paulhillsdon.com

I recently completed reading City Making in Paradise, by Ken Cameron and Mike Harcourt. Beyond getting a good feel for municipal, regional, and provincial politics, I also learned a lot about the bumpy history of regional planning. It’s quite amazing, what we’ve been able to accomplish in the last 10-15 odd years with the Livable Region Strategic Plan, but as I’ve alluded to in the past, Metro Vancouver is at a cusp at the moment: expensive housing, lack of transit-oriented development and rapid transit routes, issues of cultural and ethnic integration, constant protection of the Green Zone… It’s at these moments where we make a turn for the worse, or embrace opportunity and continue pushing the envelope.

As Harcourt mentioned in the book, the largest move we must make with this new Regional Growth Strategy is a shift from livability to sustainability. And it seems that municipalities may be more prepared for it than ever. Perhaps it’s because of years of success from the LRSP; perhaps it’s because of climate change. But, just from the top of my head, we’ve got the EcoDensity intiative in Vancouver, and the development of city-wide Sustainability Charters for both Surrey and the Township of Langley.

As would be expected for the development of a regional plan, Metro Vancouver is doing a travelling road show across the GVRD, doing community meetings to get your feedback on the proposed options in the new Regional Growth Strategy. I highly suggest you take the time out of your schedules and express your voice on this. Based on what I read in City Making in Paradise, Metro Vancouver (the organization) has an instilled culture of doing what the people want, not something you usually get with governmental organizations. Your opinion matters and will greatly affect this region’s next 30 years. Think globally, act locally. Change starts with you.

• Burnaby/New Westminster: Nov. 14, 7 - 9pm
  • Metro Vancouver Head Office, 4330 Kingsway [map]
• Vancouver/Electoral Area A: Nov. 19, 7 - 9pm
  • Vancouver Public Library, 350 West Georgia St [map]
• Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge: Nov. 21, 7 - 9pm
  • Ridge Meadows Senior’s Activity Centre, 12150 224 St [map]
• Northeast Sector: Nov. 22, 7 - 9pm
  • Port Coquitlam Recreation Complex, 2150 Wilson Ave [map]
• North Shore: Nov. 28, 7 - 9pm
  • Harry Jerome Recreation Complex Memorial Gym, 123 E 23 St [map]
• Richmond: Dec. 5, 7 - 9pm
  • Richmond Cultural Centre, 180 7700 Minoru Gate [map]
• Surrey/Delta/White Rock: Dec. 6, 7 - 9pm
  • Newton Recreation Centre, 7120 136 B St [map]
• Langleys: Dec. 11, 7 - 9pm
  • George Preston Recreation Centre, 20699 42 Ave [map]

TransLink has been working over a number of months on a new South of Fraser Transit Area Plan. Up until now, there’s been one document released going over the results of the first community open houses, discussing a transit vision for the South of Fraser area. TransLink has formalized that vision into a plan, and despite being behind schedule, it’s now prepared to take this plan to the public for final consultation. This is your last chance to make an major impact on transit South of the Fraser. Area plans define specific improvements, and are supposed to occur every 5 years. The South of Fraser area’s last plan was done in 2000, so obviously TransLink isn’t always good at keeping on schedule.

It is imperative you attend at least one session, and *make* everyone you know voice their opinions on the plan.

• Delta
  • Nov 6 - Ladner Leisure Centre - 4600 Clarence Taylor Way : 2pm - 8pm
  • Nov 8 - London Drugs - Trenant Park Square : 10 am - 6pm
  • Nov 9 - Scottsdale Mall - 7031 120th St : 9:30 am - 9pm
  • Nov 14 - Sun God - 7815 112 St : 2pm - 8 pm
• Langley
  • Nov 3 - Willowbrook Mall : 9:30am - 6pm
  • Nov 5 - Aldergrove Kinsman Community Centre - 26770 29th Ave : 2pm - 8pm
  • Nov 19 - Langley City Hall Public Library - 20399 Douglas Cres. : 9am - 8pm
  • Nov 22 - Walnut Grove Rec Centre - 8889 Walnut Grove Dr. : 2pm - 8pm
• Surrey
  • Nov 7 - Central City SFU Mezzanine - 13450 102 Ave : 12pm - 9pm
  • Nov 10 - Guildford Mall - 2695 Guildford Town Centre : 9am - 6pm
  • Nov 13 - Newton Wave Pool - 13730 72 Ave : 2pm - 8pm
  • Nov 15 - Fleetwood Community Centre - 15996 84 Ave : 9am - 8pm
  • Nov 28 - Cloverdale Kwantlen Univ. College - 5500 180 St : 12pm - 9pm
• White Rock
  • Nov 4 - Semiahmoo Mall - 1701 152 St. : 9:30am - 6pm

