Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[xd_1771]

As far as I'm aware the Abbotsford-Chilliwack segment also had to go around a huge lake that used to exist where the agricultural plains are today, and was drained shortly after its construction.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

As far as I'm aware the Abbotsford-Chilliwack segment also had to go around a huge lake that used to exist where the agricultural plains are today, and was drained shortly after its construction.

This is the case, and the other, shorter side of the like abutting Sumas Mountain was already occupied by the Great Northern owned VV&E, which built a much more direct steam line through the valley paralleling Yale Road out to Cloverdale, but they spent considerably more money engineering the right of way than the BCER did. They were never able to generate enough traffic to support the line for the long term and it was pulled up a few decades later.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

As far as I'm aware the Abbotsford-Chilliwack segment also had to go around a huge lake that used to exist where the agricultural plains are today, and was drained shortly after its construction.

Yeah, I always used to think that the Vedder Canal was there to irrigate farms on the Sumas Prarie, but the opposite is the case. It's there to drain the water so that they can use it for farming instead of swimming.

[logan5]

Microsoft to host conference on Vancouver-Seattle-Portland high-speed rail

The first major conference on the ambitious vision to connect the Pacific Northwest’s three major urban centres with a high-speed rail service will be held next week.

Government officials from all three jurisdictions, various business and industry interests, and rail industry representatives will be descending on the Microsoft headquarters in the Seattle suburb of Redmond for the Cascadia Rail Summit from November 6 to 8, 2019.

Attendees will be learning more about high-speed rail and how the proposed project linking Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland can be advanced. Speakers slated from north of the border include Simon Fraser University’s professor Anthony Perl, and City of Vancouver transportation director Lon LaClaire.

Microsoft has been a key proponent of the Cascadia high-speed rail project, and one of the key sources of funding for the various early analysis work performed since 2017, supplementing the funding provided by both the state governments of Washington and Oregon, and the provincial government of BC.

Not a huge story but it shows planning for this is still going on. It looks to be a very serious proposal.

In all 6 hypothetical routes that were released in the summer, Surrey was one of the stops.

If you could get from Surrey to Seattle in 39 minutes and into downtown Vancouver in 6 minutes, the development spurred on by this would be unimaginable. Around the station you would see huge office towers and massive residential developments that would surpass anything in Burnaby. Surrey's vision of becoming the Metro areas second downtown would certainly come true, and would likely rival downtown Vancouver at some point.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

It's really unfortunate that the easiest passenger rail option (cost and practicality) the SRY (old interurban) has such a winding inefficient indirect route to serve Langley/Abbotsford/Surrey.

The province still holds the right to run priority passenger rail on the route.

No, it doesn't.

The province merely has the right to assign the rights to operate passenger rail on the route, as long as it does not materially interfere with the freight train operations.

As running passenger rail does interfere with the freight train operations on the line (per Transport Canada regulations, passenger rail, especially lighter passenger rail service with LRT's, cannot operate on the same line at the same time as freight operations), this is a non-starter.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

No, it doesn't.

The province merely has the right to assign the rights to operate passenger rail on the route, as long as it does not materially interfere with the freight train operations.

As running passenger rail does interfere with the freight train operations on the line (per Transport Canada regulations, passenger rail, especially lighter passenger rail service with LRT's, cannot operate on the same line at the same time as freight operations), this is a non-starter.

I mean- do we even have the actual agreement public? The most I've seen is that BC Hydro has a right to run passenger trains on SRY and technically 'owns' the line. I haven't seen many specifics.

Originally Posted by logan5

Not a huge story but it shows planning for this is still going on. It looks to be a very serious proposal.

In all 6 hypothetical routes that were released in the summer, Surrey was one of the stops.

If you could get from Surrey to Seattle in 39 minutes and into downtown Vancouver in 6 minutes, the development spurred on by this would be unimaginable. Around the station you would see huge office towers and massive residential developments that would surpass anything in Burnaby. Surrey's vision of becoming the Metro areas second downtown would certainly come true, and would likely rival downtown Vancouver at some point.

Could you please link the source?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Could you please link the source?

Here.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I mean- do we even have the actual agreement public? The most I've seen is that BC Hydro has a right to run passenger trains on SRY and technically 'owns' the line. I haven't seen many specifics.

