paulhillsdon.com

I recently attended a “limited” public forum with about 60-80 other stakeholders from the region helping TransLink to develop their strategy for the next 30 year regional transportation plan: Transport 2040. Let me be clear however, that this was a very broad look at the transport system, and they attempted to avoid any specifics. It was a deliberate attempt to form 7 main strategies for the new plan, and then, perhaps, some more particular policies that could reinforce these strategies. Yes, it was very, technospeak (aka: public relations picky-wording).

To begin, I will link you to two important documents that we were given at the forum. There is a backgrounder, and a discussion guide. I have absolutely no idea why these are not currently public on their website (they should be! TransLink isn’t even private yet and they hold back this info!).

The main outline of the Transport 2040 plan revolves around 7 strategies. The ones proposed by TransLink, which were discussed at the forum, are as follows:

1. Use our assets to their fullest potential and keep them in a state of good repair.
2. Strategically expand the supply of transportation to provide real alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel.
3. Minimize environmental impact of transportation.
4. Build and operate a safe, secure and accessible transportation system.
5. Secure funding that is stable and predictable, and that influences transportation choices.
6. Implement and manage transit investment in ways that encourage development of communities that are designed for transit, cycling and walking.
7. Work collaboratively with other transportation and planning agencies and stakeholders in the Lower Mainland.

When I first arrived, it struck me how many suits there were in the room. Obviously, TransLink is more than just transit, as it’s mandate covers the whole regional *transportation* system. However, it was funny overhearing the “business” people talk about taking the SkyTrain downtown, as if it was something they rarely ever did. Frankly, SkyTrain is a very attractive rapid transit system that everybody in the region, even politicians and business people, should be using.

The concept of a “limited” public forum was odd to me. It seems like TransLink invited organizations with whom they have a good relationship (aka: BEST, Gateway Council, Vancouver Board of Trade, etc.). This was very upsetting to me. I mean, first of all, they seem to be rushing through this whole 30 year plan development process, trying to complete it all in less than 3 months. Not that it’s impossible, but it seems very rushed for something so important for the future. Furthermore, the public is not at all informed that the development of this new plan is even going on, let alone allowing them to have a voice in it.

However, it wasn’t all doom and gloom. As things got going, people began to participate, and the mood was very Canadian. While there was a number of strong positions on certain topics, people were not as polarized as I would have expected. The business people rarely mentioned Gateway, and continued to show much support for environmental protections and vastly expanded, and efficient transit. The transit and eco people, while tending to knock Gateway at every chance, ensured that roads were still very much a vital part of the economy and of the transportation system as a whole. The amount of symbiosis on the many struggles and suggestions for improvement of the transport system was very surprising to me.

Throughout the discussions, everyone, from the cyclists, to the TransLink staff, to the business leaders seem to be on the sustainable bandwagon, specifically using the term “sustainability” over and over. I wonder though how many fully understand the very deep and complex values that real sustainability entails with it.

Also, when we went into each of the seven strategies, reuse of the old Interurban route throughout the Valley for rail transit continued to be brought up time and time again. Many times by John Buker, of Rail for the Valley, but also from business people from the South of Fraser, like Peter Holt. It’s obvious that many people support the revival of the Interurban, and understand the benefits such a line could bring to the region. Unfortunately, TransLink hasn’t been very receptive to the idea so far, so I’m not sure how much help it did talking about it at the forum.

There was also a very resounding underlying thought throughout the forum that congestion pricing needed to be looked at as a new funding source. Basically, it’s an idea whose time has come. People wanted TransLink to do a comprehensive review of congestion pricing options, from bridge tolling, to distance charges, to emissions charges, etc. and develop a long term strategy for the implementation of the recommendations.

There were many other intriguing tidbits that I noted throughout the day. Some range from suggested improvements, project, and policies, to general comments. The list is long, so beware!

