The same three First Nations that are half-owners of the 52-acre former DND property called the Jericho Garrison have apparently signed a letter of intent for the 39 acres to the west, in a transaction with the Provincial Government, the current owners.
So with this addition to the Jericho Lands development, we will now have a 91-acre contiguous parcel awaiting City of Vancouver zoning.




Let’s put our fingers to our keyboards, everyone, and try to predict the development outcomes.
I get first dibs on proposing that the Broadway subway extend to a central location in this land. And I hope the owners will be working towards a transit-oriented moderately dense community.
I also propose ped-and bike-friendly ways to get to Jericho Beach Park, one of Vancouver’s spectacular treasures — perhaps by massive traffic calming on 4th Avenue, or by a series of overpasses.
We are already aware that the Canada Lands Corporation, half owner of the former DND 52-acre site, doesn’t do social housing. Their mandate is to be a commercial developer. So put that in your CAC and ponder the discussions around new zoning, and the composition of various steering committees and management bodies.


  1. First, if you get the Broadway Subway built through this land and to UBC (hopefully touching the Endowment Lands density as well, not just central campus) you’ll have a massice calming effect on 4th Ave in general. The impetuous to drive to/from a peninsula will be greatly cut.
    Second, new government, hopefully new policies. The Liberals have indicated they want to come to the table on things like housing and transit. Offering up portions of this land for affordable housing, using existing assets that are long since written off, would definitely be a hell of a lot cheaper than ponying up the equivalent cash for what could be achieved on this land.

  2. Something like the Laurel overpass would be perfect for going over 4th in that location.
    I’ve been saying all along that if they can shove enough houses in that location then they have a perfect excuse to run the skytrain line all the way to UBC. That pretty much fills in the density gap between UBC and Arbutus.
    Add in the fact that the UBC Golf Course is also living on borrowed time and farther opportunities for roughed in stations present themselves.
    The complicated part is figuring out how to transition from a presumably cut and cover section at Jericho, to an elevated section from the golf course to UBC. There’s 3 annoying blocks full of NIMBYs in $3-5M single family homes in the way. That might be a little short for a TBM tunnel segment.

  3. Some unknowns:
    1. How demanding will the city be on the built form of the Jericho Lands?
    2. Will the federal government provide funds applicable to extension of the Broadway line beyond Arbutus?
    3. Can CACs on the Jericho development contribute to the subway costs? If so, how will this impact the provision of low-income housing and community amenities that CACs would normally support?
    4. Will UBC kick in money for extension to the Point Grey campus?
    Plus there are design issues regarding the turn north from 10th Avenue to reach the site. Would it then turn south again to reach Point Grey Village? Or would the station remain at 10th and Alma, some blocks away, even if CACs fund a portion of the line?

  4. Looking at the first “nation” Block F parcel in UEL (see here:!/overview )
    where a high density plan – higher than in the originally allowed UEL zoning – is being rammed through against heavy opposition by local residents I am not at all hopeful that we see moderate density. I expect massive towers for maximum cash for our native “stewards of the land”. And yes, we will see some social housing to appease the City of Vancouver.
    Of course it makes sense to at least extend a UBC subway to at least Alma, close by, and then perhaps swing it through this site as opposed to up 10th .. but we shall see.

    1. Me thinks you exaggerate, Thomas.
      I counted 12 existing — and by your definition “massive” — private residential towers up to 18 storeys high on the UEL, and another 11 towers on campus at or exceeding 15 storeys. That’s at least 23 towers already standing at UBC. And that’s from an outdated orthophoto … there could be more today.
      The Musqueam proposal includes two 18-storey and two 22-storey towers. The majority of the parcel will be occupied by 3-6-storey low rises with substantial open space, and the parcel is directly served by existing transit. The towers arguably give enough return to justify retaining 3.1 acres in park containing some of the most mature forest land up there. Moreover, unlike the majority of the campus and UEL, a lot of work will go into storm water management, notably a wetland. All this is just from quick scan of the plans.
      If these towers are being “rammed through against heavy opposition”, then I suggest there’s a chance a good number of the opposition are hypocritical NIMBYs living in towers of similar height and mass, or are blind to the long-standing trend of UBC to densify.

