Frances Bula header image 2

Any chance the city would use some of the fees collected from developers on Cambie for a new Canada Line station?

Q. There have been numerous rezoning applications recently for Cambie Street near 33rd Avenue, listed here: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/ Given that 33rd Avenue was a proposed future station on the Canada Line, will development there allow that station to be built soon? Is the city doing anything to collect amenity money from developers as part of the rezoning application that could help pay for the station? Or do they even have any plans at all to finish that station? Thanks for looking into this.

 

A. THIS is an excellent question and one well worth pondering. I asked several people at city hall about this, because it seemed like an idea that could be a winner on a number of fronts.

For one, it would appease all the developers along Cambie who are being hit with high CACs (community-amenity contributions)  that some of them didn’t expect (in some case, I’m told, because realtors didn’t tell them about the city’s policy on taking a very large slice of any increase in land value when a piece of property is rezoned). They’d see some real value back for the amount they are contributing.

As well, if the city wants to see more development around that area, a transit station would make sense.

Finally, it’s certainly what’s being considered at the redevelopment of the Pearson/Dogwood land around 57th. The city has partnered with Vancouver Coastal Health there to figure out a way to include a station as part of the redevelopment.

I thought I might actually hear some positive responses.

But nope. I checked with communications first, as all well-trained reporters now do at city hall, at the risk of being reprimanded for calling a staff person directly.

This was the answer: “Nope, no plans for 33rd. City’s priority right now is Broadway – it carries as many daily transit passengers on buses as Canada Line does.”

Which seemed like a weird answer to me, because funding one $20- to $20-million station through developer contributions is a completely different thing from lobbying for TransLink priority to build the Broadway line.

So the next time I got my turn to speak to city transportation engineer Jerry Dobrovolny for a few minutes about bike lanes or Broadway or something, I asked about this. Again, the answer was along the lines of “No, we haven’t even thought about it.”

And, finally, I tackled the mayor at some public event he was at. (Hint to all reporters ever trying to get the answer to something when the comms department is saying it will take six weeks to book an appointment: Go to where your target is.) And he, too, said: Nope, we’re just not thinking about it.

So there you have it. It’s not on anyone’s radar. Now I suppose you’re going to ask me what the city WILL do with the CAC’s collected in the area. You’re making me tired.

Read All Questions
  • Duncan

    Wasn’t there an agreement with the airport that trips had to be less than 30 minutes to downtown? They did contribute a large portion of the costs for the Olympic Line.

    I thought that was the main reason for the lack of stations along Cambie. Wonder how long that agreement is for.

  • Guest

    Remember that current Canada Line service is being run at an established negotiated scheduled service (X trains/trips per hour). i.e. the trains do not “run as fast as they can” end to end.

    If stations are added, there’s no reason why the trains can’t run faster and achieve the required time limits.

  • Guest

    BTW – seems to be typical of the City – it’ll focus on pet projects – and if a station isn’t someone’s pet project it will fall off the radar. That’s an unfortunate way to build a City.

    The same thing happened to the future Woodlands Station on the Millennium Line. There’s a station box at the tunnel exit in New Westminster which would have served the redeveloped Woodlands properties (“Victoria Hill”) – but it was never pursued.

  • Dan Cooper

    Wow! Now that’s a diligent effort to respond to someone’s question.

    On another note, is it really true that one or more “developers” spent the tens of millions of dollars I understand it takes at present to buy a condo-building-worth of land along Cambie, without even the most basic understanding of the regulatory/financial situation? Obviously, this would not be anyone who has built in Vancouver before or has the vaguest idea what they’re doing.

    (p.s. If the purpose of amenity charges is to get some of the increase in land value caused by rezoning for the public, then using it to give “real value” back to the developers is a non sequitur. If a station at 33rd makes sense for the public – and it just might, various things in the area taken into consideration along with the new housing – then certainly build it for that reason. As for the developers, I’m sure they can look out for themselves.)

  • Janet Fraser

    “It’s not on anyone’s radar” probably does not include the planning teams for the Pearson Dogwood site. I was at a recent Open House and the discussion turned to: How do you develop this site if a 57th Avenue Canada Line station may or may not be built at an indeterminate time in the future? The Capstan levy in Richmond was brought up and I think it was a City staff member who commented that as the new Director of Planning was from Richmond they’d be familiar with this model and it could work at 57th too.

  • Dan Cooper

    On the other hand, from 33rd Ave you have just a six block walk or bus ride to 41st…so it may not be worth it for the public, either.

  • Dan Cooper

    Heh, make that eight blocks, and sign me up for remedial counting.

