paulhillsdon.com

Been doing some studying on restoring rail service to the Interurban. I see its long term value as a commuter rail route that will facilitate far better movement between towns and city cores in the Valley, but still enabling long distance travel east to Chilliwack or west to Vancouver. The advantage of standard at-grade rail has always been its flexibility and cheap price, so I don’t like the idea of immediately making it into an LRT system. Besides, LRT is more suited for an urban setting with high densities - something that, truthfully, isn’t the strengths of most communities along the Interurban’s route (as compared to other areas of the Valley).

In any case, there are many arguments against restoring service, from cost to population density to competition with planned BRT routes - however, these are obviously excuses. If there’s the political will to get something done, it will get done.

As of this moment, at my current understanding of the problem, there’s a few things going on.

1. The FVHRS is restoring an original Interurban vehicle to run as a historic/tourist train between Cloverdale and Sullivan. They are years behind schedule, and won’t likely be done the restoration until late 2009.
2. TransLink does not support restoring rail service on the route because it cannibalizes its current transit expansion plans for the Valley. All public transport must be either run, or have the approval, of TransLink.
3. As much as it would like to bring rail back, the City of Surrey does not have the capital funds to upgrade the route for, even community, rail service - let alone a real, strong, regional transit connection. Thus it is pursuing partnerships, and providing limited funding, to help FVHRS get it’s historic/tourism train off the ground.
4. The federal government is doing a review of allowing passenger service along national rail corridors that could impact any rail revival attempts.

So, what is the estimated cost to bring back the Interurban?

Well, according to the UMA Study done for the City of Surrey:

…operating an accessible, modern Community Rail service every 20 minutes during peak weekday periods between the Cloverdale and Scott Road Stations, with a connection to the Scott Road SkyTrain Station on a single track with sidings, with some limited double track sections in the station areas in order to provide accessible service, and a signal and communications system for the corridor. The high order of magnitude cost estimate for this service is projected to have a total capital cost range of approximately $80.0 million (i.e. using British Parry People Mover vehicles) to $110.0 million (i.e. using Talent LRT vehicles) and an annual operating cost of approximately $6.0 million. This is on top of the $9.0 million capital cost sunk for Phase One, noted above bringing the total capital cost for Phase Two range to $90.0 to $120.0 million range.

The capital costs include the following components: right-of-way and grade crossing improvements; passenger stations; adding vehicle storage and maintenance facilities and track access to the maintenance/storage facility at Sullivan Station; modifying some industrial sidings; double tracking the station areas to ensure physical separation of right and passenger services; providing adjacent station parking and pedestrian access improvements;providing new LRT- like vehicles; installing fare revenue collection equipment; and implementing a train communication and signal system to ensure safety of the system.

Course, running peak service is rather retarded. I mean, yes, it will aid a few of us who travel downtown, but it certainly doesn’t help the majority of residents who travel, throughout the day, *in* the South of Fraser area. That’s why I liked the old Interurban timetable I found. Service wasn’t at super high frequencies like that of the SkyTrain, but it was more than peak periods - it was a couple runs throughout the day. And it had specials for the weekends!

According to the UMA Study, Southern Railway currently only runs…

… up to four freight trains daily (two in each direction). One train usually leaves from their New Westminster yard about 4:00 pm or 5:00 pm going eastward and returns westward to New Westminster between 10:00 pm and 12:00 am. Another train leaves the New Westminster yard between midnight and 1:00 am and returns to their New Westminster yard between 6:00 am and 7:00 am depending upon the level of coal/freight traffic moving on the main freight rail service line out of the region.

So, theoretically, there’s no reason we couldn’t run service beyond peak periods. Seems like the busiest times for the route are around 12am. And I can actually testify for this, considering I can hear the train when it runs through Cloverdale, a couple of blocks from where I live.

I truly believe that it’ll take a real pilot project, where people can get on a train and ride it along the route, to really bring the community support out in droves. I suppose that’s kind of what the City of Surrey is trying to do by supporting the FVHRS’ initiatives. However, I have a different idea.