  5. Transit:
    I believe the subway was justified to UBC 40 years ago and shorting it to Arbutus just delays the inevitable. The new federal government has committed to specific infrastructure funding, and transit forms a large part of it. Running deficits is only one funding tool. Shifting 10%-15% of funds currently directed to airports, highways and subsidized private industry (e.g. Big Oil) to urban transit is another. A national carbon tax is another. Public transit has proven positive effects on economic return and productivity by moving humans from A to B at lower per capita cost, energy consumption and emissions, and high economic return along the lines with jobs, development & construction, and additional tax revenue. Raising taxes based on these precepts to help pay for transit projects is perfectly justified.
    A large view would be enormously beneficial. A national transit plan and project management organization could manage several projects across the country at once, perhaps by grouping them into heavy subway, light rail, bus rapid transit, and others (with reps from the provinces and cities, of course), each with their own defined requirements. Therefore, very significant savings are possible by spreading costs across several projects and jurisdictions rather than treating projects entirely as one-offs. The feds could also attain unheard of procurement discounts on national bulk orders in things like design and engineering consulting services, trains, electrical and signaling equipment, construction materials, etc. Large-scale tenders would attract world-wide attention and radically increase competition. The feds would also have enormous negotiating power to demand local assembly plants, higher Canadian content and public amenities from shortlisted or winning consortiums on large-scale, multi-faceted tenders.
    P3s will not accomplish much of the above and will saddle the project with long-term operating payments, often with extraordinarily high change order costs (e.g. putting more trains on during peak hours at great cost), to the private sector. The private reps will also do everything they can lower design standards to save on construction costs. You want proof? Look at the planned private sector devised inadequacies of the Canada Line.
    Taking a subway all the way to UBC in one TBM contract will inevitably save on construction unit prices and land acquisition costs in the long run. To build the current proposal means decades of more delays to UBC, two separate contracts years apart, and shifting the existing transfer penalty and problematic express bus holding space from Commercial to Arbutus for many years.
    I don’t believe the Jericho Lands will justify a station of its own presumably just a short ways up from Alma and the already fairly dense Alma-Highbury blocks.
    The second most important leg of the regional rapid transit system outside of downtown and one of the highest transit demand areas (far, far higher than south of Fraser) will finally be realized.
    The Broadway-UBC corridor will achieve certainty with respect to planning and zoning. There is enough urban variability in this corridor to justify high, mid and low-rise, mixed use development in defined areas, and all will be put through extensive public consultation. One size does not fit all with such a project, despite the unreasonable fear-mongering of the monochromatic ideas of the tram / village-by-the-sea low-rise faction. This is the big city and it has unique challenges, and it requires as many tools in the toolkit as possible.

  6. Land Planning:
    The Canada Lands Company – First Nations partnership on the federal portion is a very unique model and could offer economic and advancement opportunities elsewhere and achieve a modicum of social justice, should the new government wish to address more than once policy on such sites (justice for FN, sustainable urbanism and its related per capita emissions reductions). The feds through the CLC, if they indeed own 50% of the land, will probably retain design consultants who will report to both CLC and FN reps. The CLC will probably also directly fund the infrastructure (roads, underground utilities, etc.) and recoup the costs through sales and land leases.
    I believe the federal – aboriginal land ownership and development model could be used to foster social justice and a host of town planning benefits where FN lands (or newly acquired private lands transferred into public ownership) intersect with our towns and cities. Perhaps once all costs have been paid off through sales and leases, the federal share of the land can be returned to FN.
    I’m not sure how it would work on the provincial lands; the province seems to be seeking a simple sale rather than a partnership, so the onus may be up to First Nations to attract developers from the beginning on their own who would take their proposals to the city and fund the infrastructure outside of government financing, with the possible exception of grants and loans to FN. There may be different and possibly conflicting land planning and development management criteria between the federal and provincial parcels, though FN will in essence own 75% of the land.
    I would also assume that the traditional long-term FN leases would be offered, as they would not want to sell the land once a deed is within their ownership, despite the fact the land was never originally ceded. This is a completely acceptable arrangement as long as good advice is obtained at the beginning to guide the composition of the land lease terms and rates to achieve fairness to all parties, and to address ongoing inflationary pressures that could affect future lease rates. It’s also significant that mortgages would only apply to the structures that sit on the land, and that will no doubt be a selling point on this most desirable west side site of all, though leases will appear on the operating side of the ledger.
    I suggest the maximum zoned height for Jericho should be 10-storey mid-rises at the bottom near Highbury, an area closest to three bus routes and the future Alma Station. This is probably the most appropriate for allowing CACs to a max height of 12 storeys. I also suggest the minimum density should be achieved using only attached single family homes, either terraced rowhouses or at the very least duplex townhouses on small lots. Every house and apartment should be built with suite-potential, or even purpose built as such (separate entries and utility meters). The development could ban lanes and design roads to be as narrow as possible while accommodating emergency services, and thus bring the amount of land devoted to low-value use as asphalt to far les than the 30% of Vancouver, and the 45% of the suburbs.