  • Guest

    The advantage of a 33rd Ave Station is that it’s just a stone’s throw from Women’s and Children’s Hospitals. The curve in Cambie takes it a couple of blocks closer to Oak St. and the rear of the hospital campuses. See Google map here:

    http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=cambie+33rd+vancouver&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&bvm=bv.42965579,d.cGE&biw=1080&bih=1790&wrapid=tlif136182522053610&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ei=3s0rUYaXAqT7iwKX2YGYBg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg

  • Bill Lee

    Don’t forget that 33rd and Cambie may be a miracle as it was noted, in this Salon http://francesbula.com/uncategorized/catholic-charities-building-near-bc-place-sold-to-amacon-city-searching-for-a-new-home-for-shelter-currently-operating-there/

    That the Catholic offices are moving to St. Vincents on the 33rd and Cambie area.

    Hmm.

  • Bill Lee

    Capstan Option?

    See the postings in the Main Ballroom of this salon of Doyenne Frances (Dean of Langara’s Bilingual Journalism Class).

    Quote
    by Voony // Feb 24, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    good they are not thinking at slowing down the Canada line riders, to the benefit of few developers/speculators.
    there are enough station along the line, and absolutely no need to have more. Capstan station in Richmond is also utterly unnecessary when both Aberdeen and Bridgeport are in walking distance of it: thise station is pure waste of $20M which could have been better allocated at improving local bus service, for greater overall benefit.
    —–
    2
    by rph // Feb 24, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    Apparently the Capstan station is being funded by a levy on each of the properties sold at that development. I believe the levy is around $8000 per unit, and of course this will be built into the purchase price.

    I imagine it would have been a harder sell to get the developers (and purchasers) to fork over that kind of money for better bus service.
    =========

  • A Dave

    “it would appease all the developers along Cambie who are being hit with high CACs … they’d see some real value back for the amount they are contributing.”

    Interesting comment as this clearly implies most developers do NOT see any “real value” in how CACs are currently allocated by the City (ie. the poodle on the pole – though I personally love it).

    But it does seem like a no-brainer to at least partially fund transportation infrastructure with CACs stimulated on lands around current or proposed stations (that’s pretty much how Vancouver was founded), especially given how transportation is a key priority in any green urban plan.

    The City could probably fund an Arbutus-UBC streetcar or the long planned downtown circle route with this model if it was really serious about providing viable alternatives (rather than just deterrents) to commuting by the mighty auto…

    But judging by the responses by the staffer, the expert, and the politician, the fixation still seems to be on (as some would say) “shiny trinkets”.

  • Richard

    @A Dave

    There is little evidence that streetcars do much to get people out of their cars. Some are not even really an faster than walking once walking to and from the stop and waiting are taken into account. Especially when they have to mix with traffic. Portland’s for example.

    We already have a good electric trolley bus system. People near downtown already walk, bike and use transit a lot. A streetcar would compete with those more than driving.

    Streetcars are more the shiny trinkets. Even many of their supporter openly admit the point is not to provide a transportation improvement but more to spur development. We really don’t need much of that kind spurring here.

    Now once the UBC Line is in and there is rapid transit in Surrey, why not concider a streetcar. But that is a long way off.

  • Raingurl

    What a silly question! LOL…..Bring me a line that takes me closer to the beach! (Wreck Beach) Bring me a line that takes me closer to the mall. (Coquitlam Mall) but don’t start building MORE on Cambie. I knew the answer to this question before I finished the article.

  • A Dave

    Richard, I don’t agree at all with your assessment regarding local streetcar lines, but that’s another debate. I put those types of smaller projects out there because the City controls the CACs and these two transportation projects could, conceivably, be built and operated by the City with a private partner (as the NPA proposed last election) rather than through Translink’s morass.

    As I said, if the City was serious about building a greener future, they might consider this transportation option rather than offloading responsibility and waiting two decades for the next massive project to unfold. Two decades is a hell of a long time to wait to try and deal with a service that is already overtaxed now.

    To put it in context, over the last 20 years the city increased by 135,000 people (36%). I can’t imagine how crappy it will be for daily transit commuters in 10 years if the growth rate continues around the same — there certainly won’t be any incentive for Westsiders to get out of their cars.

  • Bill Lee

    @A Dave // Feb 26, 2013 at 11:09 am #14

    Growing?
    Aging in place is more like it.

    There was a new announcement from StatCan about new Open Data sets and the example they gave was Age Pyramids.
    I can’t find it again, but going directly to:

    http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/pyramid-pyramide/comp/index-eng.cfm

    And comparing Toronto with Vancouver in the two pull-down lists shows that Vancouver is deficient in children in comparison.
    (Something in the water, or housing prices preclude bringing up children in the city)

  • Guest

    A bunch of different issues being discussed.

    Streetcars provide local, not regioanl service. They would be feeder lines into rapid transit – but function largely like buses (with reduced routing flexibility).

