paulhillsdon.com

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…

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?!)

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.

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?

Speaking of flashmobs…

[via Open Thinking and Digital Pedogagy]