Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Would this not also encourage people to live further from transit? Seems to go against traditional TOD intentions.

Only people who own (expensive) vehicles most likely.

The current issue is that the cost of land is the largest portion of the redevelopment costs, so who cares if it's 100% more or 10% more or whatever, that just gets passed on to the presale buyers who most are going to try flip anyway.

What would make sense, is having a specific "amenity tax" that goes directly into services that are unique to the building location that offsets the continued operation of that amenity (eg rail stations, bus stops, parks, playgrounds, pools, etc) and if people don't like it they can move. People who are primary occupants of such buildings would have amenity passes that give them use-it-or-lose-it* access.


* By which I mean that occupants and businesses must register themselves as a beneficiary of the building, and if they fail to renew it at tax time, it expires, but the tax is still paid. This is to avoid "selling" benefits by registering more people than the building unit owners pay taxes for, or owners or strata councils having to be involved in rentals.

[retro_orange]

That's a good idea.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

There's already a lot of transit going to UBC. The Broadway/UBC line would just increase capacity. It's the same thing as adding more buses to existing routes or adding more B-Line routes.

Today, the UBC loop is the terminus of several bus routes:

4 Powell
9 Boundary/Commercial-Broadway Station (Sept-Apr - peak hours only)
14 Hastings
25 Brentwood Station
33 29th Ave Station
41 Joyce Station
43 Joyce Station
44 Downtown
49 Metrotown Station
84 VCC-Clark Station
99 B-Line Commercial-Broadway Station

258 West Vancouver (Sept-Apr - peak hours only)

480 Bridgeport Station

C18 West Mall
C20 Marine Drive via Totem Park

N17 Downtown


If the Millennium Line runs to UBC, these bus routes would not need to go all the way to UBC loop:

4 Powell
Route ends at Blanca Loop
a) Transfer to Canada line or Expo line @ Waterfront, and transfer to Millennium line to UBC; or
b) Transfer to Millennium line to UBC @ Blanca Loop;

9 Boundary/Commercial-Broadway Station (Sept-Apr - peak hours only)
Route ends at Blanca Loop
a) Transfer to Millennium line to UBC at any of the Millennium line stations along the route
b) Transfer to Millennium line to UBC @ Blanca Loop;

14 Hastings
Route ends at Blanca Loop
Transfer to Millennium line to UBC at any of the Millennium line stations along the route - most likely @ Granville Stn

25 Brentwood Station
a) You're near the Millennium line @ Brentwood Stn, so take the train to UBC; or
b) Transfer to Expo Line @ Nanaimo Stn, Transfer at Broadway/Commercial to Millennium line to UBC ; or
c) Transfer to Canada Line @ King Edward Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC

33 29th Ave Station
a) You're near the Expo line @ 29th Ave Stn, take Expo then Transfer at Broadway/Commercial to Millennium line to UBC ; or
b) Transfer to Canada Line @ King Edward Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC

41 Joyce Station
a) You're near the Expo line @ Joyce Stn, take Expo and Transfer at Broadway/Commercial to Millennium line to UBC ; or
b) Transfer to Canada Line @ Oakridge Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC

43 Joyce Station
a) You're near the Expo line @ Joyce Stn, take Expo and Transfer at Broadway/Commercial to Millennium line to UBC ; or
b) Transfer to Canada Line @ Oakridge Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC
this route might be cancelled in favour of the 41 Joyce
this route might end at Dunbar loop

44 Downtown
This route duplicates the 4 Powell, so might be cancelled
Some 4 Blanca trips may be re-labelled 4 UBC (via Chancellor) to reproduce this route

49 Metrotown Station
a) You're near the Expo line @ Metrotown Stn, take Expo and Transfer at Broadway/Commercial to Millennium line to UBC ; or
b) Transfer to Canada Line @ 49th Langara Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC
this route might end at Dunbar loop (transfer to 41 Joyce)

84 VCC-Clark Station
a) You're near the Millennium line @ VCC-Clark Stn, so use the Millennium line to UBC ; or
b) Transfer to Millennium Line @ Great Northern Way Stn, take Millennium line to UBC ; or
c) Transfer to Canada Line @ Olympic Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC
this route might end at Blanca loop

99 B-Line Commercial-Broadway Station
this route will be discontinued
use Millennium line to UBC

258 West Vancouver (Sept-Apr - peak hours only)
Route shortened to terminate at Waterfront Stn.
Transfer to Canada Line. At Broadway/City Hall transfer to Millennium line to UBC

480 Bridgeport Station
this route can be discontinued
use Canada Line. At Broadway/City Hall transfer to Millennium line to UBC

The Community and Night buses may not change.

