TTC as a landlord...

[vancouverguy_76]

This may be in another thread. Toronto should REALLY be doing this...I know it's been discussed before, but COME ON! I mean expenses are so high for the TTC and funding so limited...it makes sense.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d86c3711-52e3-498d-a283-83cc57adefb2&k=97162

TransLink eyes real estate riches
Randy Shore, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Metro Vancouver's transportation authority is launching a real estate division that could produce up to $1.5 billion in revenue over the next 10 years, modelled on an agency that has reshaped Hong Kong.
Under the plan, enabled by 10-week-old provincial legislation, TransLink will purchase land along new rapid transit routes and around stations and ramp up the value of the land through denser zoning and partnerships with land developers to create high-density commercial and residential developments.
Early estimates of the revenue stream from real estate transactions were in the range of $30 million per year over 10 years, TransLink CEO Pat Jacobsen told The Vancouver Sun's editorial board today.
But new TransLink chairman Dale Parker said he expects to generate four to five times that much.
"That figure is ambitious, but I think we can do it," Parker said.
TransLink has hired Phil Christie as vice-president of real estate to head the new division. Christie has managed publicly owned real estate for the provincial government for more than 25 years.
A great deal of density is going to go in around the SkyTrain stations, Parker said. "We are going to have to benefit from that."
"It means getting involved to a greater degree in real estate development."
Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon has told the new, appointed TransLink board to consider the business model used in Hong Kong in their decision-making processes.
Hong Kong's MTR employed a public-private partnership model to develop skyscrapers around subway stations so successfully that the real estate arm of the public transit system is now a publicly traded company.
With a $14-billion public transit plan just announced by the provincial government to fund, and public anger over property-based levies to fund operations, the board's need for a substantial revenue source couldn't be more pressing.
Under the provincial plan, which includes three rapid transit lines - the Canada Line, the Evergreen Line in the northeast, and a Broadway line west of Commercial Drive - about 1,000 new buses and a third SeaBus, TransLink is expected to pay $2.75 billion in capital costs while it expands bus service in the Fraser Valley.
Parker admitted that opportunities to generate real estate revenue on the Canada Line were missed and that the Evergreen Line will be the first real opportunity to leverage the value that rapid transit creates in any meaningful way.
Before this year, TransLink was legally empowered only to buy the land necessary for SkyTrain operations. Under new legislation, TransLink can now buy land around stations and along the right of way.
"It will take a lot of discussion with the municipalities, but the signals that we are getting from the mayors is that they know a lot of density is going to come with the line," Parker explained.
The scheme will fast-track high-density nodes in residential neighbourhoods along new rapid-transit routes, likely adding fuel to already raucous public hearings over proposed track alignments and station locations.
But Parker said that without revenue from real estate, building the rapid transit lines "will probably not be a top priority."
To build three rapid transit lines in a decade, TransLink will need to secure high-density zoning from municipalities to feed ridership and create opportunities to profit from the real estate appreciation, Jacobsen explained.
To acquire the land cheaply and beat out developers and speculators, TransLink will have early discussions about alignments and station locations and then quickly and quietly buy the land where stations are to be built.
Some of TransLink's real estate holdings may have to be sold to finance land purchases, Parker said. Translink owns land at Oakridge and False Creek in Vancouver as well as park-and-ride lots in other municipalities.
"Once you monetize those properties, you can invest in a station and the surrounding area," Parker said.
TransLink is likely to secure its first private-sector development partners within three months, he said.


© Vancouver Sun

 

[RedRocket191]

There are many who argue that the government should only do what it's good at: Governing.

We tend to call those people conservatives.

However, if we are ever to achieve the densities we need to make transit viable, we have to have developers who are willing to build transit-supportive development, especially in the suburbs.

Maybe you can do that though the planning process, but Hong Kong is an example, as the article points out, of a place where the transit authority has gone down this road. No one would argue that Hong Kong has transit supportive development.

 

[TO City of Light]

Another Aspect Of Ttc As Landlord

Certainly allowing transit authorities to benefit more directly from the often massive real estate gains they create is an idea long overdue and is a demonstrated success in places like Hong Kong.

Another feature of mass transit in many cities, of course, is the development of stations as small scale shopping areas. In many of the Asian systems, the stations, interchanges and street fronts of stations are given over to various types of small businesses - and more than news agencies.

Obviously the range of retail outlets is limited but bookshops, cafes, mobile phones, dry cleaners, ATMs, CD/DVDs, 7-11s, etc. all seem to do well - generating revenue for the transit authorities, providing convenience for passengers and creating some life and colour in otherwise often drab and empty spaces.

Shops are not located on platforms, generally operate only during the business day and rush ours, and making it work would require a certain degree of civilized behavior by customers, e.g. no tuna sandwiches splattered all over platforms, train interiors, etc. It is, unfortunately, this last criteria that might be the "deal breaker" in TO. It is hard to think of a subway/metro system elsewhere that is treated with as little respect as some of the station entrances and subway cars would indicate.

 

[CityPlaceN1]

Wouldn't there be legal issues with this? My land gets expropriated and the next day they rezone and make a windfall off of it? I certainly wouldn't be happy about that.

 

[billonlogan]

, but Hong Kong is an example, as the article points out, of a place where the transit authority has gone down this road. No one would argue that Hong Kong has transit supportive development.

You can't compare Toronto to Hong Kong. The population density in HK is easily 17,000 per/km compared to TO's 4,000 per/km. Those numbers alone makes it an easy argument for transit supportive development in HK. Toronto is a typical north american city, dense inner core, but density lessens as you move out to the suburbs.

 

[urbanfan89]

You can't really compare Toronto to HK, since HK has no transit authority of any kind, and the rail system is run by a for-profit private company. It's almost like how the streetcar companies of 100 years ago developed land around the streetcar lines. The best we could hope for is for municipalities to zone to allow higher densities along transit corridors and let the market decide (plus my scaled parking tax idea).

Toronto is a typical north american city, dense inner core, but density lessens as you move out to the suburbs.

We're more like dense downtown core with pockets of highrises clustered around shopping malls (e.g. MCC, STC, Bramalea, Sherway Gardens, Vaughan Mills), and our suburbia is contiguous unlike those of LA or Atlanta. Our population densities are much denser than any other metropolitan area in North America aside from Montreal, and are higher than Stockholm or even Copenhagen. Thus, we certainly have population necessary to sustain a well-used web of rail lines. The problem is political will.

Canada is in many ways a cross between the US and Europe, but in the aspect of transit planning we have the worse of both.

 

[RedRocket191]

You can't compare Toronto to Hong Kong. The population density in HK is easily 17,000 per/km compared to TO's 4,000 per/km. Those numbers alone makes it an easy argument for transit supportive development in HK. Toronto is a typical north american city, dense inner core, but density lessens as you move out to the suburbs.

I don't think I compared Hong Kong to Toronto, but I get what you're saying. There is expertise in the private sector, and we can accomplish the same thing with them buying land at market value and redeveloping in.

The question is: Is the private sector willing to do that and build what we want them to build?

 

[vancouverguy_76]

The question is: Is the private sector willing to do that and build what we want them to build?

It could be possible...if newly-granted city powers provide for greater planning control, and density is profitable enough for developers, it might just work. My understanding is the new Portlands provide design guidelines for which developer (s) would adhere? I would hope the same would happen with potential TTC-proximate developments

I'd argue this is less Toronto vs. Hong Kong, and more Vancouver, since Vancouver is the city instigating new transit-area upzoning and developments.

By the way everyone, I'm in Vancouver but planning to move back to Toronto again in a few years...thus my continued interest in Toronto issues