Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by dleung

What kind of — leading survey questions are these? Trying to pit Transportation against affordable housing... that's as asinine as suggesting "yes you are thirsty, but don't forget you are also feverish, so how bout we give you less water, and use the rest of the water to splash your forehead?"

The things work in different currencies. The first ailment uses water efficiently, the other could've been solved with an ice pack. Transit is fixed through capital investments, affordable housing is fixed through policy. Especially with the way they build them in this town with artificially-low densities surrounded by higher-density market buildings... makes one think they didn't have to cost taxpayers $300k per unit if they managed their own land half as well as a private developer.

Patrick Condon asking leading questions trying to get the "right" results for his "scientific" survey? Why I never heard of such a preposterous thing!

[trofirhen]

IMHO, it stinks that such a vital piece of infrastructure should become so politicized, with "bait and switch" questions, NIMBYs squawking, and the whole shebang.
I wish people could understand the vital necessity of the line, and just allow it to be built without all the peripheral hullabaloo. Simplistic on my part? No doubt yes, but maybe others agree.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

IMHO, it stinks that such a vital piece of infrastructure should become so politicized, with "bait and switch" questions, NIMBYs squawking, and the whole shebang.
I wish people could understand the vital necessity of the line, and just allow it to be built without all the peripheral hullabaloo. Simplistic on my part? No doubt yes, but maybe others agree.

I'd love to see some understanding (or at least some constructive disagreement), but there's not much chance of that. Despite Condon being a self-described urbanist, the target audience seems to be semi-retirees, cheapskates and other "small town" types that usually aren't very receptive to any kind of change.

Originally Posted by scottN

I thought this information was used to weight survey responses to fit the population profile measured in the census. If your survey responses are 75% men and 25% women, then you give each woman's response 3x the weight to make the results representative of a 50/50 gender balance, which is the real gender ratio in the population. Weights can be used with income, gender, race, education, the neighbourhood that you live in, etc.

Age/gender/income during the poll, sure, but they want to know your location just to create the account. NIMBYs in general are paranoid about "City Hall/developer shills from out of town."

[Alex Mackinnon]

I love how Condon acknowledges how positive the business case is, but complains that it's too expensive, and then massively uses future dollars instead of putting things into 2019 nominal dollars to make them look more expensive.

What a guy.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

From the sqwabb blog:

More Broadway subway station location speculation—this time Arbutus


The three current candidates for an Broadway subway terminus at Arbutus.—Google Street View
https://sqwabb.wordpress.com/2019/04/01/...eculation-this-time-arbutus/#more-110374

The link is dead.

Originally Posted by waves

I disagree with the last two questions in the survey.

(tldr; q1: LRT is not zero GHG; q2: public transportation improves affordability in general including access to affordable housing)

For the first half of question 1 on zero GHG, he does not define the scope which is problematic because while Skytrain will require more concrete than LRT, the operating emissions over it's lifetime will be much less. When you consider in operating emissions LRT is not zero GHG. In the surrey rapid transit study it was noted that the surrey LRT would increase GHG by 38,000 tonnes. The second half of this question about using it across the city rather than just the Broadway Corridor is also flawed because it tries to pit one project against another when Skytrain is the only option that can accommodate the demand on the Broadway Corridor. LRT would be at capacity on opening day, thus meaning that however many billions would have been spent on an option that would eventually need to be replaced by Skytrain anyways.

The second question asks about spending money on cheaper housing. I would love there to be more student housing, but the issue of 'affordability' is not only defined by housing but also by food, transportation, and social activities. Funding transportation is a unique option however in that it can impact the affordability of those other factors by increasing choice. Choice of where to live while not being too far away from school and choice of goods with increased connectivity. Funding public transportation is a key way of making existing affordable housing options more accessible and thus it is a more effective use of funding that will benefit more people than just the select few that are lucky enough to receive subsidized housing. There are routinely 10,000 students annually on the UBC housing wait-lists. The Broadway Subway will benefit every single one of them. With his suggestion supposing that the funds saved could be used for housing (which they can't), they will receive no time travel or crowding benefits, and likely still not get into housing. The only people winning here are NIMBYs and urbanistic delusionals.


https://i.imgur.com/P0cHbSZ.png?1

Increasing accessibility makes rents more costly, though.

Originally Posted by dleung

What kind of — leading survey questions are these? Trying to pit Transportation against affordable housing... that's as asinine as suggesting "yes you are thirsty, but don't forget you are also feverish, so how bout we give you less water, and use the rest of the water to splash your forehead?"

