapid transit in the suburbs to shape growth and one day be warranted by use versus higher capacity service and new subways in urban areas where the current system is saturated and generating revenue surpluses - that has been going on in Toronto for years. The argument played out as it only being downtown elites, who could walk everywhere and chose to live in a dense urban area and they don't even know how good they've got things, and freeloading university kids who don't pay a dime in taxes, except that they do, who would benefit from new rapid transit, while the hardworking, salt of the earth, overburdened and overtaxed suburban families have been chronically short-changed by transit and they just cannot see why they shouldn't get a subway or two when there are already subways downtown so why build more?

It's the serve-versus-shape argument. Both sides have merit and in the absence of cost both should be followed. However, when you add operating costs to the equation, it simplifies matters. Build rapid transit on the corridors where it is needed most and will have its operating costs and debt servicing easily covered at the farebox, extend it incrementally out to suburban areas to connect to other urban centres in polynodal regions like ours after having first implemented high-capacity bus service (B-Lines & commuter express buses) to build ridership and begin shaping land use changes.

Having said all of that, there is a third dimension and that is politics and it cannot be ignored. Rob Ford is proof of this and the damage that they can wreak is substantial. I think that there is a very real likelihood that a Central Broadway to UBC extension of SkyTrain will have to wait and at least one LRT line will built in Surrey in the relatively near future. I maintain that combining the projects is the ideal way forward and if bundled as a single RPF, it could lead to lower costs for both projects than if they were issued separately and years apart. Furthermore, the likely poor operational economics of a LRT in Surrey could be blended with the likely revenue surpluses of the Central Broadway to UBC line, making the whole picture look better.

Great post, I agree with basically everything. Hopefully we can still find a way to get RRT in Surrey though. It's a shame how much politics dictates stuff like this.