Login / RegisterJoe Zaccaria and Nathan Pachal: Land use, transportation must work together for South Fraser
By Joe Zaccaria and Nathan Pachal
Back in the early 1980s, both Calgary and Edmonton built light-rail systems. At that time, they had populations of about half-a-million each. Today, Calgary has a population of one million and has the fourth-busiest system in North America. In contrast, the South Fraser region, with a population of about 77,000, had a light-rail system up until the 1950s. Half-a-century later, we have no light rail and a population of over 600,000.
How is it that “unsustainable” Calgary has more sustainable transportation choices than the most livable region in the world? Well, there are many reasons. One obvious reason is that the province of B.C. decided to build the SkyTrain, which cost six times more than light rail would have cost us over the last three decades. This is only a symptom of a much larger issue in our region—a disconnect between land-use planning and transportation planning.
Any planner worth their weight in zoning ordinances will tell you that land-use and transportation options go hand in hand. If you zone for mixed-use, walkable, people-friendly development, you’d better have good transit, and active transportation options like cycling and walking, in your plan. Likewise, if you build only roads, you naturally get less efficient, auto-oriented land use.
A case in point: Downtown Vancouver compared to Surrey’s Guildford Town Centre.
Downtown Vancouver. velkr0 photo.
Guildford Town Centre. Marco Antonio Torres photo.
Linking land-use and transportation plans together must happen if we are to see sustainable transportation options in the South Fraser.
Right now there are six agencies or levels of government that are in the land-use and transportation planning business: the local municipality, Metro Vancouver, TransLink, the B.C. Ministry of Transportation, the federal government, and the Agricultural Land Commission. Talk about too many cooks in the kitchen! In theory, Metro Vancouver and TransLink are suppose to work together to come up with a regional transportation and growth strategy. Municipal governments’ official growth plans are supposed to fit within these regional growth plans—and all should be well.
Unfortunately, this is not the case, and we can see a huge disconnect between transportation and land-use planning. Even Metro Vancouver’s new draft 2040 Regional Growth Strategy document gives lip service to mass-transit options, while ignoring the vehicle that would propel us toward those options—tandem land use and transportation planning.
Take the northeast sector, Coquitlam and Port Moody; they build mixed-use, transit-oriented development, but are still waiting for the rapid transit. Closer to home, Surrey is still waiting for rapid transit on King George Highway, something that is several years past due. Langley wants to develop 200th Street in support of a transit hub, with the federal government supplying significant dollars for a new park and ride. But TransLink ignores the township’s community planning for high density (possibly high-rises) along the corridor and offers talk of a rapid bus or bus rapid transit.
This is no tangible transit commitment to speak of given the density that could soon be here, and what current poor traffic conditions along this corridor already look like. Adding insult to injury is the Ministry of Transportation that comes along and does whatever it wants, regardless of the regional or local plans that may be in play. We’ve spoken with many planners at the regional and local levels, and all have stated that, when the Ministry of Transportation comes to town, previous plans get flushed down the toilet. Ever wonder why the Langley Bypass is so auto-centric? It’s not because the City of Langley is into sprawl; it’s because the Ministry of Transportation controls zoning around highways and won’t allow transit-oriented development within their zoning rules!
So, how do we fix this mess we find ourselves in? First off, our region’s transportation plan must align with our region’s land-use plan. These land-use plans must be supported and vigorously defended by municipal governments that have provided significant input into these plans. Our region’s land-use plan must take into context the needs of the local municipal government. Checks and balances need to be put in place to ensure these plans all work together and that transportation options are growing. If not, corrective action must be swift.
Secondly, the province needs to be at the table during the development of our regional plans and respect the wishes of these plans once they become final. They can no longer live outside and work independently of our region’s land-use and transportation planning process.
Joe Zaccaria and Nathan Pachal are cofounders of the South Fraser OnTrax Transportation Advocacy Society.
===========================================
AFAIK, Highways only controls the accesses, not the zoning.
Rod Smelser
The West extension is $700 million for only 8km, that is not much less expensive than the Canada Line.
Also note that with the opening of the Canada Line, rapid transit ridership in Metro Vancouver is around 364,000 riders per day verses 218,000 per day in Calgary. You get what you pay for.
