paulhillsdon.com

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?

Dave left a comment on my Transit Metropolis Vancouver post, challenging me to take it beyond a vision and to figure out if it is viable as a real plan, and how much it would cost. I didn’t quite fulfill that exact challenge, but combined it with the latest SkyTrain expansion plans in Surrey, and came out with this.

It’s a 14 paged document outlining what LRT is, why we shouldn’t build SkyTrain in the South Fraser area, and how much it would cost to build three LRT lines out here.

Surprisingly enough, the final estimate, based on a cost of $24 million per kilometre, three LRT lines totaling 100km in the South Fraser area could be built for $2.5 billion.

Considering that the SkyTrain extensions, tentatively set for completion between 2020-2030, will likely total nearly $5 billion by then, with only 22.7 kilometres of rail rapid transit.

I think the business case is clear. Check it out [PDF] and let me know what you think in the comments! :)

This is the third pillar in my civic platform.

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

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

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

This is unsustainable and needs to change. Now.

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

1. A Transportation Hierarchy

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

No more.

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

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

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

2. Bus stop initiative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Cycling Network Initiative

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

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

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

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

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

The initiative revolves around creating two major networks.

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

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

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

4. Traffic Calming Strategy

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

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

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

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

5. Municipal Green Fleet

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

This is the second pillar in my civic platform

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

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

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

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

1. Nature Preservation Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Guaranteed funding for eco programs and associations

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

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

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

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

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

This is the first pillar in my civic platform.

Development has always been a major issue in Surrey, ever since it’s inception many moons ago. This young city has always been a place of rapid growth and change, and projections show this will continue for a long time to come. In fact, it’s estimated that within 20 odd years, Surrey’s population will surpass that of Vancouver’s.

Now, it’s certainly debatable on how well Surrey has handled this growth throughout the years. I will definitely admit that with our sidestepping of the LRSP and a continuous “anything for development” attitude, our reputation around these parts has always been that of the raunchy stepchild. The attitude still pervades the city, even despite the boot of Doug McCallum - Dianne Watts certainly hasn’t slowed anything down, or taken a long term look at the impacts of certain developments. Just take a look at Campbell Heights.

While we may be beginning to make bigger steps in terms of density by building townhomes rather than single-family houses (which I would argue is for due to the market forces of high housing costs and developers wanting the most bang for their buck), there is still a *ton* of work to do.

What new do I bring to the table?

I can tell you right now that development can be good - if it’s done properly. So I’m not about to halt all future growth in the city. However, that does not mean that all developments must proceed. Council has a duty to only accept those which advance the wellbeing of the city as a whole. And with the plans I lay out below, I will ensure that the city of Surrey becomes a national leader in terms of sustainable development.

1. Green Building Strategy.

This one is big. Building structures have a huge effects on our communities, depending on their size, style, and efficiency. Buildings can contribute not only to huge energy savings, but also to substantial reductions in greenhouse gases - if they are built sustainably. Cities across the world have implemented Green Building strategies, typically in accordance to the LEED certification system.

Under LEED, new buildings, or major retrofits, take a look at a checklist of options that make a development greener. Depending on how many they fit, they will get a better and better LEED certification. LEED certification has proven to only cost approximatively 2% more than existing construction costs, and will produce huge savings down the line.

Most cities have the strategy applied simply to municipal buildings. Some even give incentives to private developments to encourage them to adopt the specifications.

Surrey will go ten steps farther to establish itself as a true leader in this space and to take a major step forward in the fight against climate change.

Obviously, all details and specifics regulations or targets would be marked down by staff, but here’s a general idea of what the strategy would be:

Beginning immediately, all new and major retrofitted civic buildings most adopt a LEED Gold certification - the most stringent in North America. The City must broker an agreement with the Board of Education that all schools will follow the same standard. In addition, major incentives will be given to private developers to encourage them to adopt the new standards. This includes a fasttracked system for building permits, a huge reduction in the cost of the building permit, and a huge reduction in DCCs (development cost charges), all based on what level of LEED certification has been proposed. These rebates will be offset a year or two later with the introduction of a levy on all new developments that do not feature LEED certification. Over time, again, based on the level of LEED certification that has been proposed, the “carrots” or incentives will decrease, and the “sticks” or disincentives will increase. This will continue to the point, over the course of a good 8 years, where all new developments in Surrey are LEED certified.