So, based on what we know, here’s the times the tracks are busy:

• 4 pm - 5 pm
• 10 pm - 1 am
• 6 am - 7 am

Now, TransLink already has a commuter rail system - the West Coast Express. It’s my understanding that that service has five actual trains, with god knows how many cars that are attached to each “set”. They are used in peak periods on weekdays only.

So, here’s my proposal:

TransLink should take a West Coast Express train after rush hour Friday night, and plop it down in the railyards in Surrey near the Patullo Bridge. Then, starting from 7 am to 4 pm, run the service, up and down the route.

Theoretically, if it takes about 40 mins from New West to Cloverdale, you could create a timetable that would have the train coming back to each stop, every hour, in an alternate direction. Take a look:

Let the freight go by from 4 to 5, and then put it back on for evening service. Do this all weekend. See how it goes. Watch for the reception it gets.

And you wouldn’t have to spend a penny. Maybe get some wooden step stools to get on and off the train. And make it free. Let families hop on and take the route roundtrip depending on their departure point. Let people take surveys of the service. Have sketches showing what a possible rail system would look like.

We have the train. We have the time. We have the initial agreements from Southern Railway.

Let’s make it happen. Once people see how revolutionary this would be for Surrey, and the possibilities it opens up to the whole Fraser Valley, the campaign to bring back rail will be unstoppable!

Mark Jaccard, leading climate change advisor to the Premier, wrote an oped in the Sun today, where he defended the government’s carbon tax policy - a policy that he has personally pushed for years. 

It gets fun though when he responds to Carole James’ position against the tax:

Third, opposition politicians may mislead the public for their own political ends. Carole James, leader of the B.C. New Democratic Party, wrote in The Sun last week that the carbon tax is unfair and that she would exempt from the tax any person or industry complaining loudly enough, replacing the tax with ineffective subsidies. This saddens me. An honest politician would be telling British Columbians that a carbon tax is essential. Some people will have higher costs no matter where they live and to pretend that one can design a tax so that everyone is treated identically is disingenuous. Our carbon-funded tax cuts will benefit low-income British Columbians, even those living in colder regions.

Climate policy experts told B.C.’s NDP government throughout the 1990s that a carbon tax was essential to reduce emissions. During this time, social democratic governments in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom took the honest and courageous move of implementing carbon taxes. Our NDP government instead used taxpayers’ money to provide subsidies and information programs that had no effect on emissions — just what they were told would happen.

Given these obstacles to politicians doing the right thing, my colleagues at the Global Energy Assessment were surprised by B.C.’s carbon tax — the first in North America. They wanted to know more about our “honest and courageous” political leaders. So I told them about Gordon Campbell, Carole Taylor and Barry Penner. I stayed quiet about Carole James.

So, basically, he says:

We told you what to do in the 90’s, you didn’t listen to us, now you are in opposition, so… STFU! 

Rock on Jaccard!

(Please note, that I am in no way a BC Liberal. It’s just, how can you not want to poke the ineffective NDP when they are down and seemingly never going to get back on their feet?!)

I was at the Surrey Archives today, and while going through a *ton* of documents, I came across an old timetable from the BC Electric Railway’s Interurban Line. Here’s a quick rundown of what I found from the 1924 timetable:

• Service ran three times a day in both directions, for a total of six runs both east and westbound, all the way from Chilliwack to New West and back again. There was additional runs leaving from Jardine (in Langley), and from Cloverdale (in Surrey).
• Times were spaced out throughout the day, rather than the rush hour commuter service the West Coast Express provides.
• Westbound from Chilliwack to New West: 8:05A, 1:40P, 6:20P
• Eastbound from New West to Chilliwack: 12:15P, 5:50P, 9:00P
• From New West, it took:
  • 24 mins to Newton
  • 40 mins to Cloverdale
  • 53 mins to Langley City
  • 1 hour and 40 mins to Abbotsford
  • 2 hours and 40 mins to Chilliwack

Nathan Pachal, former writer of the VALTAC blog, started up his own site today. I found some more recent timetable information on his Document Archive. This rundown covers Interurban service in 1950, just before it was shut down:

