SkyTrain Station Renovations

[Sheba]

According to TransLink:

Commercial-Broadway Phase 2 upgrades are complete
Joyce-Collingwood upgrades are complete
Surrey Central upgrades are complete (this is the new entrance - pretty sure the old entrance will get upgraded soon enough)

Expo Line escalators - "replacing 37 escalators at 13 SkyTrain Stations along the Expo Line and at select West Coast Express stations". They're finishing Granville now and other than Commercial-Broadway (done) they don't list the other stations at the link.

Expo Line rails - they've been doing this at night for awhile (they're in New West at the moment).

SkyTrain Customer Communications Upgrades - this is the new screens they've been adding to the Expo and older Millennium Line stations. "Approximately 280 new dynamic customer information displays", upgraded PA system, new CCTV cameras "including 264 new guideway cameras", and digital customer kiosks.

Canada Line escalators - "added new escalators to Yaletown–Roundhouse Station, Vancouver City Centre Station, and Waterfront Station".

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I really our "SkyTrain" network is way way under built and we should have a huge network of lines by now.

Progress could be sped up if we did a better job of leveraging the development that transit generates. Translink should have its own development arm like MTR in Hong Kong and have special rezoning privileges.

[Shift]

A Tim Hortons is going into Surrey Central's new north station house. Signage is now up in the windows.

Old pic but it's the space to the right of the entry.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Progress could be sped up if we did a better job of leveraging the development that transit generates. Translink should have its own development arm like MTR in Hong Kong and have special rezoning privileges.

Wouldn’t that draw more criticism from people who think Skytrain is just for development? That was part of the justification for Surrey LRT.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The Surrey First plan was just for development. Hepner and friends wanted to spend the least amount of money on the largest area possible to trigger a condo rush. If light rail were the "expensive" option, the same people would be arguing that trams create gentrification and sprawl, and that all they really need is more buses... and they might actually have a point in that case.

Really, every attempt to find a conflict of interest within TransLink has failed miserably, and every transit investment (even the buses) has raised value and added density. Might as well cut out the middleman.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Surrey First plan was just for development. Hepner and friends wanted to spend the least amount of money on the largest area possible to trigger a condo rush. If light rail were the "expensive" option, the same people would be arguing that trams create gentrification and sprawl, and that all they really need is more buses... and they might actually have a point in that case.

Really, every attempt to find a conflict of interest within TransLink has failed miserably, and every transit investment (even the buses) has raised value and added density. Might as well cut out the middleman.

Well, they'd likely redo the plans for higher density with Skytrain on the L, and a lot of the justification for LRT was the addition of medium density rather than high-rises, which are usually built next to Skytrain due to the high cost of building the system. Minus Cambie Corridor and Richmond, but that's due to viewcones and YVR. They'd have a bigger condo rush with Skytrain, and that's why people are against Skytrain- bigger condos.


Not finding something doesn't mean people don't think there's nothing. If Translink was partially-privatized (like BC Ferries), there might be more a reason. Here's a Billion or two to get you started on your RE project, now we're no longer going to give you gas tax revenue- or something like that.

They might be able to mitigate it by focusing on rental/commercial though, since it's 'luxury' condos people tend to get flustered over (b/c gentrification)- unless people are pissed about bringing the riffraff in.
Though again, RE in Vancouver is expensive and they'd need quite a bit of money (or loans) to get started. 0% interest is likely, but that's still a lot of debt.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Wouldn’t that draw more criticism from people who think Skytrain is just for development? That was part of the justification for Surrey LRT.

That model works best where there are greenfield sites to be redeveloped - as opposed to running the line through established neighbourhoods where there would be opposition. Ie growth shaping (like the M-Line) rather than growth serving.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That model works best where there are greenfield sites to be redeveloped - as opposed to running the line through established neighbourhoods where there would be opposition. Ie growth shaping (like the M-Line) rather than growth serving.

I think the scope of their stations aren't little platforms on the side of a concrete guideway so even when they go through established neighbourhoods they chip away enough land to do massive projects.

[officedweller]

I don't really know Hong Kong well, but I suspect that many projects were out in the New Territories where there were larger tracts of land to be developed.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, they'd likely redo the plans for higher density with Skytrain on the L, and a lot of the justification for LRT was the addition of medium density rather than high-rises, which are usually built next to Skytrain due to the high cost of building the system. Minus Cambie Corridor and Richmond, but that's due to viewcones and YVR. They'd have a bigger condo rush with Skytrain, and that's why people are against Skytrain- bigger condos.