    Adding a station in accordance with the future planning for the Canada Line is not only reasonable, but it is expected. The added cost of constructing the “station boxes” along the tunnel for future stations should not have been in vain – to be tossed aside by the “me, me, me” crowd shifting objectives.

  • Dan Cooper

    A Dave writes, “Interesting comment as this clearly implies most developers do NOT see any “real value” in how CACs are currently allocated by the City…”

    This reminds me that a year or two ago, I believe I saw something written (though I was unable to find it again later) laying out what these charges are spent on, and about half of them basically – in my interpretation – went to what could be best described as “making the new development not make things worse,” or to put it another way, “fixing the problems the development causes.” An example would be if a huge building blocks the sun from a daycare centre, moving the daycare centre to a new location.

    Anyway, as I wrote before, I see no reason to worry about any of this money “benefiting” the developer paying it, though I have no objection to it doing so coincidentally. No, the point is that it helps the community (or at least keeps things from getting worse).

  • Cheezwiz

    An interesting idea – it certainly makes sense to have developers kick in funds if they are building along a transit line. I remember being puzzled when I heard that 33rd was being ear-marked for a future station, as it’s actually not too far from 41st. Sounds like it’s not going to happen anytime soon, if at all.

    I always wondered why they didn’t build a station at 16th, since it is a major artery that runs across the city, and it’s a really loooong stretch between Broadway and 25th.

  • False Creep

    There’s no indication that the City of Vancouver thinks strategically about skytrain stations. Work has finally started on a renovated Main St -Science World station (yeah!) and COV will create a community garden across the street.

  • Guest

    There’s probably no station at 16th because the geometry of a “close to the surface” line would not allow a level platform (even a short 50m) without increasing the grade of the adjacent sections of tunnel to being too steep for the trains. Its surprising they have a manageable grade between Olympic Village Station and Broadway-City Hall Station.

  • Elizabeth Murphy

    I am not addressing whether or not stations should be built at what location, only the proposed funding formula of using the city’s Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) from development to pay for transit, which is a provincial responsibility.

    No, we should not do this as it is a form of provincial downloading and is also an example of the Hong Kong model of funding transit with development.

    The city’s Community Amenity Contributions are one of the few ways that the city can offset the costs of paying for the amenities that are required to service the additional population from development. If TransLink and the province take this mechanism to fund transit then there will be even less available for the community amenities that the city must provide such as parks, daycare, pools, libraries, etc. As it is, CACs are not enough to cover the city’s costs of development which are further subsidized by property taxes.

    Transit is a provincial responsibility and should be paid for by the many options that the province has in their jurisdiction since the tax base is divided approximately 93% to the province and 7% to municipalities, even though municipal responsibilities keep increasing. This is a form of downloading. The province could use carbon taxes, gas taxes, mileage/consumption based vehicle levy, and sales taxes. Land based taxes such as property taxes and development fees (CACs and DCLs) are maxed out to pay for city services, infrastructure and amenities.

    Using development to fund transit should not be done. It would reduce the city tax base while it increases the population the city needs to serve. Bad idea if we want a sustainable liveable city.

  • Elizabeth Murphy

    Clarification: I mean that the tax base is divided approximately 93% to senior governments (the province and federal) and 7% to municipalities,

  • Adam Fitch

    Once the new RCMP headquarters building in Surrey is up and running, I would expect that the RCMP campus site near 33rd and Cambie will be put up for sale or somehow redeveloped.

    Perhaps the City of Vancouver is counting on this as an opportunity to incorporate a 33rd Ave station into that project, as they are with Pearson/Dogwood.

  • Adam Fitch

    I also expect that the City of Vacouver, particularly the current council, do not want to give the impression that they are willing to fund rapid transit projects.

    So far, they have stuck rigidly to this position on the Broadway line, so why would they do different on the Canada Line?

  • Bill Smolick

    Oh Richard:

    > There is little evidence that streetcars do much to
    > get people out of their cars. Some are not even
    > really an faster than walking once walking to and
    > from the stop and waiting are taken into account. –

    Your second point is the same for buses. It’s a factor of distance (and the reason I cycle: I’ve waited almost as long for a bus as it takes me to cycle to downtown from West Vancouver.

    Streetcars will never be slower than buses (barring exceptional circumstances like an accident impeding the tracks.) Given a right of way, the will be faster: the Spadina LRT line in Toronto runs more effectively than the Spadina Bus ever did–with apologies to the Shuffle Demons.

    On the first point: study after study has shown that passengers prefer the *ride quality* of a streetcar to that of buses. Trolley buses, to put it bluntly, suck.

    Take it from someone who spent quite a bit of time living in Toronto’s Beach neighbourhood: I’d rather ride the Queen Streetcar any day than any of the buses I grew up riding.