• Service ran three times a day in both directions, for a total of sux runs both east and westbound all the way from Chilliwack to Vancouver and back again. Service was express from Vancouver to New West - local service on this stretch was provided by the Central Park Line (the equivalent of the Expo Line SkyTrain).
• Westbound from Chilliwack to Vancouver: 8:00A, 1:30P, 6:10P
• Eastbound from Vancouver to Chilliwack: 8:25A, 1:20P, 5:30P
• There was special early runs on Fridays, and late night runs on Saturdays (i.e. leave Vancouver at 11:33P, leave Langley at 1:50A)
• From Vancouver, it took:
  • 45 mins to New West
  • 1 hour and 9 mins to Newton
  • 1 hour and 25 mins to Cloverdale
  • 1 hour and 38 mins to Langley City
  • 2 hours and 25 mins to Abbotsford
  • 3 hours and 25 mins to Chilliwack

I personally find it fascinating that we were able to run a regional rail service, throughout the day, back in the 20’s, compared to our terrible lack of service today. I suppose that’s what happens when your rip up a transportation network - it takes a while to rebuild.

I can hardly imagine how much of a boon restoring service on the Interurban would be, even just for my transportation needs. My main places of travel are Cloverdale, Newton, Whalley, Fleetwood, Langley, Burnaby, and Vancouver - and the Interurban would serve five, possibly six, of them! That’s nearly everywhere I go.

That said, it doesn’t really help the denser areas in North Surrey. However, it would be huge to communities east in the Valley! I can’t even imagine how convenient and enjoyable a rail ride would be, going from Cloverdale to Langley in 13 mins, Cloverdale to Newton in 16 mins. Having a direction connection from downtown Vancouver to Surrey, without all the stops that the SkyTrain necessitates, would be AMAZING!

Please. Bring back the Interurban. I’ll do anything. Just give me my rail service!

During the Surrey Mayor’s State of the City address, while discussing transportation in BC’s second largest city, Dianne Watts said:

“I for one am a firm believer that instead of SkyTrain expansion in Surrey we should be looking at At Grade Rail. At Grade Rail is significantly cheaper, easier to build and much more aesthetically pleasing than Sky Train. Surrey cannot wait until 2020 for improved rail transit. At Grade Rail can be completed much faster. I have great confidence in the potential of At Grade Rail, and I am currently having City staff analyze this option so that we can move it forward.”

This is a terrific move on the part of the Mayor. It great to know that she understands the added qualities that LRT presents to Surrey over SkyTrain - not just cost efficiency per km, but also aspects like the streetscape asthetics.

While I understand the reasoning for SkyTrain to UBC and to Coquitlam, I am a vehement supporter of the development of a new rail transit network based on LRT. Surrey is in the perfect position to be the beginning spot for this new network and will set the city apart from the North of Fraser’s transportation planning of the past few decades. It’s saying “We will chart our own path, learn from your mistakes, and build the best rail transit we can”. And that rail transit will be based on LRT!

Hopefully Surrey City Council will take a nod from Vancouver, and continue to push forward on the Heritage Rail Project. It would be a fantastic business case for LRT South of the Fraser if we can have a demonstration up and running in the next few years!

Good job Dianne! You just got my vote for November!

There’s a story in The Province today about Surrey continuing it’s so-called “made in Surrey” approach to regional growth, although this time the city has a leg to stand on.

There’s a strong possibility that following the LRSP update, Metro Vancouver will gain stronger powers to enforce cities in the region to play along properly with the regional growth strategy - something Surrey has a reputation for “derailing” due to it’s sprawled development.

One of the current large problems in the region is a growing lack of industrial land. As most should be aware, Vancouver and Burnaby are actually making the situation worse by rezoning industrial land for high density condos. Just take a look downtown: False Creek North and South, Yaletown, Coal Harbour - all former industrial lands. Burnaby is playing a similar game, building condos along the SkyTrain lines, usually on land that is or was industrial.

Now, it’s perfectly debateable whether or not these rezonings were justified and are actually improving quality of life. Certainly, it’s a very complex debate, ranging from the Province building rapid transit along industrial corridors in the first place (in an attempt to avoid NIMBYs), to Vancouver pursuing a word renowed smart growth strategy for the Downtown Penninsula.

The fact remains though, that industrial land is disappearing quickly and cities north of the Fraser are doing nothing to replace the lost plots of industrial lands.