The shortening of some routes and cancelling of other routes (ie: 99 B-Line) will allow the bus fleet and man-hours to be re-allocated across the region.

[casper]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Today, the UBC loop is the terminus of several bus routes:

4 Powell
9 Boundary/Commercial-Broadway Station (Sept-Apr - peak hours only)
14 Hastings
25 Brentwood Station
33 29th Ave Station
41 Joyce Station
43 Joyce Station
44 Downtown
49 Metrotown Station
84 VCC-Clark Station
99 B-Line Commercial-Broadway Station

258 West Vancouver (Sept-Apr - peak hours only)

480 Bridgeport Station

C18 West Mall
C20 Marine Drive via Totem Park

N17 Downtown


If the Millennium Line runs to UBC, these bus routes would not need to go all the way to UBC loop:

4 Powell
Route ends at Blanca Loop
a) Transfer to Canada line or Expo line @ Waterfront, and transfer to Millennium line to UBC; or
b) Transfer to Millennium line to UBC @ Blanca Loop;

9 Boundary/Commercial-Broadway Station (Sept-Apr - peak hours only)
Route ends at Blanca Loop
a) Transfer to Millennium line to UBC at any of the Millennium line stations along the route
b) Transfer to Millennium line to UBC @ Blanca Loop;

14 Hastings
Route ends at Blanca Loop
Transfer to Millennium line to UBC at any of the Millennium line stations along the route - most likely @ Granville Stn

25 Brentwood Station
a) You're near the Millennium line @ Brentwood Stn, so take the train to UBC; or
b) Transfer to Expo Line @ Nanaimo Stn, Transfer at Broadway/Commercial to Millennium line to UBC ; or
c) Transfer to Canada Line @ King Edward Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC

33 29th Ave Station
a) You're near the Expo line @ 29th Ave Stn, take Expo then Transfer at Broadway/Commercial to Millennium line to UBC ; or
b) Transfer to Canada Line @ King Edward Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC

41 Joyce Station
a) You're near the Expo line @ Joyce Stn, take Expo and Transfer at Broadway/Commercial to Millennium line to UBC ; or
b) Transfer to Canada Line @ Oakridge Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC

43 Joyce Station
a) You're near the Expo line @ Joyce Stn, take Expo and Transfer at Broadway/Commercial to Millennium line to UBC ; or
b) Transfer to Canada Line @ Oakridge Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC
this route might be cancelled in favour of the 41 Joyce
this route might end at Dunbar loop

44 Downtown
This route duplicates the 4 Powell, so might be cancelled
Some 4 Blanca trips may be re-labelled 4 UBC (via Chancellor) to reproduce this route

49 Metrotown Station
a) You're near the Expo line @ Metrotown Stn, take Expo and Transfer at Broadway/Commercial to Millennium line to UBC ; or
b) Transfer to Canada Line @ 49th Langara Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC
this route might end at Dunbar loop (transfer to 41 Joyce)

84 VCC-Clark Station
a) You're near the Millennium line @ VCC-Clark Stn, so use the Millennium line to UBC ; or
b) Transfer to Millennium Line @ Great Northern Way Stn, take Millennium line to UBC ; or
c) Transfer to Canada Line @ Olympic Stn, Transfer at Broadway/City Hall to Millennium line to UBC
this route might end at Blanca loop

99 B-Line Commercial-Broadway Station
this route will be discontinued
use Millennium line to UBC

258 West Vancouver (Sept-Apr - peak hours only)
Route shortened to terminate at Waterfront Stn.
Transfer to Canada Line. At Broadway/City Hall transfer to Millennium line to UBC

480 Bridgeport Station
this route can be discontinued
use Canada Line. At Broadway/City Hall transfer to Millennium line to UBC

The Community and Night buses may not change.

The shortening of some routes and cancelling of other routes (ie: 99 B-Line) will allow the bus fleet and man-hours to be re-allocated across the region.

To sum it all. After building the extensions to UBC. There are a lot of cross town buses heading to UBC that could free for use elsewhere in the system or retired. Generating a significant cost savings.