Such a plan gives developers a timeline to work off of to ensure they receive the best deal possible, and potentially avoid larger taxation in the future. With this reasonable market based system, Surrey can ensure that it lowers in carbon footprint, which increases it’s citizens overall wellbeing. In addition, Surrey will be a newfound national leader in the transition to a green economy.

2. Affordable Housing Strategy

As housing prices continue to escalate, hopeful homeowners have been priced out of the market for a single family house. Meanwhile, new options have sprung up, such as condos and townhomes, providing residents with brand new housing for an achievable pricetag. However, as of 2005, the average annual income of a citizen of Surrey is $32,000. And considering a whopping 90% of citizens are not in a common law relationship, the typical formula of having two people share a mortgage is no longer the reality. In fact, it is doubtful a large majority of residents can even afford to buy *any* form of housing.

Although renting continues to be an affordable alternative to home ownership, these citizens are unlikely to ever be able to enter the ownership market. In such a system, we are simply expanding the split between “haves” and “have nots” - something which has huge societal rebounds in the future.

An affordable housing strategy depends on a variety of measures to ensure that *all* citizens in Surrey can afford to live in reasonable accommodations. The strategy I’m proposed has four major sections.

• 1) The legalisation of secondary suites: This has been talked a lot for a long time, but has failed to be implemented in law by the current council. Such legislation will ensure that secondary suites are safe and built to the appropriate codes, in addition to providing tenants with legal venues for protection from landlords. This step can be done quickly and efficiently and will improve the housing stock in the City.

• 2) A market based incentives program similar to that of the Green Building Strategy: The City should set a baseline for the price a typical housing unit shall cost to be deemed “affordable”. For example, in Austin, the City that this program is based off of, deems “affordable” to be developments that are accessible to citizens at or below 80% of the average median family income for the area. Based on this bar of accessibility, the City gives developers incentives based on the number of affordable units in the development. These incentives should include an expedited building permit, and could also include a reduction in the building permit cost. The goal should be to provide affordable housing for all those at or below the average median family income. For example, if 30% of Surrey’s population fits this designation, then the City’s goal should be to have 30% of all housing priced for this bracket of the market. I believe that this market based approach to increasing affordable units in Surrey is far more sustainable than having the City build and run it’s own units.

• 3) Homeless partnerships: The City needs to proceed with partnerships for homeless shelters with the ultimate goal of having enough beds for the City’s full homeless population. Homeless shelters are an essential piece of the puzzle to helping those less fortunate get back on their feet. Most shelters include bathing facilities, food, and support staff. With these facilities in place, we can ensure that the homeless, or those at risk of becoming homeless, have a place to get help and, in due course, get a job and likely live in one of the proposed affordable housing units from the second section of the Strategy.

• 4) Ensure that the City has a large, diverse market of housing units: This follows the simple economics of supply and demand. If we ensure there is enough supply to meet, or even potentially exceed, demand, then we are ensuring that prices aren’t artificially inflated for housing. This strategy will be met with other initiatives in the Vibrant Communities pillar.

I’ve been pondering a lot recently about my position in the community and how to best realize my vision for this region, and, more specifically, for my home city of Surrey. You see, a person like me tends to have a lot of projects and ideas swirling around his head - it’s just a matter of how best to make these a reality. Rather often, it seems that the power to truly improve things lies in the hands of decision makers. To that end, I’m pondering a potential run for political office in Surrey during the November municipal elections.

I’ve written before about what I believe is a lack of boldness in this region. You know, that spice of life, that energy… that ability to make, support and rally around the *best* decisions and ideas - and I think it’s something I inherently possess. It’s a quality that could make up for my lack of experience in politics and support my candidacy as I’m advocating for the important issues.