  7. To paraphrase a famous planner (no, not Canadian) – I hope whatever happens there is neither an elephant nor a mouse. In other words, getting the density and scale right with a rich public realm (not necessarily large mono uses like play-fields) and interconnected to the wider community are very important aspirations from my vantage point, and focusing mainly on the needs of the younger “worker bee” population. Further, what a great project for a UBC SALA urban design studio!

    1. “…. a great project for UBC SALA urban design studio ….”
      Just so one or two of the instructors know, there is a section of the 10th Ave hill up from Highbury that exceeds 6.5% slope. That exceeds the maximum grade for trams and may require — oh my gawd! — a tunnel.

      1. I’m not sure how they managed it, but back in the 1930s there were two streetcar lines using the 10th Avenue hill that you claim is too steep for them. I expect they moved pretty slowly, but they made it.

    2. I think there are many excellent opportunities for both SALA students and recent grad/young architects that go unexplored and so many great ideas are overlooked. +1 on this!

  8. My vision is for a wide central diagonal spine going up the hill from 4th/Highbury to 8th
    ave. with only walking and cycling paths. All building units should be accessible by bike or on foot without having to cross a road. Much of the car infrastructure could be underground. This spine would provide walking and cycling access to all buildings without having to cross roads. It would also serve as a major cycling route to UBC from the Seaside Greenway. Access to Jericho park could be via one or more structures like at Laurel/5th but much wider.

    1. A diagonal linear park …. intriguing!
      An old traditional English town planning concept I feel needs more emphasis today is the notion of the Urban Commons. This naturally relates to pedestrian space. It’s not hard to see a grand staircase running diagonally all the way up (“Arno’s Spine”) punctuated by generous landscaped terraces that connect into paths and purposely-narrowed roads running with the contours.
      I think additional large, open parks should be considered too, and I suggest allowing a bit more height in the structures near Highbury would be a fair trade off for generous, well-designed park space. The spine could be terminated at both the upper and lower ends by parks, like a barbell.

  9. Bob – dividing the cost of $3,000,000,000 by, say, $100,000 per unit = 30,000 units. These are both unprecedented numbers. In comparison, the developers of the proposed Capstan Station area in Richmond agreed to pay about $7 per square foot (or say $7000 per unit) just to build a new Canada Line station at a cost of about $25 mill.
    Boiling it all down, development alone cannot afford to build a rail transit line, but it can contribute to it, at least for integrating stations and access routes. Still, this is ultimately a piece of PUBLIC infrastructure and therefore all levels of government should cover the capital costs, perhaps in declining ratio. For the sake of argument, say 50/40/10, since cities have the least taxing authority.

    1. That seems to be the new formula being developed for such projects. With half the cost being paid for by the taxpayers of Canada without any known pressure at this time to apply transit surcharges to station-oriented development, the impetus to ram downtown density through Kits and Point Grey (as some irrationally fear) is diminished.
      The city will have to prove, though, it is willing to put the reins on excessive density west of Granville and start the public input for a Broadway Corridor Plan now. This is not to say density should never be increased in already-established West Kits, but it needs to be carefully done.
      Let the workshops begin!