This leaves Surrey is a difficult situation. Jean Lamontagne, General Manager of the City of Surrey’s planning department:

“Many municipalities have converted large areas of industrial land to higher uses, such as residential,” Lamontagne said in a report to council.

“Surrey is now being expected to make up for the shortcomings of others.

“It is expected to provide storage, distribution and truck storage for the region. It is clearly not acceptable . . . as they do little for the tax base of the city,” he said.

In the article, Dianne Watts, Mayor of Surrey, outright dismisses the option that Metro Vancouver will be able to overrule the City’s land use authority:

“The pressure to convert industrial land to residential is very high in Surrey, but we’re saying no,” she said.

“The region is looking at other communities to pick up the slack. It wants to fix mistakes of the past, but one community can’t supply industrial land for the region.”

Then, Vancouver Councillor Suzanne Anton steps in and completely misreads the whole situation with this statement:

“Surrey wants to be able to upgrade industrial land to commercial land [and produce more tax revenue]. Surrey is saying more loudly than others that they don’t want to be told what to do,” said Anton, who sits on the Metro planning committee.

Surrey has never wanted to replace industrial with commercial. Frankly, industrial lands provide better jobs in the long term for residents. In fact, Surrey has pursued a very intense strategy of protecting or expanding industrial lands in the city.

But it gets better. Anton then goes in for the knockout:

She admitted Vancouver recently converted industrial land in Southeast False Creek for a future residential community of 15,000. But she said Surrey shouldn’t point fingers.

“Do we want to get into who shoots up on the Downtown Eastside and where they come from?” she asked.

BAM!

How dare Anton try and claim that all the homeless, mentally ill, and drug addicted in Vancouver are somehow Surrey’s problem?! How dare she reinforce a negative persona on both Surrey as a city and claim to define it’s type of residents?!

That type of verbal attack on a neighbouring community should not be occuring by any mayor or councillor in the region.

In fact, it’s quite debateable, but if it wasn’t for the SkyTrain, Whalley wouldn’t have even gotten half the problems it did in the 90’s. And where do you think those people were coming from - oh, right, VANCOUVER!

Is there a worse possible headline a party could get? It’s a blatant showing that politicians are “better” than the general public, and have to “go to the streets” to get the public’s “real thoughts”.

WTF?

Shouldn’t they already know what the real problems are? That’s what their job is! And if they are in fact going to start knocking on doors, or riding SkyTrains, then why do they need a friggin press release? Have the NDP sunk so low that not only do they not realize what transit riders go through everyday, but they have to get some type of attention for trying to understand what the issues are?

And why the hell is the transportation critic from Esquimalt anyways? Doesn’t Carole James have any sense of organization or leadership to know that she should put someone from the Lower Mainland on such a high profile ministry? Why isn’t Adrian Dix covering transportation - I’m sure it would raise his profile much more so than beating the dead horse that is the health ministry.

F**k politicians who don’t even have the capacity to understand what the public goes through. And f**k policitical parties that are such cowards that they can’t even find one problem to hound the Campbell government one - of which, they are *tons*.

I hate BC politics.

Just as the media has been speculating for months, Carole Taylor has introduced a revenue neutral carbon tax for BC. We are the second province in Canada, following Quebec, to introduce the tax as an method of curbing climate change.

Here’s the deets:

Carbon Tax

A carbon tax will be introduced on all fossil fuels starting July 1st. It will increase over time. The rate begins at $10 per tonne of carbon emissions. It will generate $1.85 billion over three years.

For example, the cost works out to be 2.41 cents per litre of gas, and 2.2 cents per litre of diesel.

Legislation will be developed requiring the government to show how the carbon tax funds are being used to fight climate change.

Revenue Neutrality

Every BC resident will receive a $100 dividend in June aimed at helping them to adopt greener lifestyles before the carbon tax is introduced.

Low income households will receive a new Climate Action Credit quarterly, amounting to $100 per adult and $30 per child.

Furthermore, the bottom two personal income tax rates, the general corporate income tax rate, and the small business tax rate will all be reduced to offset the carbon tax revenues.