Since being on the market since the late 80's only 7 SkyTrain systems have been sold, all in private deals with Canadian government backing. Of the 7 sold, two were forced on the operating authority; 2 are airport people movers; 1 services a funfair; 1 was a demonstration line and only one is used as urban rapid transit.
During the same period over 136 new LRT/tram lines have been built. most in public competition with bus and SkyTrain type metro systems.
One wonders why SkyTrain is not built in greater numbers?
As for cost. The original SkyTrain cost twice as much per km. to build than Calgary's LRT and four times per km. to build than Portland's LRT.
The cost of the Millennium Line was over $100 million/km.
Cost of 1 km. of Helsinki tramway construction (track and OHLE) in 2008, $5 million/km.
There is no independent audit of SkyTrain's ridership and ridership numbers are mere guesstimates and are about 20% greater than actual independent estimates. TransLink also double counts Millennium and Expo Line passengers.
This is how TransLink has fallen into the faregate/turnstile fiasco - SkyTrain revenues do not match ridership figures, which means 1) Ridership is far less than claimed or 2) There is massive fare evasion.
As 80% of SkyTrain's ridership first takes a bus to the metro and bus drivers are very good in collecting fares, one would guess the number one "Ridership is far less than claimed" is the real indication of overstating ridership figures.
In 2006 Calgary's LRT carried 248,200 a day and annual ridership has increased to over 300,000 a day despite a downturn in the economy.
What Mr. Mythbuster stated is a myth.
And do some research, the ridership on Calgary's LRT has plummeted due to the recession, it is now at 218,000 per day:
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2009_q3_rid...
And thanks for confirming that the original SkyTrain cost twice as much as the Calgary LRT, not the six times that was quoted in the article, at least we agree on something. As far as Portland goes, yes Light Metro is more expensive but it does attract more riders. The ridership here is getting close to four time that of Portland.
Regarding ridership numbers, find some actual proof they are being exaggerated. Otherwise, this is just idle speculation. Your statement that they are 20% off is just a guessimate as well. Note that the Canada Line does have laser counters.
The MoT provides for minimum setbacks as well as control within 800 meters of certain highways. Check out section 52 of the BC Transportation Act.
======================================
You're right. I knew they controlled accesses, but I had no idea they could refuse various zonings.
Still, I don't know why the MOTH would use this power as the authors say to discourage transit oriented developments adjacent to controlled access highways, since those would presumably generate less traffic interaction with the highway.
Rod Smelser
At the time it was built, the Millennium Line was pegged at $98 million/km. but the Glen Clark NDP was as fuzzy with SkyTrain costs as were Bill Bennett and Gordo.
I find it interesting that you use American estimated ridership figures for Calgary and not the numbers posted by Calgary's operating authority. The APTA has no authority in Canada, thus the numbers are questionable. But this is how the SkyTrain lobby works, deception and propaganda, mixed with TransLink's own questionable statistics.
Lovely and I'll give three guesses by TransLink is bankrupt, and the first two don't count.
Matey, just answer this question: Why after being on the market for over 30 years, why has SkyTrain been never allowed to compete against light rail on any transit project? Why has only 7 SkyTrain systems been built, yet over the same time period over 136 LRT systems have been built?
Trouble is that the SkyTrain Lobby may bamboozle the local taxpayer, promoters of SkyTrain have utterly failed to sell the project overseas and can only build with SkyTrain in secret deals, with plenty of federal government financing.
One tires of the SkyTrain Lobby's BS, as the world has tired of SkyTrain. Who builds with SkyTrain?
Regarding you numbers, include sources. Even with the items that you think were not included in the $1.1 billion, there is no way the cost is $98 million per km in 2000 dollars. By the way, I'm pretty sure the extension to VCC was included in the $1.1 billion. If you have evidence otherwise, include the link, otherwise, give it a rest.
Your comparison of one product by a company to an entire range of products by many companies is ridiculous. You should be comparing the number of metro systems to the number of LRT systems in the world.
According to LRTA, the number of metros in the world is 146 compared to only 90 for LRT. 12 metros are under construction compared to only 9 LRT.
http://www.lrta.org/world/worldind.html#index
What a bizarre argument.
Just one post before you had argued that SkyTrain needs independent ridership audits, because the operating authority's own numbers were exaggerated and not to be trusted. Now in the same paragraph you simultaneously maintain that TransLink's official numbers are questionable - but that Calgary's official numbers are more reliable than those of a separate authority.