We will need to apply that cost saving to purchase a significant number of additional cars for skytrain.

Sounds good. When do we get shoves in the ground?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

To sum it all. After building the extensions to UBC. There are a lot of cross town buses heading to UBC that could free for use elsewhere in the system or retired. Generating a significant cost savings.

We will need to apply that cost saving to purchase a significant number of additional cars for skytrain.

Sounds good. When do we get shoves in the ground?

Effectively saving Translink a boat load of money.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Isn't it Translink's job to serve traffic generating points? Why didn't downtown businesses have to shell out to get transit lines?

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Would this not also encourage people to live further from transit? Seems to go against traditional TOD intentions.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And why not? The developers are poised to make millions from densifying the corridor, and the businesses around the stations will see a giant upswing in foot traffic - surely it's fair to take a small cut of that profit to pay for the SkyTrain that'll make it all happen in the first place?

It discourages development around Transit Corridors, thus making the strategic Regional Plan more difficult. In that sense, I would actually consider subsidizing land near high transit areas- which would mean the plan is followed better than now (mid-rise condos in Willowby? All those people are going to probably drive...) and increase transit use overall, saving $$$ on the long run.

TL;DR: Raising property taxes near transit sounds good, but is antithetical to the goals of Metro Van, and should thus never be done.

But that's my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Kisai

Only people who own (expensive) vehicles most likely.

The current issue is that the cost of land is the largest portion of the redevelopment costs, so who cares if it's 100% more or 10% more or whatever, that just gets passed on to the presale buyers who most are going to try flip anyway.

What would make sense, is having a specific "amenity tax" that goes directly into services that are unique to the building location that offsets the continued operation of that amenity (eg rail stations, bus stops, parks, playgrounds, pools, etc) and if people don't like it they can move. People who are primary occupants of such buildings would have amenity passes that give them use-it-or-lose-it* access.

* By which I mean that occupants and businesses must register themselves as a beneficiary of the building, and if they fail to renew it at tax time, it expires, but the tax is still paid. This is to avoid "selling" benefits by registering more people than the building unit owners pay taxes for, or owners or strata councils having to be involved in rentals.

If people don't like it they can move? You do realize those amenities are supposed to also service 3x more people and buisnesses from new high rises?

And 10% is pretty big when property costs approach a million.

[Migrant_Coconut]

One simply needs to look at the existing projects going up around SkyTrain corridors: Cambie, Joyce, Metrotown, Brentwood, Capstan, you name it.

These kinds of projects are all-in, because their developers know that the benefits of rapid transit access outweigh any kind of costs; it'll take a lot more than a small tax increase or a fee to discourage high-rises. So the devs pay TransLink now, TransLink builds SkyTrain, that gets the devs more money, and some of it goes to TransLink to get more SkyTrain. Everybody wins.

[Aroundtheworld]

Another idea could be to tax any development that isn't close to transit. That way you encourage development near stations while still getting revenue from developments that put more of a burden on the region's road network.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Would this not also encourage people to live further from transit? Seems to go against traditional TOD intentions.

People living near skytrain stations are already paying more for their units due to higher development costs (mostly land value), and that also translates into higher City taxes. Therefore it only makes sense to have extremely high density developments near stations in order to lower the price per unit.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Another idea could be to tax any development that isn't close to transit. That way you encourage development near stations while still getting revenue from developments that put more of a burden on the region's road network.

That wouldn't work in Vancouver. Very high densities are just not sought after by the City. This has encouraged the explosion of construction works beyond city limits.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by fredinno

If people don't like it they can move? You do realize those amenities are supposed to also service 3x more people and buisnesses from new high rises?

And 10% is pretty big when property costs approach a million.

I'm trying to point out that "if you are not willing to fund the amenity, then don't buy into the catchment area"

Look at the strata costs in Richmond (some are upwards of $400/mo) and compare to Surrey (closer to $200) for properties under 200K. Now, why is it that one is cheaper than the other?

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Singl...96-AVENUE-Surrey-British-Columbia-V3V7L9

Surrey:
Built in 1984

King George Skytrain 3 blocks away. In suite laundry. Convenient Central Surrey location right next to Central City Mall, T&T Chinese Market, King George Skytrain, Surrey Memorial Hospital, parks, etc... Spacious layout offers adjoining Living room and dining room, and an oversize master bedroom. Enjoy gas fireplace which gas is included in low maintenance/strata fee of 220.88.