And what are the important issues?

Well, take a look at the “four pillars”, so to speak, of a Surrey civic platform that I’ve been brainstorming.

1. Sustainable Development
2. Green Spaces
3. Transportation Alternatives
4. Vibrant Communities

I’m a logical guy, so trust me when I say that I already have many plans on how to achieve measurable improvements in these four categories - something rarely seen from political candidates vying for office. November’s a long ways away still. Does the platform sound intriguing to you? Something you would support?

Stay tuned, the rest of this week, I’ll give a full rundown on each of these “pillars”, including specific policies and plans.

Naturally, I’d really appreciate any and all comments :)

There has been more than a few questions about the odd conceptual routing of the extension of SkyTrain in Surrey. Based on the image provided by the province, SkyTrain was to run along 96th Ave, then cut through a neighbourhood, finally reaching 88th Ave and Fraser. It was a terrible alignment, attempting a half assed connection to Guildford, and then leaving the new terminus smack dab at one of the busiest intersections on Fraser in the Fleetwood community.

According to both an article in the Now, and Kevin’s recent speech to the Langley Chamber of Commerce, the alignment shown in the image is not the actual one being proposed by the government. How much of this is Kevin personal opinion versus actual an government decision is not at all known (although what is the difference these days?).

He says the 6km extension will leave King George Station north to 104th Ave, turn south down 152nd St, and then run east down Fraser Hwy to 168th St.

Furthermore, and again I have no idea if this is just his vision, but he said that by 2030, we would see two more SkyTrain extensions:

• From the new terminus in Fleetwood, the Expo Line would continue along Fraser Hwy to Willowbrook in Langley
• From King George Station, a new branch would run south along King George Hwy to 64th Ave.

Click the image below to view the interactive Google Map.

All things considered, despite SkyTrain’s expensive cost, if the government is willing to pay for it, I’m happy. And with the “conceptual alignment” controversy being ironed out, the new proposed route will actually serve Surrey quite well.

Connections between Downtown Surrey and Guildford are quite popular and the route along 104th is currently quite busy. Guildford is still one of the largest malls in the region, and considering stations at malls are one of the mainstays of SkyTrain, it’s a good thing the route is going to hit it.

152nd St, between 104th and Fraser, is also a very busy route and will benefit from the SkyTrain. Furthermore, 152nd St is the other main road (King George is #1) that residents from South Surrey and White Rock take to get to North Surrey. Having a major hub at 152nd and Fraser will be great for these transit users, giving them an option between hopping SkyTrain from here, or taking a RapidBus to the Canada Line (assuming their destination is Vancouver).

Then of course, having the new terminus at 168th St, just before a major hill and dropoff into agricultural land, is a way better plan. This will allow for very fast connections from my community of Cloverdale as well as a very short route to Langley (basically through the agricultural land, a small community, then you’re there).

The unfortunate side of these new details is the current wait time for SkyTrain down King George. It’s always been the busiest route in Surrey, and I would personally say a SkyTrain connection to Newton would probably be a better short term improvement, despite all the newfound connections the other extension will provide to eastern and southernly communities. Also, the King George route has far more potential for transit oriented development.

Actually, Kevin, why not do both? Then, I’ll embrace your autocracy as something profoundly wonderful and will praise the road you walk on!

These are all taken from the Provincial Transit Plan

Rapid Transit

• They are including the Canada Line under the Plan. Completion is set for 2009.
• $1.4 billion for the Evergreen Line by 2014.
• $2.8 billion for the UBC Line from Broadway to UBC by 2020
• $3.1 billion to double capacity on the Expo Line - major improvements at stations starting 2009, and 6km extension in Surrey by 2020. Station improvements include:
  • Lengthening platforms to handle 6 car trains
  • Vehicle storage depots
  • Maintenance facilities
  • Adjacent transit exchanges
• $1 billion for new rail cars