• New thinking on choice of travel, mode, time
• Dedicated transport corridors for personal travel, goods movement, etc.
• Industrial Land Reserve
• “User pay” and other traffic demand management strategies
• The good investment/return rate of Intelligent Transportation Systems
• The issue of aging infrastructure
• Increasing/diversifying modal choice
• Transport’s strong connection to land use
• Developing a 5 year plan for capital projects with rolling schedule
• Develop/expand/secure greenspace & agricultural reserves
• The need for affordable, mixed housing
• Increase in local job creation
• The problem of senior governments principles conflicting with local governments
• Reducing the amount of municipal governments
• Make the LRSP binding to all Metro Vancouver municipalities
• “Gateway” Land Reserve (aka: Industrial Land Reserve)
• Increase densification along transit corridors
• Creation of buffer zones between Industrial/”Gateway” areas & local communities
• Government funding holistically - not one project at a time, timed for elections
• Problem of converting commercial and industrial lands to residential (i.e. in Downtown, along SkyTrain routes)
• Creation of unfragmented/continuous greenspace
• Better transit outside the Growth Concentration Area
• Ensuring affordable transit
• Transport system offering community spaces
• More inclusive process (i.e. more public forums)
• Stable planning, financing, governance
• Protection of transport corridors
• “Green” transit, using alternate energy sources than gasoline
• Fixing the grid road network in the region
• New town centres growing into second Downtown/taking over Downtown
• Mitigation efforts for future earthquake
• Environmental consultation on all developments
• Road/Transport pricing strategy (supported by the BC Chambers of Commerce)
• 37% of population immigrants
• 83% service sector workforce
• Travel patterns changing from hub and spoke to pick and sticks
• Climate change affecting infrastructure design life and service reliability
• Accessibility big issue in future when 25% of people will be over 65
• Frequent service most important. Fit size of vehicles around demand, but keep steady frequency at a high rate throughout the day and night
• Remove property tax from funding schemes
• Do not rely on gas tax, because funding will decrease as people shift out of cars, or to other fuels
• Reintroduce parking levy
• Look at transportation demand management, or carbon tax
• Senior governments need to invest in transportation
• Create a diverse list of funding sources
• In Abbotsford, local businesses are paying for sidewalks and cycling lanes, understanding their impact on livability and on the overall health of the local economy
• Market a “transit lifestyle”, in particular to youth
• There was no representative on site from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, despite TransLink’s Transport 2040 *having* to fit the growth goals of the provincial governments (aka: accepting Gateway)
• More public forums!
• New governance structure though out backwards. Decided on new structure, funding then did 30 year plan, versus other way around
• Very risky aftereffects yet to be seen from P3s (public private partnerships. aka: Canada Line, Port Mann twinning). Investments made by private corporations will limit the control and flexibility on local governments on how to use these services. i.e. tolls from new Port Mann would go to private corp, instead of back to TransLink to fund transit initiatives
• Road diets

If there was one thing that annoyed me most, it was the lack of true public awareness and input on this plan. They said it will be made available on their site in November, but we will see…

For your information, we were all seated inside the large roundroom at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue. Most of the seats were filled. Each strategy had discussion on it from 10-15 minutes, and people were allowed to voice their opinions. However, as time was limited, sometimes those who wanted to talk were not able to. And considering it was such a large room, it was very difficult to do any real creative brainstorming with one another, not to mention rather scary for those who aren’t great ay public speaking in front of big crowds (who isn’t?!). A number of the organizations invited were allowed to submit their own specific ideas as well to TransLink, and they each did a short 5 minute summary of their proposals to the larger group.

Your thoughts?

Thursday, November 1st

Stephen Harper annoys me. He has this very unstable control issue, limiting the information and the language that is released from his government to the media. And not just that, but he has completely tainted Canada’s international reputation: half pulling out of Kyoto, continuing to fight in Afghanistan… By refusing to move this country forward, we have been lambassed by the UN for our lack of action on both indigenous rights and homelessness. Canada is no longer the Canada I once knew, and a lot of that is due to Stephen Harper.