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Singl...-STREET-Richmond-British-Columbia-V6Y2E9

Richmond:
Built in 1972

Central location at the heart of Richmond, Walking distance to Richmond Centre, Close to Skytrain Station

Strata fees $408/mo (retrieved from a realtor's site)

Both of these properties use "Near Skytrain" as a selling point. Both are also near a major shopping area.

If you twist the arm of the city to allow higher denstity TOD, then this is one way you do it, by making the developments near such Amenities justify having such strata fees.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Vin

People living near skytrain stations are already paying more for their units due to higher development costs (mostly land value), and that also translates into higher City taxes. Therefore it only makes sense to have extremely high density developments near stations in order to lower the price per unit.




That wouldn't work in Vancouver. Very high densities are just not sought after by the City. This has encouraged the explosion of construction works beyond city limits.

I agree with high density development near stations, and agree that people are already paying a premium to live there due to land costs. That's why the suggestion of raising their property taxes even further past that is a strange idea. Land values are one thing, but people shouldn't be punished through taxation for making sustainable choices.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree with high density development near stations, and agree that people are already paying a premium to live there due to land costs. That's why the suggestion of raising their property taxes even further past that is a strange idea. Land values are one thing, but people shouldn't be punished through taxation for making sustainable choices.

True. Heavier development fees would make more sense.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

True. Heavier development fees would make more sense.

Or simply not permitting rezoning to anything but mixed-use high-density near rail stations, and nothing less than 4 stories near bus transit. One way to force this is to separate the building's parking, retail/business space and residential space so that the parking spaces are setup for car-sharing and that there is no more than one parking space per unit.

There are plenty of solutions, but the main thing is overcoming objections to densification.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Or simply not permitting rezoning to anything but mixed-use high-density near rail stations, and nothing less than 4 stories near bus transit. One way to force this is to separate the building's parking, retail/business space and residential space so that the parking spaces are setup for car-sharing and that there is no more than one parking space per unit.

There are plenty of solutions, but the main thing is overcoming objections to densification.

Why force them? The free market pretty much already forces developers to make high rises near transit already due to land costs. The reason why we don't have more near transit (BRT and Skytrain) is due to other factors, like redevelopment cost/benefit ratio.

You don't find suburban developments being built near the new Evergreen line for that reason.


The issue is that Vancouver as a whole has absurd land costs- and housing anywhere near transit or conventional city centres is often too expensive for people, so they move to areas like Clayton and Willowby.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Why force them? The free market pretty much already forces developers to make high rises near transit already due to land costs. The reason why we don't have more near transit (BRT and Skytrain) is due to other factors, like redevelopment cost/benefit ratio.

You don't find suburban developments being built near the new Evergreen line for that reason.


The issue is that Vancouver as a whole has absurd land costs- and housing anywhere near transit or conventional city centres is often too expensive for people, so they move to areas like Clayton and Willowby.

Yes, but have you looked at any recent development lately? Luxury condos, not TOD.

[Feathered Friend]

Citizen input from the Open House at Douglas Park Community Centre. Most people seemed pretty gung-ho on this project.

One interesting tidbit I picked up was that, in circles connected to this project, there is very hushed talk of phase 2 having a spur to go out to the new Jericho Lands Development. Keep in mind this is spoken more as a "moonshot" project rather than anything likely to happen.

[GlassCity]

Why would it be a spur? It's pretty much right on the way to UBC.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Citizen input from the Open House at Douglas Park Community Centre. Most people seemed pretty gung-ho on this project.

One interesting tidbit I picked up was that, in circles connected to this project, there is very hushed talk of phase 2 having a spur to go out to the new Jericho Lands Development. Keep in mind this is spoken more as a "moonshot" project rather than anything likely to happen.

I agree it shouldn't be a spur-it's close enough to 10th Ave, and even the nearby park won't make it worth it.

If they ever make a Phase 2, it should be on 47th Ave to UBc.

[GlassCity]

Nah, definitely Broadway/10th all the way

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Why would it be a spur? It's pretty much right on the way to UBC.

I brought the subject up at the Arbutus Open House today with someone who has better insight than the last fellow. They essentially echoed your statement. Whether the previous fellow was talking about a separate spur all the way to 4th, or was just out to lunch, I suppose I'll never know.