paulhillsdon.com

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.

Yes, I have decided, that I will run in this year’s municipal elections for a seat on Surrey City Council.

Over the past year or so, as my projects have come and gone, I’ve become frustrated. I developed policies and plans to fix many of the problems I encountered in daily life. I created the South of Fraser Transit 2011 proposal because transit is lackluster out here. I created the Surrey Cycling Initiative because biking anywhere wasn’t a safe or viable transportation alternative in my city. I created the Transit Metropolis Vancouver vision because I wanted to be able to move around the region quickly, comfortably, and cheaply.

But, without political will behind any of my, or any other person’s ideas, they are worth nothing. It is for this exact reason that I have chosen to enter politics. We need more creativity and idealism in our politicians - I think those are two qualities I possess in mounds.

Sustainability is the cornerstone of my entire platform. I am part of the generation that will inherit this planet from the baby boomers. It is imperative that Surrey take a leadership role in protecting our environment, developing green transportation, and providing equal opportunities for all citizens to succeed in life.

My platform revolves around four pillars: Sustainable Development, Green Spaces, Transportation Options, and Vibrant Communities. They all interconnect and create a much larger vision of the livable lifestyle - complete walkable communities with close access to sustainable transportation options, affordable housing, and green spaces.

It is time for Surrey to become all that it is capable of being and step up to the plate. To do so, we must take the lead in developing a city that will become a sustainable urban hub of Western Canada for the 21st century.

London, Curitiba, Dongtan, New York, Copenhagen, Freiburg, Paris, Dubai, Melbourne, Bogota, San Francisco, Sydney, and Vancouver can do it.

Why not Surrey?

I think with my vision and optimism, I would be an ideal councillor to help usher in the political will needed to make this transformation.

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?

I was rummaging through some statistics this morning about Surrey. Stumbling upon the Transportation graphs, I found something rather bewildering - the stats showed that SOVs, or single occupancy vehicles, were, beating the trend, so to speak, and decreasing in usage in Surrey! 

This is quite amazing, especially considering our options out here in terms of transportation alternatives. 

It’s a spectacular feat and a wonderful trend. Especially since Vancouver won’t get all the attention now!

Private vehicles were the primary mode of transportation in 2006 of those who commute to work.  The share of commuters traveling by vehicle as driver declined from 2001 to 2006.  This was accompanied by a complimentary growth in travel by vehicle as a passenger and by public transit.  Carpooling activity may be captured by either category of vehicle use since this statistic tracks an individual’s most common mode of transportation. 

The primary mode of transportation throughout Metro Vancouver in 2006 is vehicle as driver. This mode is used by a smaller share of the commuting labour force in the inner municipalities of Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster.  The Metro Vancouver average excluding these municipalities is 75.8%.  Surrey is in line with this at 76.1%. 

What the paragraph above tells us is that Surrey residents are doing the best they can to go out of their cars with the resources they have. It is the cities of Vancouver, Burnaby, and New West that have some of the best transit in the region - for this exact reason, they were taken out of the equation. So, in terms of comparing our driving usage with other places that have crap transit - we’re about equal. Just imagine our transit usage if we had viable alternatives - like rail or BRT!

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.