---

Not finding something doesn't mean people don't think there's nothing. If Translink was partially-privatized (like BC Ferries), there might be more a reason. Here's a Billion or two to get you started on your RE project, now we're no longer going to give you gas tax revenue- or something like that.

They might be able to mitigate it by focusing on rental/commercial though, since it's 'luxury' condos people tend to get flustered over (b/c gentrification)- unless people are pissed about bringing the riffraff in.
Though again, RE in Vancouver is expensive and they'd need quite a bit of money (or loans) to get started. 0% interest is likely, but that's still a lot of debt.

That justification dries up real fast when you see what the streetcar was supposed to do to Whalley and Guildford - that's not "walkable villages," that's the Cambie Corridor plan. So if they're already gunning for SkyTrain-sized development, they might as well build a SkyTrain.

If people want to see a conspiracy, they're going to see a conspiracy. That shouldn't have any bearing on deciding what's best for TransLink.
Probably what they'd do - the MTR model means the transit agency is merely buying the land rights at pre-railway prices, so all the city has to do is add a rental-only clause in the purchase agreement.

[jollyburger]

I guess Tokyo and Japan (?) also have a similar model with transit companies benefiting from real estate development:

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/05/secret-tokyos-rail-success/2044/

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That model works best where there are greenfield sites to be redeveloped - as opposed to running the line through established neighbourhoods where there would be opposition. Ie growth shaping (like the M-Line) rather than growth serving.

104 Ave is pretty much low-value low rise commercial property

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That justification dries up real fast when you see what the streetcar was supposed to do to Whalley and Guildford - that's not "walkable villages," that's the Cambie Corridor plan. So if they're already gunning for SkyTrain-sized development, they might as well build a SkyTrain.

If people want to see a conspiracy, they're going to see a conspiracy. That shouldn't have any bearing on deciding what's best for TransLink.
Probably what they'd do - the MTR model means the transit agency is merely buying the land rights at pre-railway prices, so all the city has to do is add a rental-only clause in the purchase agreement.

Umm- I'm pretty sure that's b/c of the existing Skytrain and Hwy 1 respectively...

As I said earlier, the main problem is likely cost. Plus, them buying up land will cause speculative booms unless they hide it with shell companies.

Let's use an example- the CACs of this example Guildford development is $1.35mil. However, with the land being 1.5 acres, and land in the corridor being avg. $4-5mil per acre (worse since this is the center of Guildford...)
https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/hei...f-proposed-highrise-towers-in-guildford/
https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/surrey-lrt-pushing-up-land-values-and-home-prices-1.23443032

Granted, direct redevelopment results in much higher potential revenue. But point is- you need a lot of it to really count.

It will likely generate revenue, but probably not as great as you imagine unless money is quite literally dumped into the plan.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Umm- I'm pretty sure that's b/c of the existing Skytrain and Hwy 1 respectively.

---

As I said earlier, the main problem is likely cost. Plus, them buying up land will cause speculative booms unless they hide it with shell companies.

Let's use an example- the CACs of this example Guildford development is $1.35mil. However, with the land being 1.5 acres, and land in the corridor being avg. $4-5mil per acre (worse since this is the center of Guildford...)
https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/hei...f-proposed-highrise-towers-in-guildford/
https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/surrey-lrt-pushing-up-land-values-and-home-prices-1.23443032

Granted, direct redevelopment results in much higher potential revenue. But point is- you need a lot of it to really count.

It will likely generate revenue, but probably not as great as you imagine unless money is quite literally dumped into the plan.

If so (unlikely, especially given plans for reducing car capacity in Guildford and growing Newton), then "streetcar density" wasn't going to happen anyway, and in that case, why bother with a streetcar? Hepner and Gill's people just did not walk the walk.

---

Again, in this scenario, TransLink's purchasing the land at pre-railway value and then selling it at post-railway value. The new buyer takes on all the risk of building a MIRHPP, and TL's the middleman taking a cut... and since MIRHPPs on Broadway are a thing in spite of ridiculously high land prices, TL's in no danger of not having a buyer.

