paulhillsdon.com

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…

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!

I was going through the South of Fraser Area Transit Plan today, and I was reminded that, given the choice of what rapid transit services they wanted, almost all residents South of the Fraser turned down SkyTrain.

According to the document, TransLink reps gave residents colour coded lengths of tapes to place over a regional map as part of a visioning process. The length of this tape was based on a reasonable estimate of the budget TransLink would have for expansion.

• 1 piece of SkyTrain = 5 pieces of BRT
• 1 piece of LRT = 3 pieces of BRT
• 1 piece of BRT = 1.5 pieces of Frequent Bus services

Now, let’s examine the outcome of this visioning process.

SkyTrain

There was very little agreement for this expenditure, primarily because of the cost and the limited penetration into the South of Fraser that results by spending all available capital on this type of rail. Most participants started out with SkyTrain but then began to understand the tradeoff between service single corridors versus creating a network of services.

LRT

There was more agreement on this investment with a number of corridors being highlighted. However, overall, the network remains thin because rail takes up the majority of the budget. Most participants picked out corridors shown in previous transit strategies such as King George highway and 104th Street in Surrey of Fraser Highway from Surrey to Langley. The Southern Rail (Interurban) corridor was highlighted in Workshop but it did not appear in the other 24 maps. Interestingly, there was limited support for the northern section of the line.

BRT

The network and the level of agreement for Bus Rapid Transit echoes the market research. It is interesting to note that as the budget is spread among les expensive alternatives, the network that can be created increases both in scale and popularity. Respondents seemed to understand the concept of the B-Line as Bus Rapid Transit and were interested in extending a similar network throughout the region, including to Abbotsford.

————————————————————————————-

Now, take the above into the context of almost a year or two ago, before the Provincial government decided to invest $4 billion into our transit system.

With this change, I think it’s safe to say that we have a slightly larger budget now. When taking this into account, I think choosing to develop at least one of the major transit corridors in the SoF region as LRT would be a smart move. There are numerous advantages to choosing rail over bus, despite what some would tell you.

Furthermore, TransLink has a terrible reputation for stalling upgrades or expansions years after they were necessary. Obviously, the B-Lines have been a success. However, if you don’t meet initial success with quick expansion, typically through providing more buses, the whole experience diminishes in quality and convenience quite rapidly. Just try riding either the 98 or 99 B-Line and you’ll quickly find out that they pale in comparison in terms of definition as “rapid transit” beside our SkyTrain system. The routes get stuck in traffic, the bus doesn’t have much of a premium interior, and you can never get over the simple fact of overcrowding.

I think the SoF area has a prime opportunity here to convince Mr. Falcon to redirect the money in place for SkyTrain expansion in Surrey to provide us with at least one LRT route - and heck, throw the rest of the millions into more buses for our future BRT routes - so we can avoid having to stand for 45 minutes on the Fraser Hwy.

Oddly enough, there’s been two articles from the major media recently that are clamouring for improved rail in Canada. This topic is something I actually experienced recently during a trip to Regina.

As everyone knows, rail in Europe is essentially “the” way to get around. Unfortunately, while Europe and parts of Asia were investing in rail, North America put all it’s money into highways. It’s this “road first” mentality that has destroyed John A. MacDonald’s dream of a coast to coast railway for Canada.

Throughout the past 5 decades, the government has refused to properly fund passenger rail, and has handed over complete control of the rail system to private corporations.

To put it into today’s perspective, during my recent trip to Regina, I examined the three ways to get there without a car: Greyhound, Via Rail, and WestJet. Now, as most know, flying in Canada is almost as expensive as our cellular data plans! Course, many will pay the premium to skip the long travel time that a train or bus presents.

Now, due to funding cuts, Via no longer even runs trains through Regina - closest I could get was Saskatoon. This routing has also eliminated any national rail connections through Calgary. All rail from Vancouver is looped north through Jasper and Edmonton, to Saskatoon and Winnipeg, and finally to Toronto.

Beyond that “small” annoyance, the cost comparison of rail to a coach service like Greyhound is unbelievable. For example, it was almost $600 one way for me to get to Saskatoon from Vancouver, whereas a return trip via Greyhound could be obtained for only $400. Not to mention the rail trip took longer!

Same scenario for rail south to Seattle or Portland - two wonderful day trips that could easily be a wonderful experience via rail transport. Unfortunately, the provincial government refuses to cooperate with Amtrak and the federal government of the States, which are trying rather futilely to upgrade the “Cascadian” route to handle high speed rail. BC has chosen to implement the cheapest of the proposed upgrades - a couple of rail passes. Like that will speed things up much!

It’s all a very disappointing state of affairs. With three major corridors ripe for high speed rail, governments across Canada are neglecting our rail system at a time when considerable investment is needed. With the advent of both climate change and peak oil, not only are citizens going to look for rail as a “green” form of transport, corporations are going to shift from trucking to rail for continental shipping.

And we’re still stuck with a 100+ year old rail bridge in New Westminster causing numerous backups and limiting expansion and growth of our rail system - with no plan or funding in place to replace it!

What in the hell is going on here?

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.