The things work in different currencies. The first ailment uses water efficiently, the other could've been solved with an ice pack. Transit is fixed through capital investments, affordable housing is fixed through policy. Especially with the way they build them in this town with artificially-low densities surrounded by higher-density market buildings... makes one think they didn't have to cost taxpayers $300k per unit if they managed their own land half as well as a private developer.

No, because the New Urbanist lobby also doesn't want high density, but middle density on the corridor. Which would be fine, if it wasn't literally part of Vancouver City Centre. They want to remove the Skytrain partially to remove much the rationale for expensive land value that would demand luxury condos, high density, or both. Also, fantasies about streetcars. The NIMBYist lobby doesn't want anything.

Combine the two, and you have this garbage.



Also, housing is so unaffordable, the only way you're ever going to get cheap housing (less than $1000 rent) on the near-term is either for the government to pay up, or is a tear-down. Policy takes time- a lot of time. So, the survey isn't lying in a sense.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

IMHO, it stinks that such a vital piece of infrastructure should become so politicized, with "bait and switch" questions, NIMBYs squawking, and the whole shebang.
I wish people could understand the vital necessity of the line, and just allow it to be built without all the peripheral hullabaloo. Simplistic on my part? No doubt yes, but maybe others agree.

I mean, playing devil's advocate here, but so was the Downtown Freeway in that line of thinking. Getting to Downtown is still an utter mess.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd love to see some understanding (or at least some constructive disagreement), but there's not much chance of that. Despite Condon being a self-described urbanist, the target audience seems to be semi-retirees, cheapskates and other "small town" types that usually aren't very receptive to any kind of change.



Age/gender/income during the poll, sure, but they want to know your location just to create the account. NIMBYs in general are paranoid about "City Hall/developer shills from out of town."

Pretty much every survey from City requires you to show your location.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The link is dead.

Strange - works for me.

[misher]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The link is dead.

Worked for me on my phone and pc.

Btw look at those sale prices, damn wish I had millions to speculate with back then.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by misher

Worked for me on my phone and pc.

Btw look at those sale prices, damn wish I had millions to speculate with back then.

the city also owns the land directly north of the old Rogers/Fido buildings. and east as the Arbutus Corridor.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

No, because the New Urbanist lobby also doesn't want high density, but middle density on the corridor. Which would be fine, if it wasn't literally part of Vancouver City Centre. They want to remove the Skytrain partially to remove much the rationale for expensive land value that would demand luxury condos, high density, or both. Also, fantasies about streetcars. The NIMBYist lobby doesn't want anything.

Combine the two, and you have this garbage.

Also, housing is so unaffordable, the only way you're ever going to get cheap housing (less than $1000 rent) on the near-term is either for the government to pay up, or is a tear-down. Policy takes time- a lot of time. So, the survey isn't lying in a sense.

As usual though, Condonland makes several false assumptions here: that SkyTrain can't "create" low/mid-rise development (disproved by Vancouver and Richmond), that streetcars can't "create" high land value and condo towers (disproved by Surrey), and that affordability is somehow solved by TransLink being cheap-asses instead of City Council governing well.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Pretty much every survey from City requires you to show your location.

The City requires your neighbourhood, though - PlaceSpeak wants a fixed — address.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Strange - works for me.

Sorry, my computer must have made an oopsie.

https://blog.daryldelacruz.com/2018/11/11/99-bline-arbutus-regions-busiest-broadway-subway/

You’re seeing that correctly. It looks like based on existing ridership only, the 99 B-Line’s new transfer point would actually be 28% busier, handling over 2,000 more weekday passenger boardings than the existing transfer point at Commercial-Broadway.

Considering the amount of space required for the bus loop and station, I think the answer here is actually "all of the above". Daily Hive may be correct- one station entrance will be at Rogers, along with the bus layover area. Another station entrance may also be located at the Pinnacle Living void space. The 2096 area may have a bus exchange.

Once the Millennium extends to UBC, the layover facility might be sold, or used in combination with a Artubus BRT/LRT/Commuter Rail.

Of course, if we get UBC extension funding promised, the equation changes drastically.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As usual though, Condonland makes several false assumptions here: that SkyTrain can't "create" low/mid-rise development (disproved by Vancouver and Richmond), that streetcars can't "create" high land value and condo towers (disproved by Surrey), and that affordability is somehow solved by TransLink being cheap-asses instead of City Council governing well.



The City requires your neighbourhood, though - PlaceSpeak wants a fixed — address.

