Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[jollyburger]

Translink and their cheesy Skytrain PA announcement to cheer on frontline workers.

https://buzzer.translink.ca/2020/03/a-7-...-transit-story-and-appreciation-with-us/

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's Surrey Council's job - always has been and always will. TransLink builds the trains.

"Buy low, sell high" is the very definition of benefiting from land value increases. And how does having a real estate contractor give TransLink the prerogative to start handling properties that have nothing to do with future transit?

SkyTrain to Langley enables grids south of 88th and east of 140th, and it needs both the $1.65 billion and most of the $1.9 billion coming after it. That leaves $400 million, which covers a BRT from Guildford to White Rock.
Waste it on a streetcar to Newton - not the Semiahmoo area, which was never on the table - and Langley gets either a streetcar or a Fleetwood SkyTrain.

I dunno about you, but I'm not seeing the difference between BRT or a streetcar down King George. So we might as well do the one which covers SkyTrain to Langley.

You act as if Metro Van/Translink has no stake in gentrification/redevelopment. Or that it's more convenient for everyone if the redevelopment can be kick-started as part of the transit package.

Basically this is my point:

Even if we assume the rentals only last to 60 years, and the increase in rental revenue is mostly inflation, it's still pretty beneficial.

By that logic, maintaining malls has nothing to do with future Transit. And yet's, that's a common feature of private transit agencies.

Ok, yeah, at this point you're straw-manning me. I never said to NOT make Skytrain down Langley. My point is that there's a ton of the mass of Surrey that isn't going to benefit from an east-west line, making a north-south line also make sense.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

You act as if Metro Van/Translink has no stake in gentrification/redevelopment. Or that it's more convenient for everyone if the redevelopment can be kick-started as part of the transit package.

Basically this is my point:
Even if we assume the rentals only last to 60 years, and the increase in rental revenue is mostly inflation, it's still pretty beneficial.

By that logic, maintaining malls has nothing to do with future Transit. And yet's, that's a common feature of private transit agencies.

Ok, yeah, at this point you're straw-manning me. I never said to NOT make Skytrain down Langley. My point is that there's a ton of the mass of Surrey that isn't going to benefit from an east-west line, making a north-south line also make sense.

It doesn't, unless the mall is along the future rail line - that's kind of the entire point of allowing TransLink, the MTR or any transit agency to do this, because the real estate is a function of the transit network. This isn't the 19th century and TL's not CP or CN. They'd have no authority to buy/sell/redevelop unless they build a rail line along the corridor.

If TL did have the authority regardless, then they'd be just another big real estate corp, one that has special privileges over other developers and that may or may not be allowed to override the city and build towers in the middle of nowhere.
Or worse, if they planned a train line for that one development, then the tail would be wagging the dog, and we'd end up with development-oriented transit like Seattle's Monorail.

Let TL focus on transportation and City Council focus on urban planning. That's their lane.

You said that $1.6 billion wasn't blowing the budget. Unless you can convince the province and feds to boost us to $4.7 billion overall instead of $3.5, it pretty much is. So either the Langley extension gets built, or the Newton Line.
And Fraser Highway is SE-NW: it facilitates N-S and E-W, meaning that Newton and South Surrey can see additional capacity too.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It doesn't, unless the mall is along the future rail line - that's kind of the entire point of allowing TransLink, the MTR or any transit agency to do this, because the real estate is a function of the transit network. This isn't the 19th century and TL's not CP or CN. They'd have no authority to buy/sell/redevelop unless they build a rail line along the corridor.

If TL did have the authority regardless, then they'd be just another big real estate corp, one that has special privileges over other developers and that may or may not be allowed to override the city and build towers in the middle of nowhere.
Or worse, if they planned a train line for that one development, then the tail would be wagging the dog, and we'd end up with development-oriented transit like Seattle's Monorail.

Let TL focus on transportation and City Council focus on urban planning. That's their lane.

You said that $1.6 billion wasn't blowing the budget. Unless you can convince the province and feds to boost us to $4.7 billion overall instead of $3.5, it pretty much is. So either the Langley extension gets built, or the Newton Line.
And Fraser Highway is SE-NW: it facilitates N-S and E-W, meaning that Newton and South Surrey can see additional capacity too.

And I thought both of us were running on the assumption any of these developments or RE flipping was going to take place on the Rail/BRT lines (max 15 min from Rail Station). Unless TransLink is fully privatized, I wouldn't worry about Metro/the Municipalities losing control over where + how the big items are built.