But if there’s one thing worse than Harper, it’s my personal frustration towards Stephane Dion. Ever since the leadership convention, Dion has become a political toy, and lacky for the Liberals. He has become incompotent and his opinions no longer matter. By refusing to be a strong opposition and control the agenda, as Harper strategically did in the last election, Dion is letting the Conservatives destroy Canada. And they aren’t even a majority government yet!

Dion is absolutely despicable. He whined and complained about the throne speech, but wasn’t willing to actually stand up to it, because his pollsters say he wouldn’t win a minority government. Obviously not when he’s so bloody indecisive. Make a decision and stick with it. Either be the opposition leader Canada needs or get out.

The media made a fake fuss out of Canadians not wanting an election. Just like they are making “news” out of immigrants rights. Fuck the media - they don’t know shit. Learn to play the media. People can take less than an hour of their day to make one of the most important acts of democracy and freedom in our world. If Canadians don’t understand the concept behind such a *simple* act, then there’s something deeply wrong in this country.

Stupid Dion. He needs to be bold. He needs to bring the media’s focus back to what matters to Canadians; to what we need to do to regain our status as the best country in the world. The Greens know what it takes - they just don’t have the support, due to many different factors, include an antiquated electoral system. If Dion was smart, he would capitalize on the power of the Liberal party to initiate real, important change.

Jack Layton was once bold. Till he started playing political games with the Tories to kill the Liberals. And then he started spouting off on bank charges. That is not the responsibility of the federal government. There’s bigger things going on in the world than minimal surcharges.

People want bold leaders with true visions. Leaders that are willing to stick up for their ideas and not simply bend and twist for the political machine. Sam Sullivan is not a bold leader. Dianne Watts is not a bold leader. Carole James definitely is not a bold leader.

Where the f**k are the leaders?!

There’s a reason Pierre Trudeau, despite his tumultuous actions, is remember as one of the best and most important Prime Ministers in the history of Canada.

Who else wants the next Trudeau?

A couple months ago, Surrey was awarded with the official designation as one of the 2008 Cultural Capitals of Canada. The program, funded by the federal government, granted the City of Surrey $2 million worth of funding to support arts and cultural programs and festivals for the community. Well, now, the City has come up with an outline of how it plans to spend that money, and I was pleasantly surprised for once at the exciting, though quiet and lowkey, announcement. The plan includes:

• Surrey “Fusion Festival” - a three day multicultural celebration of Surrey’s diversity
• Six public art projects. One in each of the city’s town centres
• Green Timbers Forest Interpretation Centre
• “Harvest the Fun”, an international dance competition featuring Indian, Asian and Western dance
• “Glocal: Me and My World”, a youth and new media initiative
• Kla-How-Eya Canoe, a 30-foot traditional Coast Salish canoe and educational program
• Civic Treasures Award Program, recognizing 12 cultural leaders for their contributions to Surrey’s cultural development
• Inspired Ideas Speakers Series, a lecture and community dialogue series on art and culture

For more detailed information of each specific event, please visit this site. The City is holding an initial public meeting this Thursday, October 25th from 7pm to 8pm at the Surrey Arts Centre in Bear Creek Park to get your feedback on the proposals. I highly encourage anyone interested, whether you are from Surrey or the larger region, to drop in, or send the city an email, supporting these fantastic initiatives which I’m quite keenly looking forward to. It’s these types of community events and programs which will transform Surrey from it’s rural, suburban roots into an urban metropolis like Vancouver.

I’ve been periodically placing together this document together for a while now. I started early this year, and have yet to publicly release it cause it feels unfinished or dated to me. However, I’m just not motivated enough to fix it, so here it is.