The City wanted my zip code with the Broadway Corridor online survey. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Considering the amount of space required for the bus loop and station, I think the answer here is actually "all of the above". Daily Hive may be correct- one station entrance will be at Rogers, along with the bus layover area. Another station entrance may also be located at the Pinnacle Living void space. The 2096 area may have a bus exchange.

Once the Millennium extends to UBC, the layover facility might be sold, or used in combination with a Artubus BRT/LRT/Commuter Rail.

Of course, if we get UBC extension funding promised, the equation changes drastically.

Works for me. No such thing as too many entrances at a transfer station; even if Phase 2 to UBC gets approved in time, we'd still have the streetcar to think of.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The City wanted my zip code with the Broadway Corridor online survey. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly.

You're remembering correctly. Just finished the Granville Bridge survey, presto, zipcode.

Maybe it's a trust thing. We can (mostly) count on the City to respect your privacy, but with PlaceSpeak your location is literally pinned on a map for every other user. That's somewhat disturbing for a lot of people, especially given the other people who frequent the site.

[svlt]

I wish to speak my mind too and voice support for rapid transit development, but is PlaceSpeak even worth answering to? Is this just someone's pet project to lobby their views? Will the results inform decision makers in any way? Would it even sway the balance of a decision on the UBC subway by 1% to be worth my time to register?

I've never heard of it and it isn't one of those official CoV surveys which I can barely get up for...

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by misher

Worked for me on my phone and pc.

Btw look at those sale prices, damn wish I had millions to speculate with back then.

well i can see at least 1 of those sales prices were wrong. plus Shell doesnt own their land either.

also, are they asking for Zip Code or Postal Code? i would hope Postal Code since, you know, this isn't the USA...

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by svlt

I wish to speak my mind too and voice support for rapid transit development, but is PlaceSpeak even worth answering to? Is this just someone's pet project to lobby their views? Will the results inform decision makers in any way? Would it even sway the balance of a decision on the UBC subway by 1% to be worth my time to register?

I've never heard of it and it isn't one of those official CoV surveys which I can barely get up for...

The problem is that Condon is considered a "expert" by the local news media, even though he is basically advocating for a return to tribalism, as in nobody should eat, work and play farther than they can walk. He compares the Skytrain to flying cars. He never knows what he's talking about when given a microphone, and I suspect anyone who takes part in his SFU programs likely gets brainwashed into this line of thinking of sustainability-above-all-else.

I wish the media would not take him seriously, we've stopped seeing Bateman in the news because he's stopped being a Translink troll and no longer is part of CTF (Last I heard he is now a lobbyist for the construction industry.)

We should not rest, knowing the Surrey LRT was terminated for purely good business case reasons. There are still NIMBY people out there who want to undermine rapid transit and think any transit to UBC or SFU doesn't benefit them and they don't want it. Any deflection about greenhouses gases or homeless people is a distraction. We have battery buses coming, Translink's arm could be twisted to roll out more, faster if the battery tech is proven, but right now it's not proven, and we don't need a repeat of the CNG buses "for green reasons" and then they never get used.

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/translinks-return-to-natural-gas-buses-criticized/ (note 2013)

The transportation authority has more than 50 CNG buses, some dating back to the 1990s, but it rejected new purchases for years after concluding they weren’t cost-effective due to high maintenance costs and other problems.

In the mid-2000s, the then-elected TransLink board wavered several times on which fuel type of bus to buy while being heavily lobbied by dueling industry groups.

Corrigan wonders if the private unelected board has embraced CNG to please the provincial government as it promotes natural gas exports as a key to B.C.’s future.

We don't need a repeat of that. Battery tech is currently at a point where the non-articulated buses could probably be cycled out over their lifespan with battery buses, but they need to have the charging facilities for them first.

Likewise the homeless question has nothing directly to do with transit. Indirectly, the properties closest to transit stations should be the cheapest to rent or purchase, because the people who exclusively use transit do not need a car. Yet they are routinely marketed as "luxury" condos, which are half the size of a true luxury property. If the homeless problem is to be really addressed, the city or Translink needs to own the properties closest to the transit hubs, and not fall into the trap of "selling property" to patch a hole in a budget.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The problem is that Condon is considered a "expert" by the local news media, even though he is basically advocating for a return to tribalism, as in nobody should eat, work and play farther than they can walk. He compares the Skytrain to flying cars. He never knows what he's talking about when given a microphone, and I suspect anyone who takes part in his SFU programs likely gets brainwashed into this line of thinking of sustainability-above-all-else.

