paulhillsdon.com

Or “green shifting” as the Liberals would have you say. As you may recall, I support the notion of a revenue neutral carbon tax. Carbon needs a price for the market to react and engage the notion of pollution in a way it currently does not. However, that does not mean that a carbon tax is a tax grab. If the new revenue from a carbon tax is offset by lower income taxes, then I really don’t see what everyone in BC is all screwballing over. Especially when it will only increase your average gas bill by $46 per year! 

In any case, the Liberals plan seems to look out for all potentially affected groups, at least from my perspective, in a way that Gordon Campbell’s plan doesn’t. And it’s showing. Despite Harper spouting off like an idea and saying a carbon tax would “screw all Canadians“, a new survey just goes to show that just because some guy is the leader of your country does not mean he represents a major portion of the population. 

A Canadian Press survey asked this to 1000 Canadians:

The Liberals are calling their policy A Green Shift. The main elements are putting a tax on carbon or greenhouse-gas emissions, and using the money raised by this tax to reduce income and other taxes, to provide financial support for those less well off and to invest in green technologies. The tax increases will be phased in over four years and will not apply to gasoline. Based on this description, would you say this is a policy you strongly support, support, oppose or strongly oppose.

And heck, it turns out 47% of those polled liked the idea. 39% were opposed. Regardless of how you read into these numbers, it just goes to show that Canadians still think the environment is a major issue in this country, clearly aren’t happy with how the Conservatives have handled the problems we are facing with climate change, and are able to actually grasp the concept of a revenue neutral carbon tax - more than can be said for Stephen Harper. 

Now it’s time for Harper to put his mouth where his beliefs are and face off with Dion in a serious debate about the idea of a carbon tax. Canada certainly deserves nothing less. 

And in other news, the scientist that first told the US Congress about global warming recommended America adopt a carbon tax!

“We have to level with the public that there has to be a price on carbon emissions,” Hansen said. “That is the only way we are going to begin to move toward a carbon free economy.”

Hansen said urgent action was needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the globe and are already causing arctic ice to melt. He said world leaders had only one or two years to act before the Earth reaches a “tipping point” with major consequences to the global climate and species survival.

“We have reached an emergency situation,” Hansen said.

He said the government should not keep the proceeds from any carbon tax, but refund the money to taxpayers to help them pay for more fuel efficient technology.

Would someone please tell me what all this ridiculous raucous over the carbon tax is about?!

The escalating carbon tax is a mere 2.4 cents to begin with. That is absolutely nothing compared to the market’s 10 cent increase over a week! People are looking for someone to blame for the high gas prices and the media has jumped onto Campbell and his carbon tax.

I’m not trying to support them - the Liberals have done a lot of things wrong in their time. But the NDP are by no means are a reasonable alternative, and they are simply playing into people’s fears - no different than the federal Tories policies! That’s politicking at its highest!

At least Campbell is doing something. The point is that the carbon tax will fund the provision of alternatives. Yes, alternatives should be happening much sooner, and yes, we’ve had a general gas tax for how many years? And yes, there will be regional discrepancies. But to call off a progressive climate change and taxation policy like the carbon tax because gas prices are getting higher is absolutely ridiculous and illogical - especially when the tax itself will only cost 2.4 cents a litre!

Which, according to calculations will only come out to $46 annually in carbon tax for a year’s worth of fill ups for a family of four’s van. That’s less than one fill up a year. 

So really people, put the friggin’ tax into perspective. 

Not to mention, low income British Columbians will receive an annual Climate Action Credit of $100/adult and $30/child. Which works out well for them, since presumably they’d be taking the bus anyways - which is much cheaper than driving will ever be. That could get them one month’s transit pass - certainly a better choice than one tank fill up!

If there is one certainty about the current rise in gas prices, it is that it will not continue forever.

Sooner or later, global demand for oil will come more into balance with its supply, and prices will fall. [The Province]

And, I’m sorry, but the reality is, gas prices are not going to go down. They may fluctuate, but prices will continue, over the long term to go up. 

Think about the demand that’s coming from India and Asia. Think about how much resources our “North American” lifestyles use up. Considering neither of these groups is likely to demand anything less anytime soon, demand will not cease. 

The concept of peak oil is that as soon as we have passed the midpoint in global oil resources, prices will skyrocket. That is because, from that point on, we will never have enough supply to meet the demand. 

So, you think $1.50 is bad? Are you fearing the $2 mark predicted to arrive by 2012? 

Well, consider this. Peak oil is estimated to hit between 2010 to 2013. Then the shit will hit the fan because you ain’t seen nothing yet. Prices will zoom to numbers never before imagined possible.