The 40-paged document outlines many of the current transit problems South of the Fraser, and presents many cheap, short term investments that would dramatically improve the system. It may seem like a feat to push through the whole thing, but I think it’s worth it, and that it’s a pretty “tight” document, all things considered.

Click here to download the PDF.

It’s said many a time that Vancouver is a highway-free area, which, to put it frankly, is a large misrepresentation. Maybe the City of Vancouver itself was successful in avoiding the construction of “major” highways (mind you, it still has some very wide, auto-oriented roads *cough* Marine Drive *cough* Pacific Boulevard *cough*), but in the regional viewpoint, everyone knows that highways are a fact of life. It is rather unfortunate to have large cuts of freeway going right through cities like Burnaby, North Vancouver, or Surrey, but we’ve managed to live. People need to get around, from one edge of Metro Vancouver to the other, and, I guess, arterials just don’t cut it.

The one thing we were relatively successful at, up until recently, was keeping the highways a good distance from urban areas. A good portion of Highway 1 is surrounded by greenery, providing a reasonable noise and “ugliness” barrier from the municipalities, while also making for something of a scenic drive.

This is the key concept though. If we have to have highways, let’s keep them away from our homes and lives. The government achieved this goal excellently with both Highway 99 and 91. The current Highway 99, which splits right through the ALR, around Richmond, and connects to Vancouver’s road network, was built in 1962, replacing the former stretch through Surrey along King George Highway, 10th Ave in New West, and Kingsway. The old passage is now Highway 99A, an alternate route. Highway 91, following similar structure, was built in the late 80’s, outside of Delta, through the ALR and splitting Burns Bog.

As I said before, those two Highways are perfect examples of where “the highway” works. It’s surrounded by protected green space, far enough away from people’s immediate lives, while still providing access to a high speed roadway network for regional commutes.

Unfortunately, things don’t always turn out the right way.

First, all the construction around Highway 1. This is visible most apparently near the 200th St interchange in Langley Township. The south side has a number of industrial complexes just sprouting up, while the north side has huge big box retailers. It’s worse though, because, in fact, there’s even new storage facility warehouses right in the middle of the interchange! This is the worst kind of development, not only making for a terrible living area for people, but also encouraging urban sprawl and congestion of the Highway. Also, it’s just plain ugly. We should not be having any type of development along the Highway corridor, and heck, at least Abbotsford and West Vancouver pulled it off not too badly, where commercial enterprises are close, but they don’t necessarily dominate the scene. A Highway is for commuting, not for the core of a community.

I wrote this huge spiel because I absolutely despise what the current provincial government has funded and built, with respect to highways, and no I’m not talking about Gateway. I’ve told you I don’t have a problem with them per se, they just need to be separated from urban life. So, when I discover the original layouts of the future transportation network in Transport 2021, compared to what’s currently being constructed, my blood just boils. There’s a number of projects that they’ve screwed up, and I’m not particularly sure why.

The two that touch home the most are the expansions of Highway 10 and Highway 15 (176 St.) as part of the Border Infrastructure Program. As far as I can remember, Highway 10, which should’ve never really been called a Highway since it used to be not much more than a bumpy old road for most of it’s stretch, never had many trucks. Neither did 176 St (which, oddly enough, had more trucks than Hwy 10, but is most commonly referred to as a street rather than a Highway). The interesting thing is, according to plans in Transport 2021, the GVRD called for the development of an East-West connector from Tsawwassen, along Highway 99, through Surrey and Langley to the new Fraser River crossing (aka: the Golden Ears Bridge), that was to pass through, mainly, the ALR. It would’ve avoided going through almost any urban living area.

What happened though is they expanded both 176 St and Highway 10. I don’t know if they cheaped out, or something, but it was a really stupid idea. 176 St splits Cloverdale right in half, and isn’t exactly the most pedestrian friendly type of road to have in the middle of your community. In fact, there have been many calls for an overpass because hundreds of high school students have to cross the Highway to get to Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary everyday. It gets worse though: because of the increased air and noise pollution, they erected this big, old, ugly wall along the Highway, separating the road from the residential houses right beside it.