Again, I didn't say it should be funded all at once (Langley isn't), I was arguing that it's a good idea. If you're wondering, the corridor is also given priority in the RTS.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Then I'd have to ask why we're discussing TransLink's ability to generate revenue outside of the transit network, or to kickstart developments independently of transit.

I don't recall ever saying a Newton/South Surrey line was a bad idea in itself, just that it's not a priority and that Langley is more important. There's already developers lining up for Newton Square and the Beladean, to name a few, and there's a RapidBus, so it's not like the area is dead without a streetcar like Anita Huberman wants us to think.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Then I'd have to ask why we're discussing TransLink's ability to generate revenue outside of the transit network, or to kickstart developments independently of transit.

I don't recall ever saying a Newton/South Surrey line was a bad idea in itself, just that it's not a priority and that Langley is more important. There's already developers lining up for Newton Square and the Beladean, to name a few, and there's a RapidBus, so it's not like the area is dead without a streetcar like Anita Huberman wants us to think.

Any sort of RE development is going to be 'independent' of transit as in 'not directly connected to transit'. That just likely isn't feasible. Whalley and Woodwards are both within the described 15min watershed. Not to mention, places don't develop immediately after a transit line is made. I guess one difference here is that TransLink would be able to build after the stations are built profitably.

It is a priority. I never said it takes precedence over the existing plans.

Did I say Newton wasn't being developed? I said it wasn't being developed at the scale and speed of Guildford despite zoning laws allowing it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Any sort of RE development is going to be 'independent' of transit as in 'not directly connected to transit'. That just likely isn't feasible. Whalley and Woodwards are both within the described 15min watershed. Not to mention, places don't develop immediately after a transit line is made. I guess one difference here is that TransLink would be able to build after the stations are built profitably.

It is a priority. I never said it takes precedence over the existing plans.

Did I say Newton wasn't being developed? I said it wasn't being developed at the scale and speed of Guildford despite zoning laws allowing it.

Methinks we're confusing each other - without a connection to transit, why is TransLink involved in development at all? New York, London, Paris, HK, Japan, all their RE mandates are limited to some form of LVC and/or selling development rights along train corridors.

Actually, they develop once the upzoning plan allows for increased densities and uses, and that can happen before, during, or after the line's construction. Guildford ain't waiting, and Broadway wasn't either (that is, until City Hall froze it).

You've been arguing that Newton's struggling to attract developers and will continue to struggle without a train, and that said train would "only" cost the Phase 1 budget. I've been arguing that if true, yes, that sucks for Newton, but tough sh*t because we kinda need Phases 1 and 2 for the whole SoF.

As for Guildford, AFAIK the tallest proposal on the table calls for 12 + 24 floors with 270 units; most of the others are "Newton-sized." And plans for Newton proper and the south-of-Newton area are indeed still ongoing. As with Broadway, most developers likely want to wait for the plan, then max out their developments, rather than build right now and find out that they actually could've gone slightly denser.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Methinks we're confusing each other - without a connection to transit, why is TransLink involved in development at all? New York, London, Paris, HK, Japan, all their RE mandates are limited to some form of LVC and/or selling development rights along train corridors.

Actually, they develop once the upzoning plan allows for increased densities and uses, and that can happen before, during, or after the line's construction. Guildford ain't waiting, and Broadway wasn't either (that is, until City Hall froze it).

You've been arguing that Newton's struggling to attract developers and will continue to struggle without a train, and that said train would "only" cost the Phase 1 budget. I've been arguing that if true, yes, that sucks for Newton, but tough sh*t because we kinda need Phases 1 and 2 for the whole SoF.

As for Guildford, AFAIK the tallest proposal on the table calls for 12 + 24 floors with 270 units; most of the others are "Newton-sized." And plans for Newton proper and the south-of-Newton area are indeed still ongoing. As with Broadway, most developers likely want to wait for the plan, then max out their developments, rather than build right now and find out that they actually could've gone slightly denser.

Are you arguing that any development has to be built immediately after transit developments? Because I'm arguing that shouldn't be the case.

Actually, they develop once the upzoning plan allows for increased densities and uses, and that can happen before, during, or after the line's construction. Guildford ain't waiting, and Broadway wasn't either (that is, until City Hall froze it).