This Translink meeting minute, with an attached technical briefing indicates what's going on:

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...mt-Report--Interurban-Passenger-Rail.pdf

Page 3 of the technical briefing:

Ownership of the railway infrastructure is with Washington Group (SRY is a subsidiary). The land on which the railway operates is still retained by BC Hydro. In 1988, BC Hydro sold its rail assets to SRY and granted it the right to operate a freight rail system on this section of the corridor. BC Hydro did not specifically reserve rights to operate passenger rail service using SRY facilities, but did retain the ability to grant operating rights to others, including to providers of passenger rail service, that do not materially interfere with SRY’s operations. Operation of passenger service on this subdivision would require an agreement with SRY.

In short, what Translink is saying that technically, Southern Rail of BC owns the track and infrastructure, but the land is still technically owned by BC Hydro. BC Hydro has the right to grant operating rights for passenger rail to others, as long as they do not interfere with Southern Rail's operations, and an a agreement would need to be struck with Southern Rail to operate passenger rail service.

On the CP Rail side of the subdivision:

The CPR Page Subdivision continues east of Cloverdale from Pratt Junction through Langley City and beyond. In 1988, BC Hydro sold the track assets of this section to CPR, but retained ownership of the right-of-way. BC Hydro also granted CPR a statutory right-of-way to use this section of the corridor in perpetuity, but put agreements in place to retain partial running rights for passenger service, which were renewed in 2009. Operation of passenger service on this section would require an agreement with CPR.

So same situation; CP Rail owns the track and infrastructure, while BC Hydro retains partial running rights for passenger rail. An agreement with CP Rail will need to be reached however, before passenger rail service could be run on the line.

[lokyin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Not a huge story but it shows planning for this is still going on. It looks to be a very serious proposal.

In all 6 hypothetical routes that were released in the summer, Surrey was one of the stops.

If you could get from Surrey to Seattle in 39 minutes and into downtown Vancouver in 6 minutes, the development spurred on by this would be unimaginable. Around the station you would see huge office towers and massive residential developments that would surpass anything in Burnaby. Surrey's vision of becoming the Metro areas second downtown would certainly come true, and would likely rival downtown Vancouver at some point.

According to the previous report, ridership will be up to 16% lower with only a downtown Surrey station on our side (compared to having stations in both downtown Vancouver and Surrey).

And not just ridership but also potential economic gains, we'd want a station in or close to downtown Vancouver (Waterfront or Pacific Central), otherwise we're not attracting business, tourism, and the real major draws of the benefit in a project like this.

[officedweller]

Thanks.
That wording reads a bit oddly.

BC Hydro did not specifically reserve rights to operate passenger rail service using SRY facilities, but did retain the ability to grant operating rights to others, including to providers of passenger rail service, that do not materially interfere with SRY’s operations. Operation of passenger service on this subdivision would require an agreement with SRY.

If BC Hydro did not reserve the right to use SRY facilities (ie track), then BC Hydro cannot grant to other operators the right to use SRY track. BC Hydro's rights would relate to the use of the bare land.
If that's the case, then either:
- the negotiation with SRY would have to include track usage rights (ie including payment), rather than just scheduling issues; or
- the other operator would have to build its own facilities (ie parallel track) that do not materially interfere with SRY track.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by officedweller

If BC Hydro did not reserve the right to use SRY facilities (ie track), then BC Hydro cannot grant to other operators the right to use SRY track. BC Hydro's rights would relate to the use of the bare land.
If that's the case, then either:
- the negotiation with SRY would have to include track usage rights (ie including payment), rather than just scheduling issues; or
- the other operator would have to build its own facilities (ie parallel track) that do not materially interfere with SRY track.

Oops! So much for the wild claims by certain community groups that we have rights to just use the existing SRY track right away

How else to even interpret "materially interfere"? This seems like it.Rights to use the ROW but not the same track (without an agreement with SRY). Of course, any new track, to not interfere with the SRY, would require a degree of separation (i.e. as much as possible not crossing over the SRY track), which will almost certainly cost a lot of money

[officedweller]

You'd have to review the exact wording of the agreement, but that's my interpretation if they did not reserve rights to use the SRY track.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by lokyin

According to the previous report, ridership will be up to 16% lower with only a downtown Surrey station on our side (compared to having stations in both downtown Vancouver and Surrey).