So please, stop trying to find someone or something to blame. Please stop trying to find some way of sustaining this unsustainable way of life. 

Think positively for once and coming up with creative solutions to this big problem: electric vehicles, or moving closer to work, or bringing the bike out of the garage, or buying locally grown food.

And of course, support the politicians who will help facilitate this transition towards a sustainable way of life. 

Dylan Pattyn, who is currently writing an article for Time Magazine on the issue, has official confirmation from sources within Bell Canada and is interviewing a marketing representative from TELUS who confirms the story and states that TELUS has already started blocking all websites that aren’t in the subscription package for mobile Internet access. They could not confirm whether it would happen in 2012 because both stated it may actually happen sooner (as early as 2010). Interviews with these sources, more confirmation from other sources and more in-depth information on the issue is set to be published in Time Magazine soon. 

[via I Power]

I was under the impression that net neutrality had been taken care of after legislation in the States rejected the major American ISPs plans to shift their business model similar to that of TV. In doing so, ISPs would basically have total control over what sites or services you access on “their” Internet. 

However, here comes news that that win for net neutrality was nothing more than a tiny success in a much larger worldwide battle. It sounds a little out there, but it’s not hard to believe that the major ISPs across the world are planning to collectively restrict the Internet, as we know it, by 2012. What’s absolutely disgusting though is hearing that it’s not Verizon, AT&T, or Comcast leading this transition - it’s Telus and Bell! Of course, Canada already has some of the world’s worst traffic shaping done by Rogers, Bell, and Shaw, so it’s not all that surprising that they want more control over the traffic that’s running through the tubes. And with the Conservatives in power, I seriously doubt that the government will step in and do anything. 

I do believe though that the Internet has been so successful precisely because it is a Wild west - content access or control is regulated by collective consciousness of all users worldwide. We the people will not take lightly to any efforts to restrict the web. 

From The Province:

People love their cars and need more roads, so gas taxes should be directed to encourage the car culture, not fund public transit, says Maureen Bader, spokeswoman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

WOW. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything that could be more *wrong*! It’s like saying, people love to drink, so let’s build a ton of bars! With free drinks for all! 

*shakes head*

At a press conference yesterday to promote the CTF’s 10th Annual Gas Tax Honesty Day, Bader attacked Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s federal Conservatives and Premier Gordon Campbell’s B.C. Liberals as unprincipled tax-grabbers.

“About 30 per cent of the price you’re paying at the pump here in Vancouver is in tax,” said Bader.

“In Vancouver, 20.5 cents of each litre is provincial tax. What’s worse is we’re about to be hit with a carbon tax. Starting July 1st we’re going to be paying an additional 2.4 cents per litre, then we pay GST on top of that.

“This is just wrong.”

Yes, the gas tax is getting high. I would possibly argue a little too high, considering we aren’t seeing very many big improvements to cycling or transit infrastructure. However, market demand isn’t going to suddenly drop - even with people supposedly reducing car usage - so trust me, getting rid of the gas tax will do nothing but provide customers with a short term reduction in gas prices. Ironically enough, if you were to slash the tax tomorrow, demand would spike as people would rush to fill up - causing the price to increase!

She called on Ottawa to transfer five cents per litre of the federal gas tax to municipalities for roads.

Now, this does make a bit of sense, as long as municipalities aren’t forced to use the money for roads. Cities have been demanding a bigger transfer of the gas tax or GST for years, because they just don’t have the means to support the infrastructure they require. It’s the smart cities that would put this money into providing alternatives to the car, not building more roads and highways for the status quo. 

And she questioned the widely accepted opinion of world scientists that human CO2 production is causing dangerous global warming.

“More and more scientists are coming on record and saying that man-made global warming is probably not the cause of the global warming that we have been experiencing over the past few years.

“We’re spending billions of dollars, and really, what we’re doing is allowing politicians to essentially finance their next election campaign,” said Bader.

I’m not even going to touch this one, because we all know how ridiculous her claims are. I thought we got past the point of asking “is this happening” and “did we cause it”, to “how are we going to fix this”.

She sneered at governments’ funding of public transit.

“Taxpayers have got to ask themselves: ‘Do we really need to have a $14-billion Cadillac transit plan when all the government is really expecting to see is maybe a five-per-cent increase in transit use?’ People here want to use their cars.

I agree. $14 billion for such a small increase in usage is a complete waste of money. However, we must look at what we are paying for. Due to the construction of the Millennium Line as SkyTrain, it would be foolhardy to not complete it, with the eastern UBC Line extension, and the western Evergreen Line extension, in a different technology. In a sense, we are locked into the expensive proprietary SkyTrain. But, it must be built - and frankly, we need it ASAP. 