I wish the media would not take him seriously, we've stopped seeing Bateman in the news because he's stopped being a Translink troll and no longer is part of CTF (Last I heard he is now a lobbyist for the construction industry.)

We should not rest, knowing the Surrey LRT was terminated for purely good business case reasons. There are still NIMBY people out there who want to undermine rapid transit and think any transit to UBC or SFU doesn't benefit them and they don't want it. Any deflection about greenhouses gases or homeless people is a distraction. We have battery buses coming, Translink's arm could be twisted to roll out more, faster if the battery tech is proven, but right now it's not proven, and we don't need a repeat of the CNG buses "for green reasons" and then they never get used.

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/translinks-return-to-natural-gas-buses-criticized/ (note 2013)


We don't need a repeat of that. Battery tech is currently at a point where the non-articulated buses could probably be cycled out over their lifespan with battery buses, but they need to have the charging facilities for them first.

Likewise the homeless question has nothing directly to do with transit. Indirectly, the properties closest to transit stations should be the cheapest to rent or purchase, because the people who exclusively use transit do not need a car. Yet they are routinely marketed as "luxury" condos, which are half the size of a true luxury property. If the homeless problem is to be really addressed, the city or Translink needs to own the properties closest to the transit hubs, and not fall into the trap of "selling property" to patch a hole in a budget.

Media and outrage go hand-in-hand.

The New Urbanist lobby is not going away any time soon, that's for sure.

Homeless shelters are generally placed where the homeless need them, because otherwise people otherwise not necessarily seeking help might not find them. Broadway is more a combination of those two, though.

I'm pretty sure this survey referred to social housing, not homeless shelters though. Which seem to be practically mandated to be built into most new condo developments now regardless, not to mention the renoviction policies. Gentrification is a genuine concern, but mitigatable.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

they've been working hard on those trolley pole bases along W 12th Av. it looks like between Oak & Cambie they've almost completed the entire south side.

i do wonder if they will keep the trolley lines after construction is complete, i imagine they would since it isn't cheap to set up.

this project is pretty much started as i read that they have already started doing utility relocation's along the corridor as well. they be spending that $$$ already.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

they've been working hard on those trolley pole bases along W 12th Av. it looks like between Oak & Cambie they've almost completed the entire south side.

i do wonder if they will keep the trolley lines after construction is complete, i imagine they would since it isn't cheap to set up.

this project is pretty much started as i read that they have already started doing utility relocation's along the corridor as well. they be spending that $$$ already.

They'd be handy as alternate routes, that's for sure. But given the proximity to Broadway, there probably won't be a full-time route using it.

Maybe it's just me, but there appears to be a massive spin / disinformation campaign going on targeting the regional SkyTrain projects. Some people are really betting their hopes on hitting the brakes at the last minute. There was that silly argument before Vancouver city council that SNC-Lavalin's "proprietary" technology will force us to accept their corrupt practices... then there were claims that we could easily shift this hard-earned transit project money towards social housing... oh and finally, there were those two separate proposals for either all-day West Coast Express or the hydrogen-powered interurban line...

It's like people have nothing better to do than complain about something being (or not being) in their backyards... Sigh. And I'm actually starting to worry that somehow one of these will gain traction and derail all of the hard work we've done.

[jollyburger]

They are posting updates on the trolley wire early work here:

https://engage.gov.bc.ca/broadwaysubway/early-works/

And they trolley lines are permanent.

No. The trolley overhead infrastructure will remain in place so that TransLink can reroute trolley services in the event of an accident or other disruption to the normal routing, and for flexibility to adjust routes if customer needs or behaviours change as needed in the future.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Millennium2002

Maybe it's just me, but there appears to be a massive spin / disinformation campaign going on targeting the regional SkyTrain projects. Some people are really betting their hopes on hitting the brakes at the last minute. There was that silly argument before Vancouver city council that SNC-Lavalin's "proprietary" technology will force us to accept their corrupt practices... then there were claims that we could easily shift this hard-earned transit project money towards social housing... oh and finally, there were those two separate proposals for either all-day West Coast Express or the hydrogen-powered interurban line...

It's like people have nothing better to do than complain about something being (or not being) in their backyards... Sigh. And I'm actually starting to worry that somehow one of these will gain traction and derail all of the hard work we've done.

Heh, I see what you did there.

It's more like the same "influential" people over and over again, and I can count them all on one hand. Most of the Metro (including nine-tenths of Vancouver proper) realizes that SkyTrain is best, and have learned to ignore them or argue them down.