And not just ridership but also potential economic gains, we'd want a station in or close to downtown Vancouver (Waterfront or Pacific Central), otherwise we're not attracting business, tourism, and the real major draws of the benefit in a project like this.

Agreed. Terminating downtown is a must for a project such as this, IMO. Thank you

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

This Translink meeting minute, with an attached technical briefing indicates what's going on:

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...mt-Report--Interurban-Passenger-Rail.pdf

Page 3 of the technical briefing:



In short, what Translink is saying that technically, Southern Rail of BC owns the track and infrastructure, but the land is still technically owned by BC Hydro. BC Hydro has the right to grant operating rights for passenger rail to others, as long as they do not interfere with Southern Rail's operations, and an a agreement would need to be struck with Southern Rail to operate passenger rail service.

On the CP Rail side of the subdivision:



So same situation; CP Rail owns the track and infrastructure, while BC Hydro retains partial running rights for passenger rail. An agreement with CP Rail will need to be reached however, before passenger rail service could be run on the line.

CP ownership of that subdivision ends where CN Hydro begins. CN built the connecting track between the CN mainline and the old interurban line.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by lokyin

According to the previous report, ridership will be up to 16% lower with only a downtown Surrey station on our side (compared to having stations in both downtown Vancouver and Surrey).

And not just ridership but also potential economic gains, we'd want a station in or close to downtown Vancouver (Waterfront or Pacific Central), otherwise we're not attracting business, tourism, and the real major draws of the benefit in a project like this.

Note however that the options that end in Surrey also have fewer stations and are more minimalistic in general. But yeah, glad the Surrey terminus options are gone. Whoever even thought that was a good idea? It's not THAT hard to get HSR into Downtown.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Oops! So much for the wild claims by certain community groups that we have rights to just use the existing SRY track right away

How else to even interpret "materially interfere"? This seems like it.Rights to use the ROW but not the same track (without an agreement with SRY). Of course, any new track, to not interfere with the SRY, would require a degree of separation (i.e. as much as possible not crossing over the SRY track), which will almost certainly cost a lot of money

Well, the Surrey-Newton area might be able to operate without new tracks at WCE frequencies by the sound of things. But the section that actually matters the most is Cloverdale-Langley, and needs its own tracks- which alone screws over Zwei's claims of 30-minute service. I mean, for real, how are the rail operators going to get to Deltaport without it? It's literally the only rail connection there from the Fraser Valley.

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That 15 minute headways on a single track is for bidirectional service. I think that would be overkill. 30 minute peak direction headways seem to suffice currently, off peak I don't see why you would have to do it more often than every hour. I think you could pull that off with a minimal amount of capital investment and end up providing a very valuable, attractive and dependable service.

Positive train control really should be in place by now in Canada, but once it is, inserting passenger trains onto freight tracks will be much easier while not taking much freight time away.

WCE right now has 30 min headway, which isn't exactly frequent. 15 would actually make it at least somewhat frequent (Portland considers 15 min headways frequent, Vancouver 10 min). The report noted they may only need 1 track built for 10 min headways bidirectional west of Queensbrough.

Note that freight trains tend to operate off peak.

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Well, the Amtrak does it in fairly decent time. The train travels from Pacific Central to Bellingham in 1:56 minutes, the Greyhound coach does it in 2:20 minutes. Bolt bus goes to a different part of Bellingham (a closer part) in 2 hours.

I actually did some rudimentary calculations using average speeds from here:https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-2017-ridership-statistics-part-1. From Scott Rd. Station to Buena Vista Rd on Skytrain via the proposed B-line corridor on KGB, it takes about 34.8 minutes.

From Scott Rd. Station to White Rock Pier via a WCE-style Rail, it'd take...34.7 minutes.

Literally exactly the same amount of time, and Commuter Rail runs into the problem of having to deal with having to slow to a crawl at White Rock because of the dumbasses who constantly walk the tracks, so it's actually likely a bit slower, unless there's no stations built in North Delta or Crescent Beach.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Eh, windy enough to take an extra half-hour to Langley over the Fraser extension, despite being touted as faster.