Once we spend the billions for those routes, then we can begin to look at cheaper alternatives that wil increase transit usage such as Light Rail Transit or Bus Rapid Transit. 

And don’t forget about one of the cheapest modes of transport, not just in acquiring the vehicle, but also the construction of infrastructure - cycling!

“Governments cannot pick winners [in business] and they shouldn’t be determining for us what we should be doing with our money and with our time.

“It didn’t work in the Soviet Union, it’s not going to work here either. People are driving more now than they ever have and gasoline prices are the highest that they have ever been.”

Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon couldn’t be reached for comment.

To summarize,

• BC is not Soviet Russia, 
• we need a gas tax to fund alternatives *before* everyone stops driving due to insane fuel prices, 
• climate change is real and needs to be solved, 
• Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation doesn’t speak for all taxpayers, and 
• Maureen Bader is an ignoramus. 

If you didn’t know, Portland, Oregon, is *the* leader of sustainability in the US. A key part of their success has been in providing a variety of transportation options. Since the 80’s, they’ve built multiple LRT lines, expanded their bike boulevards and cycling network, built the Portland Streetcar, and built the Portland Aerial Tram. Portland’s public transportation agency, TriMet, is now set to add a new service to their long list of options: Commuter Rail. 

In 1996, a feasibility study for a commuter rail line was initiated by Washington County, the cities of Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville and Sherwood, TriMet, Metro, and the Oregon Department of Transportation.

The project to establish a new 14.7-mile passenger rail line between Beaverton and Wilsonville has received strong support from the public and business community. It is the first commuter rail line in Oregon and one of the few suburb-to-suburb commuter rail projects in the country.

Because the line uses existing freight tracks in a dedicated corridor, construction impacts are minimal.

Passengers will ride in self-propelled diesel train cars. TriMet is working with Colorado Railcar to design and build the vehicle.

Sound familiar? 

Maybe that’s because the former Interurban rail corridor in Surrey is also an existing freight line, it is also a suburb-to-suburb route, and it’s also about 14 miles (actually only 12.22 miles or 19.66 km) in distance from Scott Road Station to Cloverdale. 

Plus, WES’ corridor was formerly home to two passenger rail services. Oregon Electric Railway and Southern Pacific Railway used to run Interurban rail services quite similar to those that were ran in the past by British Columbia Electric Railway.

Portland’s WES commuter rail service is set to open this fall. What can we learn from their experience?

1. Get everyone on board

The first feasibility study for the line was bi-partisan, bringing together various agencies and levels of government.

This initial collaboration is something we have not had going in the South of Fraser, with TransLink, Surrey, Langley Township, and The Province all launching their own studies, for various reasons, all with different conclusions. 

2. Ensure there is political will

With WES, immediately after the first study, the project gained it’s first political ally in Tom Brian, at the time, a member of the Oregon Legislature. He secured funding for follow-up studies. For 10 years, various politicians, at various levels, worked hard to secure funding to build the project. This resulted in the cost of WES being paid for by the federal government, State of Oregon Lottery Bond Proceeds, TriMet and GARVEE Bonds, and contributions by local governments and Washington County.

While a number of organizations continue to call for “Rail for the Valley”, there is no consensus among citizens, let alone politicians about how or where expanded transit South of the Fraser should be. For this, among other reasons, bringing back rail on the Interurban route isn’t being unanimously championed.

3. It doesn’t take long to achieve 

The whole time span from the first study to the opening of the service is 12 years. Consider this though: 3 of those years was spent just doing the initial study! It took seven years for design, engineering, environmental assessments, and funding to be secured. Construction took a total of two years. 

Realistically, bringing back rail in the South of Fraser could be achieved even faster than WES’ experience. BC Hydro already owns the right-of-way to the route, something Portland didn’t have. Not to mention, Southern Railway has already stated it is keen on incorporating passenger rail service on the route. And considering how fast Kevin Falcon can push projects through, rail out here could be built quite quickly - in a matter of years. But we aren’t at this stage yet. 

We in Surrey are still at step 1 and until we set some of our initial problems straight, we will never be getting commuter, or community, rail service happening anytime soon. Always keep hope, and transform that hope into action - then maybe we can get this off the ground.

The Port Mann gets backed up past 176th St. daily, and faces serious congestion for 13 hours of the day. The Pattullo, 71 years old, has lanes that are two feet narrower than the highway standard, and has killed dozens of people in the last few years. It’s safe to say; Surrey has a bridge problem.