  10. The Jericho Lands look like they could become West End lite. All the elements are there – large park, beaches, 3 good retail streets in W.10th, W.4th, and W. Broadway.
    West End densities here would yield a local population of 8000 people, but this is 2016 where land constraints are much higher than they were when the West End was forming 50 years ago. Throw into the equation the future subway line, then imo, 2x West End density is appropriate here.
    Building a vibrant, walk-able neighbourhood doesn’t get any easier than this.

    1. Logan5 – thank you for interjecting a first crack at housing/population capacity. It is a fun and useful exercise. While I’m not sure what you mean by West End density (maybe 1.5 FSR on a net site?) my initial back of envelope thinking doesn’t reach so high a level. In my case I’m assuming that no less than 50% or 45 acres of the lovely landscape will remain undeveloped.
      Anyway, thanks again.

    2. The density figure is derived from the West End’s population density of 218 persons/hectare.
      West End type densities should be the staring point here, so that everybody is given a fair shot at living in this amenity rich area. The less dense we get, the more exclusive these lands will be,

  11. Regarding the Broadway subway: a useful reminder is the projected ridership in 2041:
    This figure alone explains why the plan is to stop it at Arbutus: West of Arbutus, there is nowhere enough demand to justify a subway, and it is probable that the prolongation west of arbutus could capture very marginal transit market share (essentially due to the specificty of the rider demography going to UBC). so you get very little bang for the buck west of Arbutus (that was stated in the Translink study too).
    The question is then:
    does the development of the Jericho lands could change this figure (which eventually has already taking that in account)?
    Assuming it is residential (and it could be silly to think otherwise), the answer is simply “NO”.
    The subway could be of no use for people heading Downtown: a huge chunk of the demand. The remainder could increase the demand… in the contra flow direction. This could, improve the operation financial sheet of the subway, but could have virtually no impact on the peak direction demand, the one providing the rational for a technology able to carry 10,000+ people per hour…we will still be very far of it.
    If no subway, What is the Transit offer?
    The current Transit offer is already exceptional, There is plenty of room on the buses, 44 (down town), 84 (Canada line, which could be rerouted to Expo Main station, in the case of a Broadway extension to Arbutus),… since again the demand induced by the Jericho lands will be contra flow , filling bus currently roaming the street empty.
    There is certainly much better ways to invest transit $ which currently doesn’t exist anyay, than to pouring it on an area already over serviced due to its location.
    If it is to serve new large development area in Vancouver, Transit $ could be much better invested at improving the Fraser Lands (…which apparently doesn’t deserve a train discussion,…you know the creme de la creme, and the blue collar of East Van)
    And there is many corridor outside of Vancouver offering probably better return on investment that the extension of a subway West of Arbutus, both in term of transit network and urban development (I think of Willingdon, Hasting,…).
    Otherwise, I also second the Arno Schortinghuis’ suggestion, especially a contiguous parks system extended from Jericho up to “off broadway”, which should also open public vista from “off broadway” to English bay.

    1. Thank you for injecting some sanity into the subway discussion Voony. I’ve been saying for a long time that digging a subway to UBC simply doesn’t make sense because peak hour, peak direction traffic to UBC is not growing and may never do so again. On-campus housing has doubled since I was a student there while the student population has risen only slightly. Current projections show a continued drop in undergraduate numbers. Graduate student numbers are projected to rise significantly, but those individuals have more flexible hours which has the effect of suppressing peak demand and increasing off-peak demand.
      As you’ve also noted, increased residential density at UBC and in Point Grey/Jericho would mostly fuel demand in the opposite direction to student travel, a direction already well served by “Not in service” buses.
      MB envisions a huge bus conglomeration at Arbutus, but that’s not necessary. Demand west of Arbutus is small compared to the demand at Commercial and the run from Arbutus to UBC is short. If UBC continues to provide bus layover space then very little will be needed at Arbutus.
      But it’s hard to envision a bus loop at Arbutus. It’s an area of traffic calmed streets. The logical bus loop is at Granville, but then why build the subway to Arbutus?
      Arbutus does make sense from the standpoint of eventually connecting to something using the old interurban rail corridor and it would be a less disruptive location for inserting or removing a tunnel boring machine.