Of course, TL could choose to keep the land and partner with the developer, but in that case, there would be large profits or future land value from the site (e.g. NEFC, Brentwood) that they'd want to have - same reason the VSB won't sell Kingsgate. Playing landlord for a hundred minor apartment buildings isn't really TL's business.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fredinno

104 Ave is pretty much low-value low rise commercial property

Yeah, like Lougheed Highway in Burnaby.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If so (unlikely, especially given plans for reducing car capacity in Guildford and growing Newton), then "streetcar density" wasn't going to happen anyway, and in that case, why bother with a streetcar? Hepner and Gill's people just did not walk the walk.

---

Again, in this scenario, TransLink's purchasing the land at pre-railway value and then selling it at post-railway value. The new buyer takes on all the risk of building a MIRHPP, and TL's the middleman taking a cut... and since MIRHPPs on Broadway are a thing in spite of ridiculously high land prices, TL's in no danger of not having a buyer.

Of course, TL could choose to keep the land and partner with the developer, but in that case, there would be large profits or future land value from the site (e.g. NEFC, Brentwood) that they'd want to have - same reason the VSB won't sell Kingsgate. Playing landlord for a hundred minor apartment buildings isn't really TL's business.

Well, no, but people see Guildford and see it has decent access even without Skytrain, so there's still enough interest in the area to get the Guildford Plan rolling. Guildford already had towers long before the LRT anyways.

Newton doesn't seem to be working too well in comparison, neither is 108 Ave, which is why. Skytrain down to Newton was estimated to be nearly the entire cost of the $1.6B allocation.

Also, Surrey seems to want to get rid of Guildford Mall, as seen in the zoning plan... Are the same idiots behind the Metrotown idea the ones behind this one?



That...just sounds like a Land Value Capture tax. And it doesn't work like that, any large landowner buying up huge swathes of property triggers land rushes- supply and demand. Especially since this is TransLink we're talking about here- if TransLink starts buying a lot of land at a place, people can put 1-and-1 together.

I proposed renting the land out, not selling it. The biggest problem is really just how much you need. Then again, rentals are not exactly being built, and they're disproportionately more likely to take transit. It's a double-dip.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, no, but people see Guildford and see it has decent access even without Skytrain, so there's still enough interest in the area to get the Guildford Plan rolling. Guildford already had towers long before the LRT anyways.

Newton doesn't seem to be working too well in comparison, neither is 108 Ave, which is why. Skytrain down to Newton was estimated to be nearly the entire cost of the $1.6B allocation.

Also, Surrey seems to want to get rid of Guildford Mall, as seen in the zoning plan... Are the same idiots behind the Metrotown idea the ones behind this one?

---

That...just sounds like a Land Value Capture tax. And it doesn't work like that, any large landowner buying up huge swathes of property triggers land rushes- supply and demand. Especially since this is TransLink we're talking about here- if TransLink starts buying a lot of land at a place, people can put 1-and-1 together.

---

I proposed renting the land out, not selling it. The biggest problem is really just how much you need. Then again, rentals are not exactly being built, and they're disproportionately more likely to take transit. It's a double-dip.

Decent access is relative, seeing as the main ways in and out would be two 2-lane "arterials" and a glorified RapidBus. Like I said, that might be enough capacity for something like OV, but noooo, Surrey First wanted the full Oakridge treatment.

The thing about a Langley SkyTrain is that it helps all of SoF revamp to a grid pattern, not just three spokes and a hub; for example, you can run a new regular bus down 152nd past Fleetwood and the train station to Newton, taking pressure off the KGB routes. Blow it on a Newton extension, you've got two other corridors that have nothing. Same reason the Expo's more critical than the Canada.

And with the R1, and eventually the BRT, it's not like Newton can't go ahead with some kind of redevelopment.

Eh, mall replacement is kind of the in-thing right now. Only difference is that Oakridge and Brentwood understand the value of revamping the old mall instead of outright cut n' pasting streetfronts on top of it.

---

Except that LVC would go developer -> city -> TransLink, whereas this just lets TL handle all the money directly. Works just fine for HK and Japan.

WRT affordability, I'll reiterate how Broadway already had a rush, bad enough for City Hall to put a temporary freeze on property trading until the corridor plan is finished - it's why the cost of the line jumped $700 million. Yet as seen with recent proposals, rentals (albeit 28+ floors on Broadway itself) are evidently still profitable.