A similar situation is occurring along Highway 10. They’ve put up these huge walls along the route. But, it creates something of a conundrum since Surrey City Council continues to push forward developments along both sides of the Highway! I mean, it would make reasonable sense to have a wall if urban living ended just north of the Highway, but they keep accepting development that is forcing a detrimental urban design on future residents. Instead of splitting an existing community in half, they are creating one!

There’s a few other projects that have been altered throughout the years that just get to me. The new Fraser River crossing, for example, was to connect Langley to Maple Ridge. Well, the original alignment would’ve had you cross directly into the Maple Ridge town centre. The alignment they are building right now though, has you cross into the outskirts of Maple Ridge, basically right between it and Pitt Meadows. Which, isn’t very supportive of transit, for sure, seeing as the routes will have to turn to Maple Ridge, then double back eastwards. I’m sure there’s a similar argument for goods movement as well.

Or, take the Queensborough Bridge. I’m not exactly sure why it was built in the first place - instead of the Highway going directly straight up to connect with Marine Drive, it does this weird detour through Annacis Island. Again, in the Transport 2021 document, it was proposed that this more direct connection would be built just north of the interchange with the Highway 99 Richmond connector. Instead, for some odd reason, they’ve continued to expand this small stretch of road through the Island, which constantly sees backups during rush hour.

What the hell is wrong with the Provincial Liberals? Do they not read up on their history? Do they not care about the plans our own region put forth? Are they just cheap? What is going on?!

Rebecca recently wrote a short post about Surrey and it’s old moniker as the City of Parks. I’m quite supportive of the move to update Surrey’s motto (and logo), in particular because I do not believe the city is worth of labeling itself a “City of Parks”. Not only does it imply the city has many parks, which is up for debate, but it also suggests that the city is green, and trust me, Surrey is anything but green.

When I first heard that the whole point of the LRSP was for the region to be a series of town centres in a “sea of green”, I couldn’t help but laugh. Sure, there may be good number of stand alone trees, a few urban parks, and a few untouched nature reserves, but overall, I would not classify this area as a “sea of green”. It’s more like a few patchy parks in a sea of grey buildings.

A “sea of green” doesn’t matter if it isn’t within close reach to people. Maybe that’s why Downtown is the closest model to a success - because the higher density allows more people to take up less land, which is then available for recreational use. The parks there are close and are in constant use. When everything is sprawled out, people end up farther from nature.

Surrey has never been worthy of the “City of Parks” designation. It boasts about it’s 500 parks, and expansive trail system. Psht. It’s all marketing. If you ask me, just from a quick look at Google Maps, two other cities are more deserving of the title.  Burnaby has Burnaby Lake Regional Park, Deer Lake, and Burnaby Mountain, all taking up significant area in the city, not to mention the large Central Park. Vancouver has it beat though, with it’s numerous golf courses and the protected UBC lands making up a huge biotope along the south east side of the city - plus it’s also got QE Park and the crown jewel that is Stanley Park.

What makes the situation worse in Surrey is that is continues to pave over large swaths of old age forest for townhomes. I just don’t understand why council accepts the proposals! They should be acting for the betterment of the city, not to increase the tax base (which, by the way, is only there to support city services for the residents!). I don’t have a problem with the redevelopment of large exurban properties, but there is something wrong with knocking down what amounts to be an “unprotected” Green Timbers.

I understand the whole tree by-law issue, and yes, they are replacing trees at a higher than 1:1 ratio. That’s not what gets me. It’s that, for naming itself the “City of Parks”, I have to drive to get to one. How’s that for irony? Or if I want to walk 30 minutes to one, I need to cross a highway, bordered with a large wall to reduce residential noise concerns.