RapidBusBC

• Frequent, reliable service with regular intervals
• Express service with few or no stops
• Priority movement in traffic by dedicated/HOV lanes, signal priority, and queue jumping
• Contemporary, conveniently located bus stations with nearby amenities
• Seamless integration with other transit options and coordination with cycling and walking infrastructure
• Effective security measures
• 9 lines across BC
  • Westbank to UBC Okanagan in the central Okanagan
  • Douglas Street in downtown Victoria to Langford on the West Shore
  • Highway 1, connecting Lougheed Station to exchanges in Surrey and Langley across the Port Mann Bridge
  • Hastings Street from downtown Vancouver to SFU
  • 41st Ave from the Canada Line to UBC
  • Highway 99 from White Rock to the Canada Line in Richmond
  • King George Hwy from Surrey Centre south to White Rock
  • Fraser Hwy connecting Langley to the Expo Line in Surrey
  • Highway 7 from the Evergreen Line in Coquitlam across the new Golden Ears Bridge

Buses

• $1.6 billion in 1,500 new clean energy buses
• Clean technologies include
  • Hydrogen
  • Hybrid
  • Electric
  • Natural Gas
  • Low emissions diesel
• Customized sizes and types of buses
  • Community shuttles
  • Custom transit
  • Para transit
  • Articulated and double decker buses
  • Conventional buses

Cycling

• 1000 new bike lockers at key transit locations by 2020
• Comprehensive cycling strategy to be released in the next few months to complement the Provincial Transit Plan

Security

• Installing electronic gates and closed-circuit cameras at rapid transit stations
• Launching a smart card system for rapid transit and buses that users can reload at vending machines or on the Internet
• Taking action against people who do not pay fares with on-the-spot fines and other measures
• Increasing security personnel in and around rapid transit stations
• Improving safety for bus drivers

With the huge influx of people discovering my South of Fraser “Transit 2011″ plan, enough to take my site down for a bit over bandwidth overload, I’d thought I should write an quick lil update about it.

First off, thanks for all the very supportive comments. While it is easy to poke fun at TransLink’s plan, in comparison to mine, we must remember that they do truly only have limited funding and other political constraints to getting anything done these days - something I didn’t have to face while developing mine. That doesn’t mean however, that I didn’t try to keep mine realistic. Frankly, while it may be completely unscientific, I did try to get a reasonable cost analysis and keep the plan actually doable. The funding required for it isn’t *all* that much different than that which would pay for the Evergreen Line.

Just to recollect: As of now, while I haven’t gotten much way in response from TransLink officials concerning my plan, we know that the Livable Region Coalition, Stephen Rees, VALTAC, Gordon Price, the City of Surrey planning department, and a handful of transit riders love my plan and consider it far better than the official TransLink plan. Hehe, maybe that’s what you get when you give transit supporters what they want!

To that end, I received a comment on the old post suggesting that I go out and find more vocal support for the plan. Originally, while I was conceiving it, these types of ideas were in my mind (taking it to council meetings and such). However, as you may understand, I eventually lost interest in my plan as my views changed, and barely got it up on my site in a readable, concluded fashion. I do not consider my plan fully developed, nor fully backed by sources - and I don’t have the motivation, certainly not in 2008, to go back to it and update it. It was not exactly designed to be an official alternative to TransLink’s plans - in fact, mine was created before TransLink even released their draft version - it was more of a suggestion of creative, and reasonably priced solutions to our transit problems in the SoF area.

So, to both gnoble and Ken Hardie, no need to fret, I am not shopping this plan around town.

To reiterate, certain aspects of my opinions at that time have evolved - such as the use of the Interurban line for community rail. You can stay tuned however, because, in a very short time, I will be releasing a long overdue update to both my vision for transit in the SoF, and across the region.

That is, as long as the provincial government doesn’t do it first. Ken Hardie:

If you look at the real substance of the complaints by the five muni’s South of the Fraser, their issue is with timing. What we’ve proposed is in line with what we heard from the public and stakeholders, and the timing is dictated by what we can afford to do given the current revenue streams. If we get more provincial support…which may well be indicated on Monday…then of course we can do things more quickly.