Pretty sure renting out the land itself is something that only works with farmers. If you mean a ground lease, again, remember that TransLink's a transportation company: they want to buy, sell, make money, spend it on the next SkyTrain. I highly doubt they want a decades-long contract which ends with the property owner (TransLink) being responsible for all the buildings and tenants.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Decent access is relative, seeing as the main ways in and out would be two 2-lane "arterials" and a glorified RapidBus. Like I said, that might be enough capacity for something like OV, but noooo, Surrey First wanted the full Oakridge treatment.

Guildford does deserve the full Oakridge treatment eventually. However I don't think that now is the time. Maybe 5-10 years from now? They just re-did the mall about ~5 years ago and they did a splendid job on it. In fact it is the best mall in Surrey. I'm all over with this paragraph but the parking lots around the Guildford mall have a ton of potential for redevelopment.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The thing about a Langley SkyTrain is that it helps all of SoF revamp to a grid pattern, not just three spokes and a hub; for example, you can run a new regular bus down 152nd past Fleetwood and the train station to Newton, taking pressure off the KGB routes. Blow it on a Newton extension, you've got two other corridors that have nothing. Same reason the Expo's more critical than the Canada.

And with the R1, and eventually the BRT, it's not like Newton can't go ahead with some kind of redevelopment.

Agreed. The Fleetwood/Langley extension will be a game changer for the SOF region. I am honestly hoping for similar Burnaby 'town centre' redevelopments to happen and for Langley to develop its own urban identity.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Decent access is relative, seeing as the main ways in and out would be two 2-lane "arterials" and a glorified RapidBus. Like I said, that might be enough capacity for something like OV, but noooo, Surrey First wanted the full Oakridge treatment.

The thing about a Langley SkyTrain is that it helps all of SoF revamp to a grid pattern, not just three spokes and a hub; for example, you can run a new regular bus down 152nd past Fleetwood and the train station to Newton, taking pressure off the KGB routes. Blow it on a Newton extension, you've got two other corridors that have nothing. Same reason the Expo's more critical than the Canada.

And with the R1, and eventually the BRT, it's not like Newton can't go ahead with some kind of redevelopment.

Eh, mall replacement is kind of the in-thing right now. Only difference is that Oakridge and Brentwood understand the value of revamping the old mall instead of outright cut n' pasting streetfronts on top of it.

---

Except that LVC would go developer -> city -> TransLink, whereas this just lets TL handle all the money directly. Works just fine for HK and Japan.

WRT affordability, I'll reiterate how Broadway already had a rush, bad enough for City Hall to put a temporary freeze on property trading until the corridor plan is finished - it's why the cost of the line jumped $700 million. Yet as seen with recent proposals, rentals (albeit 28+ floors on Broadway itself) are evidently still profitable.

Pretty sure renting out the land itself is something that only works with farmers. If you mean a ground lease, again, remember that TransLink's a transportation company: they want to buy, sell, make money, spend it on the next SkyTrain. I highly doubt they want a decades-long contract which ends with the property owner (TransLink) being responsible for all the buildings and tenants.

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capi...ur-insights/the-rail-plus-property-model

One important reason the system has been able to perform so well is that the government of Hong Kong has enabled MTR to make money from the property-value increases that typically follow the construction of rail lines. The key is a business model called “Rail plus Property” (R+P). For new rail lines, the government provides MTR with land “development rights” at stations or depots along the route. To convert these development rights to land, MTR pays the government a land premium based on the land’s market value without the railway.
MTR then builds the new rail line and partners with private developers to build properties. The choice of private developer is made through a competitive tender process. MTR receives a share of the profits that developers make from these properties; this share could be a percentage of total development profits, a fixed lump sum, or a portion of commercial properties built on the site. By capturing part of the value of the land and property around railway lines, MTR generates funds for new projects as well as for operations and maintenance. That is why it does not need government subsidies or loans. Revenues from R+P developments above stations along MTR’s Tseung Kwan O line, for example, financed the extension of that line to serve a new town, which has since grown to a population of 380,000.

Where was the 28 story Broadway rental?

And @me, I meant renting units out, office/retail/rental. The context should have made that clear.