Surrey has a bylaw that states there should be 10.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. That means that Surrey could grow by  180,000 residents before they would even hit the wall on that bylaw. The problem with such a bylaw is that it fails to recognize the need for all people to be within a short distance from nature. The current bylaw would basically allow for a huge park in the corner of the city, while the rest is paved over with construction.

Surrey is at a vital time in it’s young life as a city. Doug McCallum didn’t do many wonders for the city, and Dianne Watts, as balanced as she is, is something of a jack of all trades, not really able to successfully pull off any one thing with flying colours. Before all the usable land is built on, can the city at least do a few things to improve the green situation? Not only will the politicians get some street cred with the environmentalists - heck, their lives might be healthier in the long run as well. My suggestions:

1. Update the park bylaw requiring a certain amount of parkland be within a reasonable walking distance from any developed land (say, 800 m or so). This will allow for green space to be accessible to all people, no matter the density, but will also tighten up the amount of land that is developable and thus encourage higher density to shoot up.
2. Update the park bylaw requiring at least 60% of parkland be in it’s natural state, while 40% can be designed for recreational use.
3. Partner with Metro Vancouver to establish regional guidelines for the preservation of green space, while also establishing a means of cost sharing the purchase of properties to secure said green space when necessary.
4. Create a city-wide plan, with supportive laws in place, to develop a network of parks (or biotopes) - in effect, a true sea of green. This is accompanied by a greenway/trail network for public recreation.

So, that “major” transit announcement we’ve been hearing about for a bit now… Well, turned out to be nothing more than a signed promise that the Province would provide $180 million to put “Rapid Bus” service on the new HOV lanes on the expanded Highway 1. Yup, six years down the line, once construction is finally over, south of Fraser residents will be able to hop on a “Rapid Bus” every 10-15 minutes to get to Lougheed Station.

Yipee.

Not.

I don’t even know how anyone could be mildly excited about this. It’s a slap in the face to both Anti-Gateway personnel, and to transit advocates south of the Fraser.

The places we wanted *at least* Rapid Bus service (King George, Fraser Highway, 200th), we don’t get. Instead they throw an express coach on the Highway, where nobody lives.

I find it particularly amusing how they put Park and Rides in the plan. Who the fuck would “park and ride” to take a Rapid Bus, then have to transfer to another rapid transit service, cause god knows nobody’s final destination is Lougheed Station. Plus, this’ll be when the new bridge is in, meaning the traffic, supposedly, won’t be nearly as bad. There’s absolutely no incentive to take the transit, especially when it’ll be more expensive than paying the bridge toll.

Okay, let’s say somebody from Langley wants to go to Coquitlam Centre. They could drive to the park and ride, wait 15 minutes for a bus, take the bus for 25 minutes, then, assuming the Evergreen Line is built by this time, transfer to that service, and ride for another 25 minutes. Or, they could just drive the whole way, which, according to Google Maps, currently only takes 20 minutes total.

The whole setup completely screws up Surrey. Currently, almost all buses are routed to end at Surrey Central Station, assuming everyone’s headed to Vancouver via SkyTrain. Well, the new “Rapid Bus” service won’t actually go to Surrey Central, nope. Not even to the Guildford bus exchange, just a few minutes off the highway. They are building a whole new bus exchange at 156 St. So, somebody from Newton or Fleetwood will have to bus to Surrey Central, transfer to a bus to the new exchange, transfer to the “Rapid Bus” service, then transfer again at Lougheed to their final destination. Nobody enjoys transfers. One is acceptable, two is doable, but more and you’ve gone overboard.

Looking at the route, it seems like the provincial government has tried to fit two routes into one. Now let me explain this.

It makes sense to have a “Rapid Bus” service leave from Surrey Central, thru Guildford, across the bridge, and then head to either Coquitlam Centre or to Lougheed Station.