      1. That’s all fine and good, but it’s not how you necessarily pick a transit mode. The timetables of UBC also skews the PPHPD figure, since the loads are spread out over a longer period in short bursts.
        You need to consider operating costs for both modes. Even if it’s 5,000pphpd, it may still be a reasonable value to extend the line a couple stops past the area where demand necessitates only RRT just to allow for bus operating costs to be reduced, to reduce transfers and for ToD to occur.
        Between the Jericho Lands and the Golf Course, there’s about a 1.2km² that could be easily redeveloped. Depending on the densities present, there could easily be 20K-30K people living in that area.
        The last few km are also likely to be some of the cheapest. Once the line hits the endowment lands there is basically no reason not to be at grade or elevated. With the Jericho purchases, that km could be easily trenched and lidded or installed as part of another excavation. The hard part is now justifying Arbutus to Alma.
        If 5,000 pphpd was such a cutoff, how did we ever justify the Sapperton section of the M-Line, or the airport branch of the Canada Line?

        1. I agree that tunnelling between Blanca and UBC is unnecessary. We could save a ton of money by putting the line at grade or elevated – maybe at grade through the forested area and elevated the rest of the way to the terminus on campus.

      2. There are so many towers being built at UBC, both for student use, and not … why should we suspect that these people will never leave the peninsula, and will not use transit/subway? It strikes me that it is likely that transit use would increase substantially … why wouldn’t this be the case? UBC doesn’t seem to be shrinking.

    2. I think of it as a natural evolution of transit-oriented development. Of course there is limited projected demand between Arbutus and UBC without the Jericho development and without general density increases — such projection assumes no major changes in zoning. But the reality is that westside Vancouver will need to grow, or else become an oversized Santa Barbara forever stuck in a simulacrum of the past.
      We have a three functional models of density in metro Vancouver: residential upzoning (Kitsilano), brownfield master planning (Yaletown), and transit-oriented development (Metrotown). Instead of bland TOD towers, the Jericho lands could be a pedestrianized mid-rise neighbourhood engineered around a rapid-transit hub, a bit like Olympic Village. In my mind, the whole project fits squarely within the legacy of Vancouverism, and indeed offers an irreplaceable opportunity to conceptually update TOD at a more human (and humane) scale.

    3. OK Voony, I’ll bite.
      I don’t see a lot of info about future population growth, growth in employment centres, and on induced transit demand over the likely 100+ year life of the subway in your post or in the graphic on estimated future ridership. I suggest the growth in GDP of the development on cross arterials within a kilometre of Broadway west of Granville will also greatly influence ridership, especially once the asset is built and attains downtown frequencies, efficiencies and attractive related amenities. So will future rises in the price of fuel. Transit-induced demand is a Big Thing. Controlling it may be the hardest thing to accomplish in the long run.
      Let’s go a little deeper. I really doubt that Jericho will be developed at anything less than 30 dwelling units per acre average, which could still potentially permit detached narrow homes on small lots at 1.0 FAR (1,452 ft2), duplexes or subdivided lane houses on postage-stamp lots. In fact, I think the impetus will be to provide twice or likely more than that density.
      At the lowest end of 30 DU/ac and Vancouver’s 2.2 people per DU, Jericho will have 6,000 people. At a 60 DU/ac average (some mid-rises, lots of rowhouses), Jericho will have 12,000 people. At 80 DU/ac (a few more mid rises, or a few 20-storey jobs with the rowhouses), it climbs to 16,000 people. Commercial zoning at the bottom of the site off 4th and Highbury to Broadway could add several hundred jobs.
      Kitsilano, at ~43,000 people and an overall average 15 DU/ac, is not that dense at present. Yes, there are pockets, but West Kits at ~15,000 is the least dense part, and could easily double in population with the standard, perfectly reasonable arterial treatment of continuous 4-storey low rises along Broadway west of Arbutus with mid-rises punctuating the station areas, and attached townhouses and even some low rises within 500m of the corridor. So, West Kits could have 15,000 more people as part of the city’s acceptance of 150,000+ as its portion of the million estimated to arrive by the mid-2040s.
      Increased commercial-retail-office could add several thousand more jobs west of Arbutus and help further emphasise that the Broadway-UBC corridor is the second largest employment centre in the province after downtown. Surrey, which is already served by three SkyTrain stations, doesn’t even come close. I think any notion of preserving the existing levels of commercial and residential in West Kits is highly unlikely even without any improvements to transit.
      UBC already has 14,200 staff, the majority of whom live off campus. Then you’ve got 51,000 students, at the very least half of whom live off campus. And 10,000 people now living in the UEL in the new development. UBC has 993 developable acres at its disposal outside of Pacific Spirit Park, and the chances are excellent that they will use half of it. The proposed Musqueam project will bring in between 3,000-5,000 more people to UBC alone, works out to between 61 and 103 DU/ac while also preserving over 3 ac in mature forested parkland, and will top up the total UBC population and employment demographic to 75,000 people in the near future. It could increase to 100,000 by mid-century, just as the subway debt amortization is ending and seven decades of profitable service follow.
      So, it is feasible that 50,000 more people could be living west of Arbutus and maybe 10,000+ more jobs will be created by mid-century in the Broadway corridor. Who knows how many more will be created by late-century? Not everybody will ride the subway, but then induced demand will bring riders from afar once its connectivity to the region is completed.