Video game events at public libraries are drawing crowds of teens, including about 100 competing monthly at “Guitar Hero” at the Rochester Hills Public Library.

“Getting teens to come to the library is right up there with getting them to go to church: It’s not exactly the first place they want to go,” Christine Lind Hage, library director, told the Detroit Free Press for a story Sunday.

[via ABC News]

Now here’s some innovation from a dying industry - the library. It’s great to see them making progressive steps to attract back people. The fact of the matter is that library can no longer rely on simply being an information repository - the internet has taken over that responsibility.

Libraries need to be social spaces for a community. They need uses beyond the “book rental shop” and the “study space”. Libraries need to merge with other attractive community spaces, such as community halls, coffee shops, and rec centres. Just imagine how much busier a library would be if it had the only Starbucks in town attached to it.

It’s interesting how this library in the States went beyond just stocking video games - a big step in it’s own right and certainly something that should be tried out here. They transformed a space in the library into something that you would typically call a youth center. They had a video game party and competition night. Tremendous idea no?!

I think it’s collaboration and incorporation that community services need now more than ever. They need to capitalize on their own individual successes and situate in a relatively close space to create what one would typically call a civic square. If services were all close together, you would create a focal point for the community. Of course, this is hard to do with sprawled cities, but steps should be taken today to fix this problem.

First step: create community spaces that are attractive for everyone. Just like these innovative libraries are doing.

As one of Surrey’s initiatives under the Cultural Capital of Canada designation, the City has funded a digital art project named “Glocal: Your World in Motion“. Here’s the synopsis from the project’s site:

Glocal is an interactive screen and online artwork now in production by a team of local artists: Sylvia Grace Borda, M Simon Levin, and Jer Thorp. They have envisioned building a massive community media experience that will challenge perceptions about the city of Surrey, Canada’s fastest growing metropolis.

With the use of digital cameras and motion capture, audiences will witness how speed, size, density and diversity have enabled Surrey to exist in local and global (Glocal) consciousness.

All the content produced under the banner of the Glocal project will form a large relational artwork in which ‘moving’ images of Surrey will become a central point of exploration. This interaction will then be repeated internationally through community workshops and public exhibitions. When realized, audiences will be able to compare, contrast and examine the world from all points of the globe – and experience how we all share the same horizons … and how we have a lot in common with others, wherever you are!

So how can YOU become part of Glocal and Think again about what’s cool where you live.
The Glocal team of artists will be residing online and at the Surrey Art Gallery TechLab to guide you on your way. Surrey youth and residents can become partnering artists through a series of mentoring workshops developed by the team. The team will also be producing low-tech toolkits to help you record your world in lots of new and amazing ways….

The project already has a Facebook page and a Flickr pool.

It sounds interesting enough, but I fear “Glocal” will be just another waste of time and money. I found it quite surprising that, as of yet, I didn’t even know this project was even in progress. For such an interactive and multimedia project, it hasn’t seemed to reach out to the local web community at all. Is this just another case of artists sharing their art with no one else but other artists?

Furthermore, the pictures that are currently posted on Flickr are nothing more than a series of boring, webcam shots. It’s like this group of artists is being paid to sit at a computer, make faces, and take pictures of themselves. I want that job!

We’ll see where this goes, but as of yet, I am not at all impressed.

Schedule info has screwed me multiple times. I’ve ended up missing the last bus on a route, standing in the rainsnow for 30 minutes without an umbrella, and walking a good 20 minutes along the route just to have something to do. All because I tried to relied on sources other than TransLink’s official schedule system - through both Google Transit and MyBus.

Now, it’s understandable that MyBus’s info may be off - they have to scrape TransLink’s website to get the times, and depending on if that system is working at all - it can really be off. That problem has to do with TransLink not making the info available for free to private developers.

But Google Transit should be a whole different story. TransLink worked side by side with Google engineers (AFAIK) to get the product off the ground, and all schedule information that is provided through GTransit is updated manually by TransLink. So here, when something is off it’s all TransLink’s fault.

With GTransit, I’ve encountered some problems. My regular stop features two routes - sometimes the routes times would be the opposite - meaning that the 320 I was told to catch at 4:50 is actually the 341, and the 320 came at 4:41. Sometimes, the map won’t even show any information at all! (I’m talking here about clicking on individual bus stops on the map, not creating travel info).

Today, I was searching up schedule information at all three places, and once again, I’m faced with three different scenarios. How the hell am I, as a transit rider, supposed to figure out when to even catch the friggin bus with a situation like this?!

MyBus:

TransLink’s NextBus:

Google Transit:

Two maps I worked on recently to show you. First off, here’s the ALR in Surrey. Sure, it’s nature I suppose, despite the fact that none of it is public land (meaning the nature is inaccessible to most people), and that very few of these places actually make any edible food for our region. Still, it’s good for containing sprawl.

Secondly, here’s the other green spaces in the City - basically areas that were densely green on the aerial map (mostly forests and whatnot). Some of this greenery is parks (i.e. you can see Tynehead, Green Timbers, and Bear Creek), other areas are sections like the grass along the power line corridors.

Nature truly is the arteries of our cities. It’s too bad politicians and developers don’t understand this.

Not much of a “city in a sea of green”, is it?