Then, have a separate service for Langolians, departing either from Langley Centre up 200th, or from Walnut Grove bus exchange, and either go down Highway 1, or across the Golden Ears Bridge. If it went across the Golden Ears, which it should, they would either end it in Maple Ridge to force riders onto the “premium” West Coast Express, or the bus could continue west across the new Pitt River bridge and into Coquitlam. It’s important to understand where people are and where they are going to fully plan this stuff. If more people from Langley want to go to Surrey, it would make sense to go down Highway 1, with a stop at Guildford. If more people wanted to go just to Coquitlam or Vancouver, then across the Golden Ears bridge it would be.

Anyways, terrible announcement all around. I do find it particularly intriguing how the Province is trying to include the service as part of the Gateway Program, meaning that perhaps they are bowing somewhat to public pressure, and trying to remarket the plan as “balanced” and slightly “greener”. The announcement isn’t actually new - they’ve promised Rapid Transit all along. It was just always “sometime in the future”. Now, they’ve signed an agreement saying it will be coming for sure, that’s the only difference. It’s ridiculous, and unacceptable.

The Vancouver Foundations’ Vital Signs report card on life in the region was released today. It includes grades on 12 categories [in graded order]:

• Arts and Culture: B
• Health and Wellness: B
• Learning: B
• Work: B
• Belonging and Leadership: B-
• Safety: B-
• Environment: C+
• Food: C+
• Getting Started: C
• Getting around: C-
• Gap Between Rich and Poor: D
• Housing: D

A few other notable facts:

• In 2005, 26% of children and youth under 18 years of age in Metro Vancouver lived in households with incomes below the poverty line, a higher percentage than the national rate of 17%.
• An increasing majority of Metro Vancouver residents live in ‘compact neighbourhoods’ of more than 12 people per acre, an increase of 11% in one decade.
• The gap between rich and poor continues to grow in Metro Vancouver; the region has among the highest poverty rates in the country.
• The cost of housing has risen significantly. This, coupled with diminishing available rental stock, makes finding affordable housing a challenge.

Now, I’m not going to get too deep into this. For detailed analysis, you can visit their website. But here’s some of my thoughts:

Surprisingly, Arts and Culture, one of the things it is said that both Canada and Vancouver lack, is the best rated. Apparently, more funding has been going into this realm, and perhaps it is starting to show. Also note that Health is the second-highest rated, despite our high illegal drug use, and the constant media reports on our crumbling healthcare system. Naturally, as Gordon Campbell would love to point out to you, education is going well, and employment is at an all time high. I also find it interesting that Safety gets a B-, especially considering how generally scared most people are of being outside after dark, and all the news about the latest stabbing or shooting: Vancouver is safe people - it’s all perception!

I do find it interesting, however, that transportation is no longer the largest issue in the region: that now belongs to housing. Along with housing is the expanding gap between the rich and poor. The housing issue is particularly evident when I compare the number of renters and owners in Vancouver and in Surrey:

It’s rather obvious I’m quite passionate about transportation, as it is one of the most major issues I face almost daily. Housing, I’ve yet to confront head on, as I still live at home, but I’ll be facing it soon. However, I see no reason for us to stray off the path of being a Livable Region, just cause people at The Sun or The Fraser Institute think the market will solve all.Quote from The Vancouver Sun (link above):

A similar ideological bent infuses the discussion of other categories in the report from housing, to transit, to the environment and to work.

The report calls for affordable housing, but demands protection of the Agricultural Land Reserve, which limits the supply of serviced lots and drives up housing prices. It encourages residents to grow their own food in community gardens, which may provide recreation but has no economic payback.

Quote from The Fraser Institute:

Land-use planners - or dogmatic social engineers as the Fraser Institute likes to refer to them - are to blame for a region “with the least affordable housing and some of the worst traffic congestion in Canada.”

O’Toole points out that surveys show more than 70 per cent of Canadians want to live in a single-family home. But the GVRD’s planners consider such homes undesirable because they tend to be too low in density to support high levels of walking, cycling, and transit riding.