Who is 'they' in this situation?

[Tvisforme]

The R2 looks to be getting ready for launch on the North Shore. The special bus stop posts are in place (with the display being active at some stops), and the current routes are now on paper signs covering the updated signs.

[Migrant_Coconut]

That'll be a relief, once the shutdown ends.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Who is 'they' in this situation?

"Places."

Originally Posted by fredinno

Are you arguing that any development has to be built immediately after transit developments? Because I'm arguing that shouldn't be the case.

Before, during, after, so long as there's actual RT plans in the works (ergo a reason for TransLink to be doing real estate).

[TheTerminalCity]

APTA has published their 2019 Q4 ridership numbers. TransLink continued to gain ridership, though more modest than past quarters...possibly a result of the threat of job action and strikes back then perhaps?

SkyTrain: 512,400 (+2.26% quarterly, +3.15% YOY)
WCE: 10,300 (+2.28% quarterly, +4.94% YOY)
SeaBus: 17,000 (-6.81% quarterly, +1.07 YOY)
Bus: 863,900 (+1.00% quarterly, +3.69% YOY)

Total: 1,403,600 (+1.37% quarterly, +3.46% YOY)

More recently, system ridership has plummeted 83% since mid-March and service is being scaled back.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Before, during, after, so long as there's actual RT plans in the works (ergo a reason for TransLink to be doing real estate).

Well, that was my argument. TransLink should be allowed to also build near places like New West Station or Holdom, where land is available but the stations were built long ago. I guess we agree?

[Migrant_Coconut]

I guess? Though time and location matter; New West & Holdom are probably "buy high, sell higher" and "buy low, sell not-as-low."

[ilikeredheads]

https://alerts.translink.ca/#Bus
1213 alerts for buses...

dayum, look at all those cancelled trips

[Tvisforme]

The R2 is in service on the North Shore.

Eastbound on Marine Drive (from Twitter)

Turning onto Lonsdale Avenue (from Twitter)

In Lonsdale Quay (from Twitter)

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-r2-marine-drive-rapidbus-north-shore-service

[Express691]

Also of note:

The 222 express service started yesterday, as well as the new community shuttle service to River District (route 31)

R2 photo https://flic.kr/p/2iMH58d
222 photo https://flic.kr/p/2iMEgbU

Worth mentioning also is route 245 between Capilano University and Phibbs Exchange, also starting yesterday.
====================================

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

https://alerts.translink.ca/#Bus
1213 alerts for buses...

dayum, look at all those cancelled trips

They've started to compile all the trips into a single alert (at least that's what I saw for the 143 (entire schedule cancelled btw) and R2)

====================================

TransLink has postponed the fare increase scheduled to take place in July.
https://www.translink.ca/About-Us/Media/...day-and-July-fare-increase-deferred.aspx

[Dengler Avenue]

You know it’s a new route number when the font’s abnormally large.
No picture for 245?

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Express691

They've started to compile all the trips into a single alert (at least that's what I saw for the 143 (entire schedule cancelled btw) and R2)

It's 1363 alerts today lol

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

You know it’s a new route number when the font’s abnormally large.

Yes, the 246 still has the older style while the 249 (shared route, same bus switches route names half-way through) uses the newer, larger font.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Yes, the 246 still has the older style while the 249 (shared route, same bus switches route names half-way through) uses the newer, larger font.

Same with 406 and 408 (possibly 412 & 418 too) in Richmond.

Since we've been talking about North Vancouver, I've been wondering about this for a while.
232 Grouse Mountain/Edgemont Village/Phibbs Exchange duplicates 229 & 230 big-time on Lonsdale Avenue between 29th Street and Keith Road. Now with 255 on Keith Road as well, is it time to keep 232 in Upper Lonsdale?

My suggestion is like this:
Reroute 232 along E 29th Street, Lynn Valley Centre then Arborlynn Drive, Mountain Highway, Brooksbank Avenue, Main Street then Phibbs Exchange, with more frequent service between Edgemont Village and Lynn Valley Centre.
Remove 227 & 229.
Increase frequency on 230 to every 10 minutes until late evenings...?

In fact this new route should also receive a new number. An extended 227? Or 208 (because there are already 209 and 210)?

Lol this will also make the Grouse Mountain/Edgemont Village/Lynn Valley Centre/Phibbs Exchange route super touristy. I mean, right now is obviously not the time but in the future...