15 minutes and 10-car trains should theoretically bring capacity up to Canada Line levels, but would the ridership match that? The FVX isn't even maxed out yet.



Sure. The point then was that it's not a race, and that we're not lagging behind... and swimmer was referring to twinning the Waterfront-Coquitlam stretch, by buying properties or reclaiming land if need be; all that for one track would definitely be wasteful, especially since the Evergreen makes that part a redundancy.



30% commuting into the metro, or 30% using transit? The first has a bit too many variables (Highway 7, for example) to attribute the result to one peak-hour commuter train.

I acknowledge the hole, while observing that it's the Tri-City "downtowns" that got the overhaul, not the WCE stations; one could just as easily point to the former 97 B-Line, or the Regional Centre plan. Port Haney has three or four townhouses by the station, which is good, but does not TOD make.

Already stated my support for an Abbotsford extension and Coq-Mission twinning... once the priority projects like UBC/Langley/Hastings/North Van are finished (or if it can be done as a side project). Given the relative distances, growth of Langley, and the apparent slowness of getting even SFH rezoning, I will remain skeptical about the commuter suburb part.

Using the WCE average speed of 55km/h, a possible speed of the commuter rail connection would be about 28.6 minutes from Scott Rd. to Langley Center (assuming a spur built underground from the SRY line to Langley Center- purely for theoretical reasons- realistically, the line's Langley Station would be at 200St/Willowbrook Mall).
Skytrain is expected to go 27 min on the routing. From a glance, it at least appears time-competitive. If you're not using the LRT plans Zwei always suggests, and only go for the T. Centers.

The WCE uses 12-car trains. Though, mind you, that's kind of pedantic. The WCE carries about 10,000 passengers a day (lower due to the Evergreen Line and peak-only operation). The Canada Line carries closer to 150,000 passengers a day- which makes sense, considering it carries over 2.8x as many people an hour and works practically all-day.
So it's definately impossible to make it a replacement for Skytrain, not because of time or even cost (that'd probably still be cheaper even if you had to build a new rail), but capacity. Shouldn't matter for Abbosford though, simply because distances are so long, laying that much Skytrain track simply isn't worth it for demand- and you still want to protect your high-speed transit from the freeways inevitably filling up with cars- and from their speed limit.

We are lagging behind on Commuter Rail. But then again, Seattle uses LRT for its metro, so

There was 1 new high-rise on the Lower North Road during the period the 97 was running there. I know, because I went there a lot as a kid in the early 2010s and late to mid 2000s. Not much changed until the Evergreen Line.
Upper North Road is considered part of the Lougheed T. Center.

Compare that to the drastic growth of Inlet Center and Coq. Central, which had the WCE as well.
It's not EXACTLY on the WCE stations. But towers being built a couple blocks away from the stations is nothing new when it comes to TOD in this region.

More like 3-4 mid rise apartments. It's not really that impressive- but we're talking about Central Maple Ridge here. Without the WCE, you're simply not going anywhere fast.

Trailer Parks are 'affordable' housing in a sense, though. The likely "Abbosford T. Centre" is at the intersection of Hwy 1 and 11- an area so spacious with strip malls, warehouses, and parking lots, it's kind of hard to see how anyone could screw it up that badly (I guess there was Surrey for a long time?)

In any case, Abbostford set up a new city-wide plan in 2016 that aims to have 75% of all growth as infill/redevelopment (same as Metro Van), and has its own designated 'downtown', 'municipal centers' and everything. It's all fairly detailed, especially since they could just keep sprawling up Sumas Mtn indefinitely if they wanted to. Though, the main downtown isn't on the tracks, one of the secondary ones is- though I'd think Commuter Rail would bring a change to any densification plans anyways, like hope New West's Downtown moved from Uptown to the Waterfront because of the Expo Line.
https://municipal.qp.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/coa/coabylaws/ocp22
https://municipal.qp.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/coa/coabylaws/ocp21
https://municipal.qp.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/coa/coabylaws/ocp71
https://www.abbotsford.ca/business_and_d..._and_studies/official_community_plan.htm


They're also pretty focused on maintaining and establishing new Industrial lands. So,