Planners - who must all live in tiny solar-powered apartments near transit - seek to punish people for their desires, punish them with traffic congestion, punish them with unafforadable single family dwellings.

God damn, they just don’t get it, do they? First off, of course these are ramifications of pursuing a livable region, and being just over halfway through the plan. Transportation and housing prices are the two major issues that we must keep pushing for. There’s no doubt in my mind that everyone in this region would call Downtown Vancouver “livable”, and a stunning achievement in urban planning. I also believe, that if affordable for a much larger percent of the population, a majority of the region’s residents would live there.

Frankly, the people don’t understand what they want. Ask them if they want to own their own house, and they’ll say yes. Ask them what their top three priorities are in finding a place to live and they’ll say: price, travel to work, accessibility to services. As has been pointed out in many different articles throughout the years, people try to save money by living in the suburbs and making long trips to work everyday - you end up spending so much time traveling, and spending so much money doing so, the savings is almost negligible.

Transportation is easy to solve. First off, complete the fucking half assed rapid transit system. Make a multi-billion dollar investment, and don’t make the municipalities pay for all this capital investment - it should be the responsibility of the province and the federal government, both awash in yearly surpluses I might add (can somebody say fiscal imbalance?). But this is only half the battle. We need livable regional centres, just like the LRSP is set out to accomplish: places people can live, work and play in. This way, they don’t even need to drive or take transit to far off areas. They can walk to school, or bike to work. This is what we’ve accomplished with Downtown Vancouver, and it’s what we’ve so far failed to completely replicate elsewhere in the region.

Best case is Metrotown, but even that is focused primarily on the mall. Sure, a lot of people work there, and it’s got a real good mix of housing, plus a library and large park nearby, but is it as livable as Downtown? I don’t think so. There’s a huge lack of private businesses, and the area is not really pedestrian-friendly. Plus, the streets are dead at night.

You’ve got condos going up at Surrey Central, Gilmore, Brentwood, Edmonds, New Westminster, etc. This is a long, tedious process. You need to get the residents, then the businesses, then the community services, etc. etc. Downtown is successful because it’s based on the century-old streetcar, grid network, and has been developing modernly for almost 40+ years, since the first medium density buildings went up in the West End. Nowadays, we are just trying to plop down a bunch of walled garden condos around SkyTrain stations, and it’s not working quite as good.

The solution to the housing problem requires us to be able to emulate, improve, and adapt Downtown’s model of success to the regional and municipal town centres. Half the problem is weak politicians refusing to be bold - to turn down bad developments.

Here’s where the market enters. The reason Downtown is so expensive? Everyone wants to live there. Too much demand, not enough supply. Make all the other town centres as livable and what do you get? More supply to reduce the demand. This’ll make Downtown cheaper, while increasing livable centres in the region, and reducing urban sprawl. Housing prices will come down as more supply enters the market - it’s as simple as that. The way to do this is not to ban the single-family home; it’s to make the high density, urban town centre far more attractive than a large, expensive, empty house.

And it already is. At least the model is. It’s suitable for private business owners and corporate ladder people, singles and families, students and seniors. People want less travel, affordability, and access to services. They want business lined streets like Davie and Denman, recreational routes like the Seawall, parks and beaches like English Bay and Stanley Park, community centres and schools like the Roundhouse and King George Secondary. They want frequent transit, walkable streets, and things to do. It’s all in Downtown.

The livable centre strategy solves the problem of seniors living alone, far from aid or services. It solves the problem of families and kids not having safe places to play together. It solves the problem of workers taking 3 hours out of their days to travel back and forth from home. It solves the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions from everyone driving everywhere. It solves the health problem as people are more inclined to walk and bike to and fro. It solves the small business problem as the ground level streets are lined with mixed uses of private and corporate business.

We just need to figure out how best to recreate the Downtown success in our other regional and municipal town centres.