  12. Voony, you also said transit dollars don’t exist at present. Well, with a new federal government pondering covering 50% of the cost, and the province already committing 33%, I assume the vast majority of the dollars have already been sourced.
    We can talk about transit demand until the sheep come home, but the return on the dollars invested is something that needs acknowledgement. Rapid transit in Vancouver has been one of the best investments ever conceived here, and has generated the largest and longest economic returns.
    I am very confident that a four billion investment to UBC will be returned several times over well before a century of use has been reached. Moreover, when you argue about rapid transit investments think it’s just as important to offer comparisons to the impact of freeways and auto-dependence.

    1. I would add that controlling the form of development should be a top priority. Not every increase in density along a rapid transit line needs to look like Metrotown. There is a great possibility that a decent subway service could measurably weaken car trip counts on Broadway and parallel arterials, and in my mind that is reason enough to give Broadway a top drawer pedestrian treatment, first by taking over large runs of the current parking lanes to expand the pedestrian realm and enhance the shop frontages, adding mid-block crosswalks in key stretches, and by adding mini plazas, fountains, public art, better bus shelters and street furniture, and so forth.

      1. Broadway should be upgraded to a complete street after subway is complete. This means great walking and cycling infrastructure with protected bike lanes and also protected intersections (i.e no motor vehicle movements cross cycling and pedestrian movements) as now exists at the intersection of Burrard and Cornwall.

  13. In this case I agree with Voony, East of Arbutus there is clear demand for an extension of Skytrain, West not so much. That does not mean we should never build it, the points MB raised are valid, I think we should build it eventually but right now when it is difficult to get funding lets concentrate on the slam dunks, east of Arbutus is a slam dunk, maybe the best bang for buck in Canada…..west of Arbutus not so much. Build a subway to Arbutus now, when it is obvious we need more build it then.

    1. I suppose that’s what will happen in today’s world. But my comments tend more than not to lean toward the long range. I do know from decades in project management that future contracts will always be more expensive, so I am pushing for a view beyond today’s when the world will be a much different place.
      We Canadians are very guilty of having an inferiority complex and doing things by half-measures. Vancouver does seem to be bolder than most other cities, but I really don’t see one more billion breaking the bank when it will pay off for over a century.

