Some advice to the new council, and for that matter to TransLink and the Province: forget trying to push grade-separated transit through Point Grey to get to UBC.
For sure, there won’t be an elevated line. But even a subway, horrendously expensive whether tunnelled or, as on Cambie Street, built by cut-and-cover, will be fought off – and not just because of the construction disruptions.
These west-side neighbourhoods will unite to stop any fundamental change in the character of their communities – and they will defeat any politician who refuses to take their side. That includes their MLA, who in this case just happens to be Gordon Campbell, Premier.
Grade-separated rapid-transit line will change the character of the neighbourhood. That’s the point! More people, more density, more development. Otherwise, why build it?
But one thing I learned in politics: no one from City Hall ever goes to a neighbourhood meeting and says, “Hi, I’m here to change things. After we’re finished, you won’t recognize the place!” What they invariably do say is this: “We’ll protect the character of your community.” And then they promise a process which allows for lengthy discussion about what constitutes ‘change’ and what satisfies as ‘mitigation.’
The neighbourhoods along the Point Grey route to UBC already have reason to believe densification is the quid pro quo for improved transportation. TransLink has indicated that it hopes to finance new infrastructure by capitalizing on real-estate opportunities created by its investments – like, for instance, highrises around transit stations.
I wrote a column in Business in Vancouver on what that might mean in Point Grey:
… let’s imagine the reaction of those who live within spitting distance of 10th Avenue and Sasamat, the heart of West Point Grey’s commercial village, to the announcement that ten 25-storey higrises will be placed on the surrounding blocks, without any additional money for community amenities, park space or services. Or how they’ll react at a public meeting when told, “Hey, it works in Hong Kong!”
This is not a defense of the creme-de-la-creme. Many elsewhere in the city will argue that they should take their share of development, especially when it will benefit those who don’t have access to their leafy domain. But that is a losing strategy. It will be too easy to delay and defer the project, or to compromise the benefits that might otherwise come.
And there’s another way to do it. As Portland has demonstrated, it’s quite possible to integrate light-rail transportation into the fabric of existing neighbourhoods.
Light Rail in Portland
And with it can come change that doesn’t overwhelm the community. In this case, the Jericho defense lands between 4th and 8th Avenues await redevelopment. (In fact, much of the studies has already been done.)
Better to pursue a win-win strategy that has some chance of success than a win-lose strategy that doesn’t.
As the Province found out, a politician who speaks up for those negatively impacted by change can ride an issue into, well, City Hall – which is just what Gregor Robertson did for the merchants on Cambie, and for himself.
While I’m a fan of surface transit, and agree, broadly, with your comments, I have one question. You mention the ‘Jericho defense lands’ as part of the equation. I’m quite possibly wrong, but my understanding is that those lands, if withdrawn from Defense, then cede to ’some other’ federal department – and I would expect that department to be Aboriginal Affairs – any feedback on that?
[...] Don’t Fight Losing Battles « Price Tags Resolutions ‘09: Don’t Fight Losing Battles « Price Tags. [...]
There are problems with light rail going straight down Broadway, though. For one, the street is pretty darn congested and I’m not sure the B-line experienced much in the way of an improvement even when they got their own lane.
Also, we are talking about the second most traversed corridor in the city, with already 100,000 daily trips I believe, so this isn’t a case of the RAV line where there is a legitimate question of whether there’s enough demand to justify grade separated routes. Rather, there’s a legitimate question as to whether a light rail system would be swamped and overcrowded the moment the first trains started running. And if we’re going to talk about changes in that area, such as densification, even slow densification, then that’s more people we’re adding to those trains.
Plus, I honestly don’t buy the argument that this is simply an impossible, not-even-worth-trying exercise. The province already includes what everyone assumes to be a grade-separated line in its transit plan, and the Broadway station on the Canada line is being built with a double-height ceiling to accommodate such a line. Have they thrown out Gordo on the West Side for this? Have they hit the streets? And would an NDP government, which is a possibility, really be all that concerned about political implications in the West Side?
One has to question whether Broadway east of Arbutus should be the UBC route whether it be elevated, surface (exclusive or shared right-of-way), or underground. I believe that two-thirds of riders who use the 99 B-line are UBC students, so the north False Creek rail right-of-way could be used much more economically to move that ridership.
One then has to question what type of ridership occurs to the west of Arbutus, almost exclusively UBC riders. Spending scarce money on “captive ridership” is a very inefficient use of it. The U-Pass system is certainly a very cost effective method of vacating people from their cars. The big ridership gains have already been made without expensive and disruptive rail (surface rail is very disruptive, see what the St. Clair streetcar right-of-way in Toronto did to merchants there.) Why not just get longer 80′ trolleybuses as has already been done in Germany, Switzerland, Poland and Sweden?
Efficiency will not increase much either labour-wise since light rail is slower than buses (see City of Vancouver Millennium Line Phase II Study (1999). Maintenance expense increases on the rail system and units compared to buses has been shown to eliminate savings made in operating trains carrying more people. (Jonathan Richmond, Transport of Delight).
The capital expenditure on rail ($800 million for light rail from Commercial Station to UBC in 1999 dollars according to the Phase II study mentioned above) would be made more effectively in Surrey or Coquitlam. If more rail expenditure is to be made in Vancouver perhaps the current Millennium Skytrain system could be extended west to 2nd St Station, Canada Line to alleviate the crowding caused by transfers at Commercial Station.
Gord, if you are looking for the most cost effective and least divisive solution to West Side transit, go back to your first love, trolleybuses, just in 80′ lengths, and guided by magnets.
I vote for light-rail.
Light rail construction would be a mess. Pretty much the Canada Line all over. Just look at MLK way in Seattle. At least there they had a fund to help affected businesses. And what to do with all the buses during the construction.
A transit line doesn’t mean there will be a lot of new development at each and every station. Just look at the Expo Line in Vancouver. Broadway, Nanaimo and 29th have seen very little development.
TransLink, should by now, have given up on the idea that it is going to get any serious financing from real estate in the coming years. The bubble is over. They might be able to save some money by integrating station construction with a new development.
With the UBC Line, the prize is UBC. I suspect new development at the other stations is not the goal. J