It’s been proven time and again in public transit that, if you build it, they will come. Just ask any of those Greater Vancouver commuters crammed like sardines in SkyTrain cars during the morning or evening rush hour.

This is happening now despite arguments made during the planning of the existing rapid-transit system that not enough folks would use such a service.

Now, we’re hearing similar criticisms from those who oppose using the old Inter-Urban route for light-rail service in the Fraser Valley. There’s not enough population density, they say.

The folks displaying this attitude clearly have a hard time seeing beyond their noses.

Transit must be planned in a long-term context. And all growth projections for south-of-Fraser communities, from Delta to Chilliwack, agree that this region alone will one day have a population larger than that of the whole of Metro Vancouver today.

Surrey already has the largest number of children enrolled in K-12 schools of any municipality in the province. And its population is expected to surpass that of Vancouver in the next 20 years.

Also, the 18-24 demographic in the Fraser Valley is growing at six times the provincial average.

The most efficient and “green” way to move large numbers of people is via light-rail transit.

Given the population growth in this region, this transit option should be a no-brainer.

So, build it and they will come. Just ask the sardines.

[The Province]

Once The Province hops on the bandwagon, you know something is going here.

It’s my understanding that there are two things holding back restored rail service on the Interurban route: TransLink and Kevin Falcon.

TransLink tends to operate in its own little bubble and isn’t nearly as progressive as one would hope. Not to mention they are continuously behind schedule in implementing their plans. You may attempt to blame that on lack of funding, but when they refuse to even try a cheap, innovative idea like rail for the valley, you know that the planners there are rather stuck up in their data analysis and can’t quite think outside the box. Not a personal attack here - just TransLink as a whole ;)

Their excuses include lack of density and population along the route. Of course, they don’t mention the big key that The Province’s editorial mentioned - build it and they will come. If you give us roads and highways, of course development will be car oriented. Open a railway and the shift won’t just immediately happen, it will happen over the course of years. But it will happen. Just look at the success the Millennium Line now is with all the new high rise developments around the stations - not that long ago it was called a major failure and waste of money. Which is exactly why we shouldn’t build an expensive fancy system that will take years to attract sufficient ridership. Restore Interurban service cheaply at the beginning and begin upgrading, adding new trains, and double tracking the route as ridership increases. Cheap, effective method to wean us off cars!

TransLink is giving the same crap to Vancouver with their Downtown Streetcar plan. Ironically enough, a new streetcar system in Vancouver and restored community rail in Surrey would both cost just over $100 million. Anyways, TransLink’s excuse is that the streetcar will take ridership away from bus routes and that they hadn’t incorporated a streetcar in their long term transit expansion plans for Vancouver. God, what a friggin’ stupid excuse. Buses can be diverted elsewhere in the region! And talk about a bureaucracy if they can’t even see what a smart idea it would be to have a sleek, modern streetcar linking many of the attractions in Downtown Vancouver.

The second reason rail for the Valley isn’t coming anytime soon is Kevin Falcon. Before Gateway came along, he gladly gave $75,000 provincial dollars to Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society. Ever since though, there’s been no money, nor any provincial support for the restoration attempts. First, he decided highways are the best solution to traffic congestion for the Valley. Then, after some arm twisting by his boss, Mr. Campbell, he included a short SkyTrain extension into Surrey as part of the Provincial Transit Plan. Falcon has, however, also promised that the Province will launch a study into the possibility of restoring rail service on the Interurban route - although I haven’t heard of any progress on this initiative. So unless he suddenly changes his mind, I don’t see him supporting rail for the Valley. And expect the typical spin in the study.

Which is all quite unfortunate, because all we would need is one of these two to hop on the rail bandwagon and it would get done like *that*.

Time to enter politics, eh?

The more I cycle, the more I realize that bikes should become a whole new category in legal and urban planning terms.

Right off the bat, most people would, at least presume, it’s unsafe to cycle on the same road as a car - at least without any good physical separation. This is, all things considered, a huge deterrent to cycling as both a mode of recreation or of transportation.

Now, legally, bikes are considered in the same league as motor vehicles. Thus why they are destined for the road and not the sidewalk.

It’s funny how some laws just become benign though. I could understand why, legally, in a city’s core you wouldn’t want bikes interacting with the people on the sidewalks and would rather them be in the same league as cars. However, the case is completely different in the suburbs. Out here, there’s either not enough population density, or attractions to gather in one specific area, that would require bikes to get off the sidewalks out of the safety of pedestrians.