Is there any thought behind your comments, or just politics and emotional rhetoric? You give readers a lot less credit than they deserve.
I pity the taxpayer in the METRO region, for if the SkyTrain Lobby have their way and build more metro, Vancouver will be a city of the very rich, who don't use transit and the very poor who must use transit. There will be no middle class for the high taxes to fund hugely expensive metro will have bankrupted them.
Funny that the SkyTrain Lobby never answer the one question I pose: "Why, after being on the market for over 30 years, not one SkyTrain of the 7 SkyTrain type systems built have been allowed to compete against LRT?"
Oh by the way, here are some C-Train ridership numbers:
Weekday ridership per C-Train line:
South - 86,100
Northwest - 80,400
Northeast - 58,900
Downtown (free fare zone) - 22,800
But hey, the APTA seems to be in error, but then they are an American outfit and have little care about Canadian transit.
But here is something to mull over, the total cost to date of the Calgary LRT system is about $1 billion, while in Vancouver, just the SkyTrain system has cost the taxpayer over $6 billion - add RAV and that is $8 billion!
Oh by the Mythbuster you forgot to add the tramway's to your calculations as LRT and tramway are almost the same thing, especially in Europe where the term light rail has a completely different meaning than LRT here. So lets add another 353 to the 99 LRT's and viola 452 LRT/tramway's built or under construction.
On the metro side, of course includes monorails and many other proprietary metro systems.
Oh by the way, will the SkyTrain Lobby admit that SkyTrain's ridership numbers are invented and do not come close to revenue collected? No? Fancy that.
Here lies the problem: there are over 450 LRT tramway systems for the SkyTrain Lobby to niggle at, while with the sacred child of SkyTrain, because most systems are private systems, operational statistics are almost a state secret.
Again I ask: "Why, after being on the market for over 30 years, only 7 SkyTrain systems have been built? What hasn't SkyTrain been allowed to compete against LRT?
The Millennium Line’s budget includes:
Ӣ $833.5 million for direct costs, including the cost of the guide-way, stations, operating systems, vehicles, and land.
Ӣ $117.3 million for design, management, public consultation, and communications.
Ӣ $215.7 million for borrowing costs, taxes, and project contingency.
Cost per km. - $68.75 million/km.
NOT included was an approx. $150 million upgrade to the Expo Line to accept the heavier Mk.2 cars and the Mk. 2 cars themselves. Thus the true cost of the millennium Line was over $1.35 billion or over $84 million/km. to build.
Evil Eye, it ridiculous to compare many of the tram systems in the world against SkyTrain, light metro or LRT for that matter. The Portland Streetcar for example, only carries around 12,000 people per day. Then there is the tiny South Lake Union Tram. I could go on.
Your C-train ridership numbers are from 2006. I wonder why Calgary Transit has not updated them in 3 years. It looks like the ridership has plunged due to the recession. Or maybe APTA is part of your imagined SkyTrain lobby.
By the way, I do think LRT in the Valley would be great. If you would stop inventing weird and illogical arguments against SkyTrain, I think you would find people spending less time countering your misinformation and more time supporting LRT and other transit expansion.
Also not included was the $150 million retro fit of the Expo Line to accommodate the heavier MK.2 cars.
Also later admitted by NDP sources that some of the costs for the Millennium Line were transfered to the Expo Line (Columbia St. station rebuild) to hide escalating costs, this during the FastFerry fiasco.
There has not been an independent audit of the Millennium Line and cost may well be over $100 million per km. to build.
As Evil Eye points out SkyTrain has never been allowed to bid against LRT, nor has SkyTrain passed US federal scrutiny. The New Your Port Authority SkyTrain link to JFK, was a private deal, finalized when the Canadian government underwrote forgivable loans to finance the metro. As there was no US Federal monies involved, there was no federal review of the project.
The same apparently is true with the three other Bombardier SkyTrain ART transit systems sold abroad!
I would like to say it takes up to 6 weeks to get a reply from TransLink
.........................states: "Thank you for contacting the Calgary Transit Website with your inquiry. The 2009 statistics are not available at this point so, your request has been forwarded to our Business Analyst and he will respond with all the figures you are requiring at once.