      1. One doesn’t build a sustainable city on yesterday’s transit ridership projections. The key is to plan for a frequent, high quality service, then plan the city around it.
        Ideally, we’ll be building walkable communities first, like a village with no transit. But we live in a metropolis where regional concerns mesh intimately with local. Therein public transit is key, and a plethora of transit choices should be available to meet future demand and planning objectives. In the case of Broadway-UBC, the best geometric efficient service option is one subway all the way up. On other arterials it would be BRT, LRT, or the lowly workhorse electric trolley. We need them all.
        The obsession about cost is really quite artificial. Limited funding for transportation is not a concern and never has been. How the funding is divied up is a huge concern. One 3.5 billion dollar subway is “unaffordable” to the region while TWO 3.5 billion dollar over-designed bridges with perpetual low use are acceptable. Transit in the Metro captures half its operating cost on average the fare box (it’s likely a lot higher with SkyTrain). Roads do not. Today’s capital cost is unfairly isolated from the operating costs over the life of the asset. The per capita capital + operating costs combined of Metro transit over the full life cycle are really very nominal. There are funding options that have yet to be explored more widely, such as a surcharge on transit-oriented-development area footage.
        To continually nitpick over capital cost and mode is demeaning because, for one, that doesn’t occur with Autotopia which consumes a stratospheric level of public resources. It’s so big it’s invisible. It’s so ubiquitous it makes transit stick out like a red dress at a mass wedding. Transit is given crumbs here, and that has to change if we are to address the big issues of the day at the local and regional level.
        Regarding short-reversing the trains to meet demand, just put one of these at both ends of a station box …..
        ….. and you can isolate one or more segments of a line for more frequent service with fewer through trains to the termini. It’s better to build this kind of service flexibility into the complete asset than to not complete the asset at all.

    2. Yes West Kits, Point Grey…could absorb much more density (however not unlike Jericho lands, and as reminded by David, that could generate traffic essentially in the opposite direction filling empty seat, hence not significantly challenging the current peak ridership assumption )…
      That said, Translink needs also to base its ridership projection on realistic assumptions. The fact is, that put aside the specificities of the Cambie corridor,and other former brown field (Joyce collingwood), in 30 years of history, it has been no precedent of residential neighborood going thru intense densification with the advent of a rapid transit line. Even at Commercial#Broadway the city has so far, largely failed at capitalizing on this transit node. So the probablility that things could be drastically different West of Arbutus is very low
      However, whether we are proven wrong in the long term, the opportunity to expand the subway West of Arbutus should be effectively still there (at least it is reasonnable to request to keep double tracking up to the last station and other technicalities preserving the option)…but for the time being as I have mentioned before there is many other transit project which apriori can offer a much better return on investment…and even with 50% of federal money, the money tree doesn’t climb to the sky…

  14. the cost of UBC skytrain would be much less if it went Skytrain from VCC clark to Main street then cut & cover to 4th & Cambie then skytrain to along CPR line to arbutus & cut & cover along 8th .

    1. Counting increased property taxes and PST/GST alone a subway tunnel is essentially free as it last 200+ years .. see London where they built the first subway 150+ years ago. Unclear why this common sense investment wasn’t made in the 1980’s .. and while we are still debating it most likely in the 2020’s ?
      The CPR line would be a nice second southbound subway with a bike/ped path on top, once sufficient density in Kerrisdale warrants it to connect with the UBC loop along 41st Ave to Burnaby connecting with SkyTrain, maybe 2050 !

    2. An expensive rapid transit that serves more riders can have a better return on investment than a cheaper line that serves fewer riders. In this case there will be so many more riders on Broadway versus the CPR right of way that any savings in construction are lost in a return on investment. We build rapid transit to serve riders, not to just build a line. For instance I am sure we could build a really cheap line outside of Clinton but obviously no matter how cheap it is we won’t get a good return on investment. Same with a line on the CPR right of way, it misses way more existing ridership than Broadway….and because the catchment area is limited by False Creek it will always have fewer potential users.