It's not unit affordability that's the problem. The problem is that Translink needs a lot of land (and money) to make its RE business worth it to begin with.

There's 104, which is 5(possibly eventually 6) lanes wide, and 108 (4 lanes), which might be more useful if the connection to Hwy1 was made bidirectional and North Whalley becomes more developed. And 1-2 (effectively) freeway exits.


Well, Newton isn't redeveloping right now, which was kind of my point. It needed LRT, Guildford clearly didn't.

Guildford/104th actually should be denser if SkyTrain goes down the L line LRT corridor eventually (probably). Oakridge would actually be a good model here (minus the luxury condos), there's a community center next to the mall that would be nice to stick a park next to. Also, 104th could become an extension of Whalley eventually.

Originally Posted by scryer

Guildford does deserve the full Oakridge treatment eventually. However I don't think that now is the time. Maybe 5-10 years from now? They just re-did the mall about ~5 years ago and they did a splendid job on it. In fact it is the best mall in Surrey. I'm all over with this paragraph but the parking lots around the Guildford mall have a ton of potential for redevelopment.




Agreed. The Fleetwood/Langley extension will be a game changer for the SOF region. I am honestly hoping for similar Burnaby 'town centre' redevelopments to happen and for Langley to develop its own urban identity.

I really hope they don't kill the historical feel of DT Langley. Keep the towers in West Langley/Willowbrook.

If they're going to do it 5-10 years from now, may as well start now. We only get one chance to redevelop a parking lot, after all.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Where was the 28 story Broadway rental?

And @me, I meant renting units out, office/retail/rental. The context should have made that clear.

It's not unit affordability that's the problem. The problem is that Translink needs a lot of land (and money) to make its RE business worth it to begin with.

There's 104, which is 5(possibly eventually 6) lanes wide, and 108 (4 lanes), which might be more useful if the connection to Hwy1 was made bidirectional and North Whalley becomes more developed. And 1-2 (effectively) freeway exits.


Well, Newton isn't redeveloping right now, which was kind of my point. It needed LRT, Guildford clearly didn't.

The MTR pays Hong Kong for the land based on pre-railway values, they get the land, they sell it or partner with a developer at post-railway values. Methinks you're splitting hairs here.

It shouldn't be too hard to find. Try "Denny's" if you're really having trouble.

Again, I doubt TransLink wants a side gig as a landlord.
You DID start off with the rumours that TransLink's in the pocket of for-profit gentrification, and that's got a lot to do with the unaffordability of prior TODs. And not really - if you look at the MTR's website, even 9,800 square foot lots and 250-unit developments can turn a profit, which is right up the aforementioned 28-floor rental's alley.

There's a lot to unpack here. Bottom line, 104th would NOT have been six lanes, it would've been two lanes plus the streetcar, plus the newly-built 105th (also two lanes). That's not nearly enough for an Oakridge redevelopment.

As for Newton, the problem is that they haven't updated their neighbourhood plan. Nobody's stopping them. If the real problem turns out to be that they aren't a desirable location without a train, well, that's not really anybody else's fault.

Originally Posted by fredinno

I really hope they don't kill the historical feel of DT Langley. Keep the towers in West Langley/Willowbrook.

If they're going to do it 5-10 years from now, may as well start now. We only get one chance to redevelop a parking lot, after all.

This downtown Langley? Bad thing to NIMBY over - that's what Greektown and East Hastings look like (or used to), and streetcar or SkyTrain, it's probably not sticking around any longer than they will.

As Metrotown has demonstrated, the parking lots can be developed independently of the mall. The latter can come along whenever.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This downtown Langley? Bad thing to NIMBY over - that's what Greektown and East Hastings look like (or used to), and streetcar or SkyTrain, it's probably not sticking around any longer than they will.

As Metrotown has demonstrated, the parking lots can be developed independently of the mall. The latter can come along whenever.

I said to limit heights to retain some character, not prevent redevelopments. It’s literally a couple blocks anyways, and a ton of effort has been spent on that direction (and gentrification) in recent years. Development has actually been focused outside of the commercial strips so far (at SFH lots, interestingly)

Basically the point is that you’re going to have Skytrain eventually and you don’t want to underbuild. The Guildford situation is the CoqCentral situation back in the 2000s.