Shelley Desjardins, Calgary Transit"
Funny thin is the figures you quote from the APTA are for 2009, yet Calgary transit claims: "are not available yet".
So obviously the APTA did not get their information from Calgary transit!
So Mythy, me thinks there is something rotten with the SkyTrain lobby.
SkyTrain just participated in a bid to build the Canada Line. SkyTrain lost.
Where's this vast pro-SkyTrain conspiracy?
And why do you say that people who disagree with you are all part of a "lobby"? Do you know what a lobby is?
146 metro systems
90 LRT systems
330 Tram systems
89 heritage trams & other rail
???? bus systems - a couple thousand would be a very lowball estimate
Why are there so so many more bus systems than trams? Well, buses are cheaper and more versatile.
So why would cities ever build a tram, or an LRT, at all, instead of running cheaper, more versatile buses? Well, obviously LRT's and trams must provide advantages over regular buses. Speed and capacity come to mind.
Ditto the argument: Why are there so many more LRT/tram systems in the world than metro systems? Well, LRTs and trams are cheaper and more versatile.
So why would 147 cities around the world ever build a metro at all, instead of only having cheaper LRT/trams, or just buses? Obviously, there must be some advantage of metros over LRTs and trams. Speed and capacity come to mind.
Does the existence of so many more bus systems than trams and LRTs means that buses are superior and no one should build LRTs or trams in any situation? Or course not. But Evil Eye somehow believes that the existence of so many more LRT/trams worldwide is evidence that LRT/trams are superior to metros and no one should build metro systems anymore.
The stations were designed for the somewhat smaller Mk.2 cars, etc.
Financial realities gave the chop to SkyTrain, but what we have in Vancouver are two metro systems completely incompatible with each other!
Rapid - most of the metro systems mentioned were built a century or more ago, when labour costs were much less, London's TUBE, Paris's Metro; Berlin, Moscow, Madrid, New York, Chicago, etc. etc.
How many metro systems have been built in the past 3 decades?
About 30 - yet compare this to 136 new LRT lines built during the same period.
The reason those 147 cities built metro is that they have transit routes catering to very high passenger loads necessitating metro.
Vancouver doesn't have this problem and SkyTrain's somewhat high ridership can be attributed to a mass of bus passengers forced onto the metro system. That's why ridership on SkyTrain only rises with population growth and there is no evidence of a modal shift from car to transit.
80% of SkyTrain's ridership first take a bus to the metro, evidence that our transit system is just not attracting the motorist. Portland, there has been about 30% modal shift from car to MAX.
Here is a general rule of thumb (with exceptions) for delivery of transit.
Routes with ridership under 3,000 pphpd - bus
Routes with ridership 2,000 to 5,000 pphpd - trolley bus
Routes with ridership 2,000 to 20,000 pphpd - LRT/tram
Routes with ridership in excess of 15,000 pphpd - Metro
Buses are more versatile if you are going to change routes every other year, but otherwise LRT/Trams are just as versatile.
As for Skytrain/Metro/Subways (SMS), you only need them in extremely dense areas and we have Skytrain in those areas now! Even in the downtown areas of Montreal, the average distance between Metro stations is 8-9 blocks, and they still have buses like Vancouver where BusStops are every 2-3 blocks. So if you are older, handicapped, or a parent with young children, you would rather LRT (2-3 blocks & no stairs or escalators) than Skytrain (too many blocks to count and too many stairs to climb).
If I were a politician and my friends were developers, I'd get a really inadequate and cheap transit system like Skytrain and keep them happy and the voters would think I was great for building them a pseudo Subway system. I don't know how much Skytrain costs compared to a real Subway sytem, but I do know the costs are way less. But then you get what you pay for.
The world over is getting into LRT/Trams that can run on the same tracks as railways and subways and we have idiots in Vancouver who want to build more Skytrains, because their buddies are land developers and they don't have the common sense to see that Skytrains were antiquated in 1986 and that they are in reality a light rail system built for people with more $ than brains.
I'm with EVIL EYE and MILLENNIUM LINE. Mythbuster and his buddies are busted!
Lets first agree that it is time to shift resources from freeways to transit, then we can talk about the best technology for each line. Better Transit Not Freeways is how to free up billions for transit!
And don't forget that electric bus rapid transit needs to be on the table if you want cost effective transit.
Pages