  15. 1) using pedestrian tunnels from stations to Broadway would be a small inconvenience compared to the billion $ ( ?) saving that could be used for for other projects 2) It could be part of a future downtown west line that will be needed when expo & RAV lines reach capacity

    1. From the CPR right of way to Broadway I get 500m at Cambie, 600m at Granville and 1km at Burrard. So for high quality transit (seperate right of way, 100% signal priority) it is still within the walkable envelope but barely and certainly a lot of people won’t….but of course you won’t get many people from South of 10th. A line on Broadway gets ALL the people a line on the CPR gets plus the people who won’t walk 600m to their stop plus all the people south of 10th including more bus transfers because they don’t need to go the extra distance and traffic lights. Plus those working at the hospitals…The CPR right of way is just too close to False Creek, it cuts of 1/2 the potential ridership.
      On a related note the CPR route won’t save billions since it is 3 billion for Broadway to UBC and even built as LRT a route on the CPR with decent frequencies will still cost close to 100 million per km. A lot of these costs/benefits have been analyzed in the Broadway corridor study, it is worth a read.

  16. (1) CPR between Pine & Burrard is 3 easy blocks to Broadway . At Cambie there is the Canada line. At Oak it would need a pedestrian tunnel for an easy walk to both VGH & Broadway.(2) A portion of the cost could be recovered from selling density above the skytrain between Cambie & Burrard (3) I understood the 3 billion is to Arbutus not UBC. I hope i am wrong on that one. (4) the CPR claim their line is worth $ 100,000,000 the city figure is $20,000,000 does anyone have the BC assessment number ?

    1. Oops , I thought the right of way was by the brewery at Burrard. Note it is still 300m up a steep hill to Broadway at Oak and greater than 400m to the hospital…as opposed to being right there… I would hope part of the costs could be captured through selling density, but that is actually easier on Broadway where you can sell density on both sides. The 3 billion is to UBC, 1.9 billion to Arbutus. Since the CPR is zoned transportation the value of the land is probably closer to the 20 million mark (only likely buyer is Vancouver), but elevated skytrain will still be more than 100 million/km….and even LRT won’t be much less than 100 million/km. For LRT here you need a very large parcel of land for operations and maintenance in one of Canadas’ most expensive real estate. I bet the operations and maintenance for LRT here goes for more than 100 million alone.

    2. While distinctly possible to build it seems kind of odd to miss the key destinations of a transit line by almost 400m at Granville, Cambie and Oak.
      The hill is about 30m vertical at Oak(100′), which would seriously limit the usefulness of the train to anyone with a mobility impairment. To build a moving sidewalk and huge escalator and elevator combination would be interesting, but also probably expensive and it likely would still be a 5 to 10 minute transfer.

      1. I lived at the base of that hill for a year and used the buses on Broadway every working day. That hill is a killer even for a (then) young guy.

    3. Bob T., the subway to Arbutus is ~$2B. A line to UBC would be an additional $1.0-1.5B on the same contract, a lot more if the extension is a separate contract decades in the future.
      I believe the density of jobs and residential on Central Broadway already justifies the subway. However, additional revenue and ridership from new density would be a good thing. I also can see a justification for more high density on Broadway between Cambie and Granville, then stepping down further to the west.
      UBC is in its residential and research facility infancy and will always be developing its large land base beyond the central campus and Pacific Spirit Park.

  17. urbinflux An escalator up Oak street to Broadway (1) This section of Oak street is not needed for a road so it can be sold it for residential & office development with an escalator as condition of the sale (2) Yes it would take 5 minutes but not many people transfer at at Oak , Its their destination. (3) At $100 million a kilometer the elevated cost to Fir & Broadway is $700 million (before developer contributions). There are other transit projects that need the the $$$ saved. (4) Ending the line at fFir instead of Abutus would add 2 minutes to the train & bus travel time to UBC but how much is 2minutes worth

    1. I kinda like this idea … if Curtiba can build escalators in the Favelas, we should be able to do them here! (just don’t use the same supplier as at Main Street Skytrain – so far they’re at about 30% downtime!)

    2. An elevator would be the harder thing to make, unless a funicular style elevator was built. That hasn’t worked out very well for NYC though.
      On the upside, this would also be a great piece of cycling infrastructure if it was outside the fair paid zone.

  18. Oak street station could be at same elevation as 7th ave with a level walkway to an escalator at 7th up to 8th then another to north side of broadway & possibly a tunnel to a south escalator

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *