paulhillsdon.com

Just got my $100 in the mail yesterday. Regardless of your position on this government sponsored dividend that will be given to every single British Columbian, the reality is that we have the money. Now what to do with it?

First, the government has given you an opportunity here to make a choice for a greener future. Sure, you may just add it to your chequing account and buy a new bathing suit for the summer. 

But, if you are truly concerned about climate change, and want to do something about it, here is your chance! You’ve just been given $100. Spend it wisely. Spend it in a way that will bring about a more sustainable future. Here’s a few ideas:

• Compact fluorescent lightbulbs
• A low-flow toilet
• Repairs to, or a new, bicycle
• An electric lawnmower
• Weather stripping your home
• Install low-flow showerheads

And of course,

• Support a green politician

Putting your $100 towards my campaign for a seat on Surrey City Council may very well be one of the most productive means of investing that money in a sustainable future. If elected, my plans and ideas could completely revolutionize the South of Fraser area, and put Metro Vancouver back on the world stage as a leader in green transportation, compact living, and the preservation of natural areas. 

Here’s just a few of my initiatives that could be initiated if I am elected:

• The construction of light rail across Surrey and the Valley
• Modern, comfortable, safe, and accessible bus shelters across Surrey
• A vast cycling network featuring physically separated routes from car and truck traffic
• The preservation of Campbell Heights as a green space for the region
• Vibrant, walkable Town Centres filled with unique businesses, community services, and compact housing options for those seeking more urban and sustainable lifestyles
• The implementation of a Green Building Strategy in a city that welcomes over 1,000 new people every month!

If you think I’ve made a worthy case, you can donate your Climate Action Dividend right here securely over Paypal. 

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

SkyTrain

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

LRT

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

BRT

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

————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

Photos have come out, gracias to the Canada Line Photos blog, that show the City of Richmond have begun rebuilding No. 3 Road - which includes the region’s first (AFAIK) raised bike lane.

The concept is quite simple: to provide physical separation between cyclists and drivers. It’s what every would-be cyclist dreams of having and it’s quite exciting to see it finally being built.

Of course, in the region, we do have greenways, but these are always quite far away from any moving car. There’s never been physically separated bike lanes that are attached to a road. While the Carrall St. retrofit is quite the project in and of itself, it resembles more closely to a greenway than a traditional bike lane.

The raised bike lane is supposed to increase the safety for cyclists from motorists and help keep the lane clean from rocks and other debris typically pushed to the side of the road (where the traditional bike lane is).

It’s a terrific experiment. While I personally have always envisioned bollards, a small boulevard, or even a low level cement separator to separate the bike lane from the road, the concept of a “raised” bike lane may prove to be the key to providing a safer cycling network. Most certainly, it’s a huge leap in the right direction.

Three cheers to staff and council in Richmond. I’ll be watching this experiment closely. Those of us who support physically separated lanes will certainly have a more local example to point towards if this proves successful.

During the Surrey Mayor’s State of the City address, while discussing transportation in BC’s second largest city, Dianne Watts said:

“I for one am a firm believer that instead of SkyTrain expansion in Surrey we should be looking at At Grade Rail. At Grade Rail is significantly cheaper, easier to build and much more aesthetically pleasing than Sky Train. Surrey cannot wait until 2020 for improved rail transit. At Grade Rail can be completed much faster. I have great confidence in the potential of At Grade Rail, and I am currently having City staff analyze this option so that we can move it forward.”

This is a terrific move on the part of the Mayor. It great to know that she understands the added qualities that LRT presents to Surrey over SkyTrain - not just cost efficiency per km, but also aspects like the streetscape asthetics.

While I understand the reasoning for SkyTrain to UBC and to Coquitlam, I am a vehement supporter of the development of a new rail transit network based on LRT. Surrey is in the perfect position to be the beginning spot for this new network and will set the city apart from the North of Fraser’s transportation planning of the past few decades. It’s saying “We will chart our own path, learn from your mistakes, and build the best rail transit we can”. And that rail transit will be based on LRT!

Hopefully Surrey City Council will take a nod from Vancouver, and continue to push forward on the Heritage Rail Project. It would be a fantastic business case for LRT South of the Fraser if we can have a demonstration up and running in the next few years!

Good job Dianne! You just got my vote for November!

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!

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.

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 :)