Frankly, that’s the reason most people I see in the suburbs bike on the sidewalk! There’s nobody to run into! Unlike on the road where they are supposed to be…

Anyways, the problem you get in the city core is, although cars may be driving slower, the deterrent is still there. In this urban space, you essentially require three main infrastructure elements for a complete street - designated, separated space for cars and buses; designated, separated space for bikes; and designated, separated space for pedestrians. Of course, this becomes strenuous in terms of the ultimate amount of space available. However, if you take space away from the cars, and give it to bikes, you’ve created a market based situation and traffic will naturally redistribute.

With the suburbs, it’s a different story. Right now, in Surrey, they’ve adopted a policy of building “complete streets”, which basically amounts to: designated, separated space for trees and plants; designated, separated space for cars and buses; designated space for bikes; and designated, separated space for pedestrians. This means boulevards, car lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks.

Now as I mentioned, it’s actually quite a waste of space to build sidewalks where pedestrians don’t walk. It’s even stupider to also designate space to bikes which bikes won’t use.

It’s actually a very easy solution. And there’s two steps about it.

1. Allow bikes on all sidewalks that don’t have the pedestrian traffic to necessitate separation due to safety and collision concerns.
2. Stop building sidewalks - start building multi-use pathways with separation from the cars’ road space.

Step 2 is a more long term plan and policy, but it’s an improvement - it gets bumpy after a while from cycling down sidewalks.

Here, instead of using street space for small sidewalks and small bike lanes that nobody uses, you combine the space and end up creating a wider path for both users. Furthermore, it attracts more cyclists due to the separation factor.

What say you? Time to change a little policy?

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!

As we all know, transit in Vancouver is woefully underfunded. Unlike with BC Transit systems across the province, the provincial government isn’t required to give a penny to TransLink. As such, TransLink has to cover all operating costs with three options: fares, property taxes, and the gas tax.

Historically, the provincial government paid all capital expenses of building the two SkyTrain lines. However, with the Liberals in office, they’ve lessened the province’s bill by requiring TransLink to pay a portion of the construction of new rapid transit lines. For both the Canada Line and the Evergreen Line, it amounts to $400 million each. Huge expenses when you consider TransLink also has to pay other, less PR worthy capital expenses - such as the expansion and upgrade of our region’s bus network.

At the cost of about half a million each (standard low-floor diesel buses here), TransLink could have bought 1600 buses for $800 million. That’s more that the whole, existing fleet!

Anyways, I’m on this topic because I was thinking about the cost of our road infrastructure. We tend to think of roads as far cheaper, because it basically amounts to laying tarmac on the dirt. When we think transit, we think about either the vehicles or the new infrastructure (aka: railways) to be built or obtained. The problem with thinking this way is we remove the vehicles from the road’s equation. That is to say, we must also incorporate the cost of buying a car to drive on the road. Just as a railway is useless without trains, so too is a road without cars (not completely true, but let’s just go with it for the argument’s sake).

Now, let’s take the recent widening of Fraser Highway through Surrey from a variable two laned road, to a consistent four laned highway. The expansion has taken place over a number of years, with funding coming from all sorts of partners, but the total cost is $45 million. Now, for most that follow the news, seems like a fairly cheap price for what is a road expansion that spans across Surrey (total of 13km). Certainly, when the number is under a $100 million for roadway expansion; well that number is a whole lot smaller than the billion dollar + Canada Line.

But let’s factor in the car now. Let’s say about 60% of Surrey’s population owns and drives a car - this is factoring in both kids and transit users. That goes from 400,000 people to 240,000.

Now, let’s assume about 2/3rds of these drivers own used vehicles - about an average cost of $4000. The other 1/3rd own/lease new vehicles for an average of $20,000. So, 160,000 people at $4000 each comes to $640 million. The other 1/3 at 80,000 people times $20,000 each comes to $1.6 billion!

Total cost for the drivers: $2.16 billion.

And that’s the cost just every few years. Cars get replaced over time with new ones and the investment cycle restarts.

Now, obviously, this calculation is rather skewed. I mean, it’s not like I took the total cost of road infrastructure over the years. Especially in a place like Surrey, where you would probably go to multiple destinations that are already poorly served by other transportation options, a car seems like a good investment.

My runaround point here is that our perception of the costs of road infrastructure aren’t realistic. Now, imagine if the public put their money completely into public transit. That would mean that the system would have over $2 billion to play with for expansion - every couple years. That means we could have four new SkyTrain lines in a decade - four times the rate we’ve been building the system. That’s over 1,000 new buses every year. That’s 16 LRT lines!

Just imagine what the system would be like with that kind of annual funding. People wouldn’t need cars - you’d be able to get here, there, and everywhere - all on well funded public transit.

The difficult part is transitioning the funding mechanism from roads and personal vehicles to a public transportation system…