Is it just a case of Cargo Cult Urbanism? https://www.planetizen.com/node/64935 Maybe- but industrial services and people are already moving deep into the Fraser Valley *despite* horrible commute times.
Though, objectively, BRT is the most likely option, and the one BC Transit seems to be leaning towards.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

This Translink meeting minute, with an attached technical briefing indicates what's going on:

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...mt-Report--Interurban-Passenger-Rail.pdf

Page 3 of the technical briefing:



In short, what Translink is saying that technically, Southern Rail of BC owns the track and infrastructure, but the land is still technically owned by BC Hydro. BC Hydro has the right to grant operating rights for passenger rail to others, as long as they do not interfere with Southern Rail's operations, and an a agreement would need to be struck with Southern Rail to operate passenger rail service.

On the CP Rail side of the subdivision:



So same situation; CP Rail owns the track and infrastructure, while BC Hydro retains partial running rights for passenger rail. An agreement with CP Rail will need to be reached however, before passenger rail service could be run on the line.

Stand corrected, Thank you!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The WCE uses 12-car trains. Though, mind you, that's kind of pedantic. The WCE carries about 10,000 passengers a day (lower due to the Evergreen Line and peak-only operation). The Canada Line carries closer to 150,000 passengers a day- which makes sense, considering it carries over 2.8x as many people an hour and works practically all-day.
So it's definately impossible to make it a replacement for Skytrain, not because of time or even cost (that'd probably still be cheaper even if you had to build a new rail), but capacity. Shouldn't matter for Abbosford though, simply because distances are so long, laying that much Skytrain track simply isn't worth it for demand- and you still want to protect your high-speed transit from the freeways inevitably filling up with cars- and from their speed limit....

.... There was 1 new high-rise on the Lower North Road during the period the 97 was running there. I know, because I went there a lot as a kid in the early 2010s and late to mid 2000s. Not much changed until the Evergreen Line.
Upper North Road is considered part of the Lougheed T. Center.

Compare that to the drastic growth of Inlet Center and Coq. Central, which had the WCE as well.
It's not EXACTLY on the WCE stations. But towers being built a couple blocks away from the stations is nothing new when it comes to TOD in this region.

More like 3-4 mid rise apartments. It's not really that impressive- but we're talking about Central Maple Ridge here. Without the WCE, you're simply not going anywhere fast....

.... In any case, Abbostford set up a new city-wide plan in 2016 that aims to have 75% of all growth as infill/redevelopment (same as Metro Van), and has its own designated 'downtown', 'municipal centers' and everything. It's all fairly detailed, especially since they could just keep sprawling up Sumas Mtn indefinitely if they wanted to. Though, the main downtown isn't on the tracks, one of the secondary ones is- though I'd think Commuter Rail would bring a change to any densification plans anyways, like hope New West's Downtown moved from Uptown to the Waterfront because of the Expo Line.

Each car can carry 144, so 144 x 10 cars, 4x an hour, gives about 5,800 pphpd; with 12 cars, it's 6,900. The Canada Line does 6k right now, so theoretically, the capacity is there.
My doubt comes from the actual ridership. Even a fivefold increase in boardings (as expected with Broadway) is only around 45-50k, so I'm saying that unless we can upgrade the WCE for >$1.5B, TransLink's always going to prioritize grabbing 100k in the North Shore or Hastings or KGB-104th for $3B.

Are we still talking about the WCE? I'll concede that Port Haney's pretty built-out for its relative distance, and that more apartments east of Coquitlam is a good thing, but Suterbrook and Newport and Coq Central are more of an Evergreen product.

Nice. Given the current state of Abbotsford though, I'll wait for some actual progress - a change in City Council may resume that crawl up Sumas.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Each car can carry 144, so 144 x 10 cars, 4x an hour, gives about 5,800 pphpd; with 12 cars, it's 6,900. The Canada Line does 6k right now, so theoretically, the capacity is there.
My doubt comes from the actual ridership. Even a fivefold increase in boardings (as expected with Broadway) is only around 45-50k, so I'm saying that unless we can upgrade the WCE for >$1.5B, TransLink's always going to prioritize grabbing 100k in the North Shore or Hastings or KGB-104th for $3B.

Are we still talking about the WCE? I'll concede that Port Haney's pretty built-out for its relative distance, and that more apartments east of Coquitlam is a good thing, but Suterbrook and Newport and Coq Central are more of an Evergreen product.

Nice. Given the current state of Abbotsford though, I'll wait for some actual progress - a change in City Council may resume that crawl up Sumas.

Cool. I think you meant <$1.5B?
It'd certainly be less to build our own tracks to Albion than to build a Skytrain or freeway all the way there. Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows combined is about 3/5s the size of Abbotsford or both Langleys combined population-wise. Considering how much people complain about Langley being 'in the boonies', Skytrain to Maple Ridge is probably too expensive to justify in the near-to-medium term. But admittedly we have some ways to go to get that far down the list. Maybe in another decade.

Well, yeah, both I guess?


Give me one other case where a city and developers were so excited about Skytrain that they started getting tower densities in the decade before Skytrain (not <80s era towers, like Uptown New West and the West End). Planning starts before Skytrain, even speculation, demolition, and land assembly- but the construction tends to be finished only once Skytrain is. I know Evergreen was horribly delayed due to RAV and tunneling issues- but Stuterbrook/Coqu Central as they are were mostly built in ~2010 and Newport about ~2006.

Certainly, the promises of RT were part of it. But all of it? Even most of it? Seems too risky for a developer considering how quickly transit plans change.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Cool. I think you meant <$1.5B?
It'd certainly be less to build our own tracks to Albion than to build a Skytrain or freeway all the way there. Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows combined is about 3/5s the size of Abbotsford or both Langleys combined population-wise. Considering how much people complain about Langley being 'in the boonies', Skytrain to Maple Ridge is probably too expensive to justify in the near-to-medium term. But admittedly we have some ways to go to get that far down the list. Maybe in another decade.

Well, yeah, both I guess?


Give me one other case where a city and developers were so excited about Skytrain that they started getting tower densities in the decade before Skytrain (not <80s era towers, like Uptown New West and the West End). Planning starts before Skytrain, even speculation, demolition, and land assembly- but the construction tends to be finished only once Skytrain is. I know Evergreen was horribly delayed due to RAV and tunneling issues- but Stuterbrook/Coqu Central as they are were mostly built in ~2010 and Newport about ~2006.

Certainly, the promises of RT were part of it. But all of it? Even most of it? Seems too risky for a developer considering how quickly transit plans change.

I meant what I said. The WCE upgrade'll have to be a billion or less to get built in tandem with/ahead of the SkyTrain projects I mentioned; RRT to Maple Ridge probably isn't even on the table!

Other case: Broadway right now. We're getting speculation, demolition and land assembly as we speak - the only thing stopping actual permits/construction is that nobody knows what the zoning restrictions are.

As for the Tri-Cities, I read that Suterbrook and Newport were literally built in anticipation of the SkyTrain route going past them, which didn't pan out; I'll try to find the link. I think the developers have learned from that mistake.
EDIT: found it - "Suter Brook Village and Newport Village are currently the main anchors surrounding (Inlet Centre), and were built in preparation for the previous promised SkyTrain routes before the Evergreen Line."

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I meant what I said. The WCE upgrade'll have to be a billion or less to get built in tandem with/ahead of the SkyTrain projects I mentioned; RRT to Maple Ridge probably isn't even on the table!

Other case: Broadway right now. We're getting speculation, demolition and land assembly as we speak - the only thing stopping actual permits/construction is that nobody knows what the zoning restrictions are.

As for the Tri-Cities, I read that Suterbrook and Newport were literally built in anticipation of the SkyTrain route going past them, which didn't pan out; I'll try to find the link. I think the developers have learned from that mistake.
EDIT: found it - "Suter Brook Village and Newport Village are currently the main anchors surrounding (Inlet Centre), and were built in preparation for the previous promised SkyTrain routes before the Evergreen Line."

I meant started building. No one has really started building on Broadway (TBF, largely on purpose). And considering how long it takes to get towers constructed, completion in 2010-2006 means the 'speculation' phase was likely 2007-2002- the period when the Evergreen Line was an LRT project, and ended up being shelved in favor of the Canada Line.

In other words, you're making a case for developers being excited for LRT, not Skytrain.

No offense, but I'm pretty sure a bunch of random realtors aren't exactly the best source...



Though, then again, really, all either of us are just doing is speculation.