General Spending

• Health care spending is up $2.9 billion over three years
• K-12 education spending is up $144 million over three years
• $104 million over four years will go towards reducing homelessness
• $78 million over four years will go towards keeping emergency shelters open 24 hours

Surplus?

The forecasted surplus for this year is $50 million, a far cry from last year’s $2 billion.

The Province is endorsing a suggestion by the government to add “talking on a cell phone” to the already long list of restrictions new driver’s face as part of the graduated licencing program. While the evidence is quite clear that talking on a phone while driving is quite dangerous, why is the proposal to apply only to new drivers?

The suggestion is completely discriminatory - but not only to the young people that are typically associated with the graduated licencing program. BC is home, especially in the Lower Mainland, to a large number of immigrants from Asia and India, many of whom face the licencing program, either for a transfer of their current licence, or to receive certification for a whole new one.

The graduated licencing program, as is stated quite clearly on ICBC’s website is “one of the strictest in the world.” A new driver faces a series of prohibitional restrictions for the course of three years before they are treated as equals in front of the courts and on the roads. Get a speeding ticket 5 months into your N? Well, too bad, you’ve been booted back to the beginning on your timeframe and will have to start the 18 month prohibition all over again.

Adding “talking to your cell phone” onto the list is just one step too far. Young people revolted against the province’s Graduation Portfolio for several years, prompting Shirley Bond to rehaul the program in 2006. I don’t think it’s too far fetched to see these same youth disregard the restriction and continue to talk or text on their cells.

Furthermore, while it is true that a large market of the cell phone industry is young people, what about all the soccer moms and business people who blab on their phones behind the wheel?

Many areas around the world have placed complete bans on talking on a cell phone, including Japan, the U.K., Australia, France, California, and New York City.

If we really want to improve the safety of all road users, don’t limit such a ban to young people and new immigrants by placing it as a restriction to the graduated licencing program - make it an all out ban for all BC drivers.

This is the third pillar in my civic platform.

Transportation, all things considered, isn’t actually a *huge* deal out here. Most Surrey residents own a car and deal with reasonable traffic loads. The minority that doesn’t rides the buses and have put up with poor service for a long time now. However, this cycle can’t continue forever. At some point, with too large an increase in population and not enough road expansion, the drivers will get angry. Everyone knows roads can’t be expanded forever.

From here, we need to start looking at ways other than the car for people to get around. One simple strategy is to improve transit to the point where you can sufficiently attract drivers out of their cars. Another one, somewhat pioneered in our region is the idea of building complete communities. With this strategy, the concept is that people will be able to work, live, and play, in the same area, and could simply walk or cycle anywhere they needed to go. Longer trips could be taken of my transit or even a car share type program.

At one point in time, Surrey grew up around the Interurban, sprouting communities like Newton, Sullivan, and Cloverdale. Unfortunately, we are no longer a rail city, and growth has been half hazardly occuring around roads. It’s quite rare to see anyone walk in the city - only from the car to the store. Don’t even think about cycling in the area unless you are ready to fight the drivers.

This is unsustainable and needs to change. Now.

Imagine living somewhere where you wanted to walk to the store because there was things to see along the way and you felt safe. Imagine being able to safely cycle on your own lane, physically separated from the auto traffic or down beautiful greenways along the creeks and rivers. Imagine being able to walk a short distance to a bus stop with a modern and sharp looking weather shelter, comfy bench, along with a transit map, a garbage and recycling bin, and daily newspapers. We can make this a reality. Here’s how.

1. A Transportation Hierarchy

Development in Surrey is based around the car. Simple as that. There have been attempts to make developments a bit more friendly to other forms of transport. For example, making sure sidewalks are built, or perhaps bike lanes. But, you’re still building for cars, not people.

No more.

Surrey needs to establish a transportation hierarchy that will apply to a whole methodology surrounding developments and the way people get around. Taken straight from SmartGrowth BC’s Transportation policy:

• Walking
• Cycling
• Public Transit
• Goods and Commercial Services
• High Occupancy Vehicles
• Single Occupant Vehicles

With this overarching philosophy in place, developments will be made once again for people, not cars.

2. Bus stop initiative

Surrey doesn’t have too much control over transit and is frankly very much held captive by TransLink and the provincial government on that matter. The one area they have jurisdiction over though is the bus stops and what amenities are located there. If Surrey is truly dedicated to transit and transportation alternatives, our bus stops need to be at least as good as Vancouver’s.

First off, Surrey and it’s citizens need to decide whether they are fine with adspace paying for a large portion of this program. We could define ourselves as the city without advertising. Bus stops could be adopted by the local community and feature job boards or school artwork. Or, they could have ads for car drivers. This decision needs to be made as it influences funding.

From there, the City needs to hold a design contest with local architects to design modular bus stop amenities that can give the City an overarching transit identity, but still flexible enough to change things like colours depending on which of the six town centres the stop is in.

Next, the City needs to define progressive guidelines for bus stop amenities and also take a good look at the data. For example, some stops may be places where everyone always exits - a stop which would unlikely need a shelter, at least compared to one where riders are waiting for the bus.

Taking these variations into consideration, I generally support the concept that all stops should feature at least a shelter. This is Metro Vancouver. It rains. Shelters are needed above anything else. Shelters can also comfortably be leaned upon. A shelter is of much more use than a seat. Also, all stops with shelters must incorporate a transit map into the design.

All stops should also feature a garbage/recycling bin, in various sizes depending on the usage of the stop. Busier stops should also have a comfortable seat (not metal!), as well as newspaper bins.

It may seem like a huge initiative, but could actually dramatically improve the transit experience for all riders for quite a low cost, especially if it is partially funded through adspace. Think about it. Standing in the rain could make someone want to never ride the bus again. Having a newspaper to read could dramatically reduce the stress one faces waiting for a late bus - similar to the effect the radio has on drivers stuck in traffic. Minor investments with huge benefits.

3. Cycling Network Initiative

This is another “best buy”, similar to the bus stop initiative. For very low capital investment, Surrey could make huge strides in terms of cycling usage.

Cycling could be Surrey’s defining feature. We could be the national capital of cycling. Why not? It’s fun, it’s healthy, it’s green.

In fact, a ton of the immigrants living in Surrey have known cycling for most of their lives. It’s sad seeing them attempt to ride safely on the sidewalk, away from the traffic.

Ask anyone why they don’t cycle and they’ll reply, somewhere near the top, that it’s not safe! Bike lanes don’t encourage cycling, at least not among the majority of the public. We need physical separation.

Of course, just like any form of transportation, there needs to be a network. That it why, under my originally proposed Surrey Cycling Initiative, the City would make major capital investments into the system to complete the network in the near future (i.e. a couple of years). And as I said, building a whole cycle network costs so little in comparison to road expansion.

The initiative revolves around creating two major networks.

• A greenway network would feature long distance routes running through the City’s expanded biotopes in coordination with the Nature Preservation Strategy in the Green Spaces pillar. These would run along the farms, the creeks, and through the park - connecting them all up for enjoyable recreational use. It would be Surrey’s equivalent of Vancouver’s extremely successful seawall route.

• The second network is a mainly commuter one. And as I said before, to make people feel comfortable to ever do so, there needs to be physical separation. The commuter network would feature physically separated cycling lanes, alongside sidewalks, down the major roads in Surrey (aka: King George, Fraser, Scott Road, 152 St., etc.). There are a number of way the separation could be achieved, but there needs to be something there (i.e. bollards, a mini median, trees and grass, a small concrete strip, etc.)

Futhermore, in coordination with the Traffic Calming Strategy further down, measures would be taken to make cycling safer in neighbourhoods and residential zones. This could be things like bike lanes, sharrows, and the like.

4. Traffic Calming Strategy

The current traffic calming strategy is failing in two main realms.

• It requires inception from the community. This means that unless people truly care about their neighbourhood and have enough support for traffic calming, it won’t be put in.
• The traffic calming features in use aren’t cycling friendly.

The solution is quite simple. Require a traffic calming strategy to be incorporated in all new developments. Also, update the strategy to include markers for calming features to be installed in certain areas. For example, you could set baeslines according to how many cars a road is designed for - if it surpasses this number, traffic calming is installed. Similar baselines could be set around the number of speeding tickets that have been written around certain location - or the number of accidents.

Also, update the acceptable measures to ensure that traffic calming that is friendly towards cyclists. For example, some cyclists have difficulty with roundabouts that feature a potted garden in the center. This could be adjusted be removing the garden, and allowing cyclists to proceed directly forward, while cars would have to do the roundabout. Or, you could just not have roundabouts in the first place, and do things like speed bumps or traffic diversion instead.

5. Municipal Green Fleet

As part of Surrey’s green efforts, the City should, sometime in the next few years, begin to purchase and replace it’s vehicles with “greener” ones. These could be anything from hybrids, to electrics, to diesels, to smart cars. Major capital shouldn’t be put into this, however a strategy should be in place to gradually upgrade the municipal fleet to greener vehicles.

This is the second pillar in my civic platform

Green Spaces ties quite deeply into Surrey’s long standing problem of “development at any cost” reputation. It’s quite clear to any Surrey resident that this is a huge problem, as we watch the creeks get piped up, the forests get chopped down, and animals lying dead on the roadside.

The other night walking home around 12, I spotted a pack of coyotes meandering across the road into private yards. It’s no wonder pets die from wild animals - we have stolen their habitats and forced them to either live in tiny parks or attempt to make home in urban areas. Preserving green spaces for these animals will not only improve their lives, but our lifestyles as well.

In addition, there is evidence that humans with greater connection to nature will enjoy less stress and have a general improved wellbeing than those who don’t. Surrey residents need increased access to doses of “vitamin g” ;)

The tree bylaw has failed, and council must make drastic moves now to secure important green spaces before the city is fully built out. This Green Spaces pillar goes leaps and bounds farther than any current land policy in Surrey, with the ultimate goal of achieving a prime balance between preserving our natural areas, while still allowing sustainable developments to take place.

1. Nature Preservation Strategy

This is the major initiative of the Green Spaces pillar. Working with staff and citizens, council needs to develop a plan of strategic green spaces that should be secured throughout the years, for the benefit of both residents and nature.

This strategy should be based around the goal of establishing biotopes - continuous stretches of green space. Just as you would expect there to be transportation corridors for human movement, nature needs corridors for safe animal and plant movement. Green spaces cannot be established as patchwork throughout a city - it must be the other way around.

In addition, these biotopes can be used for recreational use by citizens - for example, for cycling routes as laid out in the Transportation Alternatives pillar. The strategy will obviously take into account the size, location, and current usage of the land in it’s quest to lay out strategic areas of green space.

A major goal that should be part of this strategy is an acceptable distance of access that all urban settlements should have from green spaces. For example, most major transit centres are “accessible” based on a radius of 800m - a standard acceptable walking distance. A similar number should be set out in this strategy. This goal could also take into account the density of the surrounding area, as a place like Downtown Vancouver would need more green spaces simply because there’s more people that would be sharing the area.
There should also be a defined timeline to accomplish the set out goals in the strategy.

Potential sources of long term funding for strategic land acquisition could include a partnership with Metro Vancouver and increased DCCs (development cost charges).

This strategy will give the City a long term plan to both reserve and acquire key parts of land throughout the years to ensure Surrey is truly a city in a sea of green.

2. Guaranteed funding for eco programs and associations

Surrey currently runs a number of innovative programs that help support the environment and foster citizenship in our community. For example:

• SHARP: Salmon Habitat Restoration Program.
• SNAP: Surrey’s Natural Areas Partnership.
• Surrey Youth Stewardship Squad
• Adopt-a-Street
• Releaf
• Bulbs for Beauty
• Friends of the Forest

You’d think with so many programs and such wide citizen support, Surrey would be one of the greenest cities in Canada. Not quite so.

Thus, with some real council support via the Nature Preservation Strategy, the City will ensure it preserves the green spaces. Through a program of guaranteed funding, we are enabling citizens and volunteers to have the resources they need to be stewards of these new and expanded green spaces. Because, without true citizen support, there’s no real point in strategically acquiring more green spaces in Surrey.

With that said, I propose that council have a memorandum of understanding that guaranteed funding will be written into the City’s next five budgets to continue to support these programs. In addition, any other citizen’s associations that prove they are helping to protect and enhance Surrey’s green spaces should be provided with some grant money from the City.