By the way, TransLink’s South of the Fraser site also has a very informative FAQ section discussing rapid transit, reuse of the Interurban line, Abbotsford connections, and express buses being rerouted to the Canada Line.

It’s said many a time that Vancouver is a highway-free area, which, to put it frankly, is a large misrepresentation. Maybe the City of Vancouver itself was successful in avoiding the construction of “major” highways (mind you, it still has some very wide, auto-oriented roads *cough* Marine Drive *cough* Pacific Boulevard *cough*), but in the regional viewpoint, everyone knows that highways are a fact of life. It is rather unfortunate to have large cuts of freeway going right through cities like Burnaby, North Vancouver, or Surrey, but we’ve managed to live. People need to get around, from one edge of Metro Vancouver to the other, and, I guess, arterials just don’t cut it.

The one thing we were relatively successful at, up until recently, was keeping the highways a good distance from urban areas. A good portion of Highway 1 is surrounded by greenery, providing a reasonable noise and “ugliness” barrier from the municipalities, while also making for something of a scenic drive.

This is the key concept though. If we have to have highways, let’s keep them away from our homes and lives. The government achieved this goal excellently with both Highway 99 and 91. The current Highway 99, which splits right through the ALR, around Richmond, and connects to Vancouver’s road network, was built in 1962, replacing the former stretch through Surrey along King George Highway, 10th Ave in New West, and Kingsway. The old passage is now Highway 99A, an alternate route. Highway 91, following similar structure, was built in the late 80’s, outside of Delta, through the ALR and splitting Burns Bog.

As I said before, those two Highways are perfect examples of where “the highway” works. It’s surrounded by protected green space, far enough away from people’s immediate lives, while still providing access to a high speed roadway network for regional commutes.

Unfortunately, things don’t always turn out the right way.

First, all the construction around Highway 1. This is visible most apparently near the 200th St interchange in Langley Township. The south side has a number of industrial complexes just sprouting up, while the north side has huge big box retailers. It’s worse though, because, in fact, there’s even new storage facility warehouses right in the middle of the interchange! This is the worst kind of development, not only making for a terrible living area for people, but also encouraging urban sprawl and congestion of the Highway. Also, it’s just plain ugly. We should not be having any type of development along the Highway corridor, and heck, at least Abbotsford and West Vancouver pulled it off not too badly, where commercial enterprises are close, but they don’t necessarily dominate the scene. A Highway is for commuting, not for the core of a community.

I wrote this huge spiel because I absolutely despise what the current provincial government has funded and built, with respect to highways, and no I’m not talking about Gateway. I’ve told you I don’t have a problem with them per se, they just need to be separated from urban life. So, when I discover the original layouts of the future transportation network in Transport 2021, compared to what’s currently being constructed, my blood just boils. There’s a number of projects that they’ve screwed up, and I’m not particularly sure why.

The two that touch home the most are the expansions of Highway 10 and Highway 15 (176 St.) as part of the Border Infrastructure Program. As far as I can remember, Highway 10, which should’ve never really been called a Highway since it used to be not much more than a bumpy old road for most of it’s stretch, never had many trucks. Neither did 176 St (which, oddly enough, had more trucks than Hwy 10, but is most commonly referred to as a street rather than a Highway). The interesting thing is, according to plans in Transport 2021, the GVRD called for the development of an East-West connector from Tsawwassen, along Highway 99, through Surrey and Langley to the new Fraser River crossing (aka: the Golden Ears Bridge), that was to pass through, mainly, the ALR. It would’ve avoided going through almost any urban living area.

What happened though is they expanded both 176 St and Highway 10. I don’t know if they cheaped out, or something, but it was a really stupid idea. 176 St splits Cloverdale right in half, and isn’t exactly the most pedestrian friendly type of road to have in the middle of your community. In fact, there have been many calls for an overpass because hundreds of high school students have to cross the Highway to get to Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary everyday. It gets worse though: because of the increased air and noise pollution, they erected this big, old, ugly wall along the Highway, separating the road from the residential houses right beside it.

A similar situation is occurring along Highway 10. They’ve put up these huge walls along the route. But, it creates something of a conundrum since Surrey City Council continues to push forward developments along both sides of the Highway! I mean, it would make reasonable sense to have a wall if urban living ended just north of the Highway, but they keep accepting development that is forcing a detrimental urban design on future residents. Instead of splitting an existing community in half, they are creating one!

There’s a few other projects that have been altered throughout the years that just get to me. The new Fraser River crossing, for example, was to connect Langley to Maple Ridge. Well, the original alignment would’ve had you cross directly into the Maple Ridge town centre. The alignment they are building right now though, has you cross into the outskirts of Maple Ridge, basically right between it and Pitt Meadows. Which, isn’t very supportive of transit, for sure, seeing as the routes will have to turn to Maple Ridge, then double back eastwards. I’m sure there’s a similar argument for goods movement as well.

Or, take the Queensborough Bridge. I’m not exactly sure why it was built in the first place - instead of the Highway going directly straight up to connect with Marine Drive, it does this weird detour through Annacis Island. Again, in the Transport 2021 document, it was proposed that this more direct connection would be built just north of the interchange with the Highway 99 Richmond connector. Instead, for some odd reason, they’ve continued to expand this small stretch of road through the Island, which constantly sees backups during rush hour.

What the hell is wrong with the Provincial Liberals? Do they not read up on their history? Do they not care about the plans our own region put forth? Are they just cheap? What is going on?!

Rebecca recently wrote a short post about Surrey and it’s old moniker as the City of Parks. I’m quite supportive of the move to update Surrey’s motto (and logo), in particular because I do not believe the city is worth of labeling itself a “City of Parks”. Not only does it imply the city has many parks, which is up for debate, but it also suggests that the city is green, and trust me, Surrey is anything but green.

When I first heard that the whole point of the LRSP was for the region to be a series of town centres in a “sea of green”, I couldn’t help but laugh. Sure, there may be good number of stand alone trees, a few urban parks, and a few untouched nature reserves, but overall, I would not classify this area as a “sea of green”. It’s more like a few patchy parks in a sea of grey buildings.

A “sea of green” doesn’t matter if it isn’t within close reach to people. Maybe that’s why Downtown is the closest model to a success - because the higher density allows more people to take up less land, which is then available for recreational use. The parks there are close and are in constant use. When everything is sprawled out, people end up farther from nature.

Surrey has never been worthy of the “City of Parks” designation. It boasts about it’s 500 parks, and expansive trail system. Psht. It’s all marketing. If you ask me, just from a quick look at Google Maps, two other cities are more deserving of the title.  Burnaby has Burnaby Lake Regional Park, Deer Lake, and Burnaby Mountain, all taking up significant area in the city, not to mention the large Central Park. Vancouver has it beat though, with it’s numerous golf courses and the protected UBC lands making up a huge biotope along the south east side of the city - plus it’s also got QE Park and the crown jewel that is Stanley Park.

What makes the situation worse in Surrey is that is continues to pave over large swaths of old age forest for townhomes. I just don’t understand why council accepts the proposals! They should be acting for the betterment of the city, not to increase the tax base (which, by the way, is only there to support city services for the residents!). I don’t have a problem with the redevelopment of large exurban properties, but there is something wrong with knocking down what amounts to be an “unprotected” Green Timbers.

I understand the whole tree by-law issue, and yes, they are replacing trees at a higher than 1:1 ratio. That’s not what gets me. It’s that, for naming itself the “City of Parks”, I have to drive to get to one. How’s that for irony? Or if I want to walk 30 minutes to one, I need to cross a highway, bordered with a large wall to reduce residential noise concerns.

Surrey has a bylaw that states there should be 10.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. That means that Surrey could grow by  180,000 residents before they would even hit the wall on that bylaw. The problem with such a bylaw is that it fails to recognize the need for all people to be within a short distance from nature. The current bylaw would basically allow for a huge park in the corner of the city, while the rest is paved over with construction.

Surrey is at a vital time in it’s young life as a city. Doug McCallum didn’t do many wonders for the city, and Dianne Watts, as balanced as she is, is something of a jack of all trades, not really able to successfully pull off any one thing with flying colours. Before all the usable land is built on, can the city at least do a few things to improve the green situation? Not only will the politicians get some street cred with the environmentalists - heck, their lives might be healthier in the long run as well. My suggestions:

1. Update the park bylaw requiring a certain amount of parkland be within a reasonable walking distance from any developed land (say, 800 m or so). This will allow for green space to be accessible to all people, no matter the density, but will also tighten up the amount of land that is developable and thus encourage higher density to shoot up.
2. Update the park bylaw requiring at least 60% of parkland be in it’s natural state, while 40% can be designed for recreational use.
3. Partner with Metro Vancouver to establish regional guidelines for the preservation of green space, while also establishing a means of cost sharing the purchase of properties to secure said green space when necessary.
4. Create a city-wide plan, with supportive laws in place, to develop a network of parks (or biotopes) - in effect, a true sea of green. This is accompanied by a greenway/trail network for public recreation.

The Vancouver Foundations’ Vital Signs report card on life in the region was released today. It includes grades on 12 categories [in graded order]:

• Arts and Culture: B
• Health and Wellness: B
• Learning: B
• Work: B
• Belonging and Leadership: B-
• Safety: B-
• Environment: C+
• Food: C+
• Getting Started: C
• Getting around: C-
• Gap Between Rich and Poor: D
• Housing: D

A few other notable facts:

• In 2005, 26% of children and youth under 18 years of age in Metro Vancouver lived in households with incomes below the poverty line, a higher percentage than the national rate of 17%.
• An increasing majority of Metro Vancouver residents live in ‘compact neighbourhoods’ of more than 12 people per acre, an increase of 11% in one decade.
• The gap between rich and poor continues to grow in Metro Vancouver; the region has among the highest poverty rates in the country.
• The cost of housing has risen significantly. This, coupled with diminishing available rental stock, makes finding affordable housing a challenge.

Now, I’m not going to get too deep into this. For detailed analysis, you can visit their website. But here’s some of my thoughts:

Surprisingly, Arts and Culture, one of the things it is said that both Canada and Vancouver lack, is the best rated. Apparently, more funding has been going into this realm, and perhaps it is starting to show. Also note that Health is the second-highest rated, despite our high illegal drug use, and the constant media reports on our crumbling healthcare system. Naturally, as Gordon Campbell would love to point out to you, education is going well, and employment is at an all time high. I also find it interesting that Safety gets a B-, especially considering how generally scared most people are of being outside after dark, and all the news about the latest stabbing or shooting: Vancouver is safe people - it’s all perception!

I do find it interesting, however, that transportation is no longer the largest issue in the region: that now belongs to housing. Along with housing is the expanding gap between the rich and poor. The housing issue is particularly evident when I compare the number of renters and owners in Vancouver and in Surrey:

It’s rather obvious I’m quite passionate about transportation, as it is one of the most major issues I face almost daily. Housing, I’ve yet to confront head on, as I still live at home, but I’ll be facing it soon. However, I see no reason for us to stray off the path of being a Livable Region, just cause people at The Sun or The Fraser Institute think the market will solve all.Quote from The Vancouver Sun (link above):

A similar ideological bent infuses the discussion of other categories in the report from housing, to transit, to the environment and to work.

The report calls for affordable housing, but demands protection of the Agricultural Land Reserve, which limits the supply of serviced lots and drives up housing prices. It encourages residents to grow their own food in community gardens, which may provide recreation but has no economic payback.

Quote from The Fraser Institute:

Land-use planners - or dogmatic social engineers as the Fraser Institute likes to refer to them - are to blame for a region “with the least affordable housing and some of the worst traffic congestion in Canada.”

O’Toole points out that surveys show more than 70 per cent of Canadians want to live in a single-family home. But the GVRD’s planners consider such homes undesirable because they tend to be too low in density to support high levels of walking, cycling, and transit riding.

Planners - who must all live in tiny solar-powered apartments near transit - seek to punish people for their desires, punish them with traffic congestion, punish them with unafforadable single family dwellings.

God damn, they just don’t get it, do they? First off, of course these are ramifications of pursuing a livable region, and being just over halfway through the plan. Transportation and housing prices are the two major issues that we must keep pushing for. There’s no doubt in my mind that everyone in this region would call Downtown Vancouver “livable”, and a stunning achievement in urban planning. I also believe, that if affordable for a much larger percent of the population, a majority of the region’s residents would live there.

Frankly, the people don’t understand what they want. Ask them if they want to own their own house, and they’ll say yes. Ask them what their top three priorities are in finding a place to live and they’ll say: price, travel to work, accessibility to services. As has been pointed out in many different articles throughout the years, people try to save money by living in the suburbs and making long trips to work everyday - you end up spending so much time traveling, and spending so much money doing so, the savings is almost negligible.

Transportation is easy to solve. First off, complete the fucking half assed rapid transit system. Make a multi-billion dollar investment, and don’t make the municipalities pay for all this capital investment - it should be the responsibility of the province and the federal government, both awash in yearly surpluses I might add (can somebody say fiscal imbalance?). But this is only half the battle. We need livable regional centres, just like the LRSP is set out to accomplish: places people can live, work and play in. This way, they don’t even need to drive or take transit to far off areas. They can walk to school, or bike to work. This is what we’ve accomplished with Downtown Vancouver, and it’s what we’ve so far failed to completely replicate elsewhere in the region.

Best case is Metrotown, but even that is focused primarily on the mall. Sure, a lot of people work there, and it’s got a real good mix of housing, plus a library and large park nearby, but is it as livable as Downtown? I don’t think so. There’s a huge lack of private businesses, and the area is not really pedestrian-friendly. Plus, the streets are dead at night.

You’ve got condos going up at Surrey Central, Gilmore, Brentwood, Edmonds, New Westminster, etc. This is a long, tedious process. You need to get the residents, then the businesses, then the community services, etc. etc. Downtown is successful because it’s based on the century-old streetcar, grid network, and has been developing modernly for almost 40+ years, since the first medium density buildings went up in the West End. Nowadays, we are just trying to plop down a bunch of walled garden condos around SkyTrain stations, and it’s not working quite as good.

The solution to the housing problem requires us to be able to emulate, improve, and adapt Downtown’s model of success to the regional and municipal town centres. Half the problem is weak politicians refusing to be bold - to turn down bad developments.

Here’s where the market enters. The reason Downtown is so expensive? Everyone wants to live there. Too much demand, not enough supply. Make all the other town centres as livable and what do you get? More supply to reduce the demand. This’ll make Downtown cheaper, while increasing livable centres in the region, and reducing urban sprawl. Housing prices will come down as more supply enters the market - it’s as simple as that. The way to do this is not to ban the single-family home; it’s to make the high density, urban town centre far more attractive than a large, expensive, empty house.

And it already is. At least the model is. It’s suitable for private business owners and corporate ladder people, singles and families, students and seniors. People want less travel, affordability, and access to services. They want business lined streets like Davie and Denman, recreational routes like the Seawall, parks and beaches like English Bay and Stanley Park, community centres and schools like the Roundhouse and King George Secondary. They want frequent transit, walkable streets, and things to do. It’s all in Downtown.

The livable centre strategy solves the problem of seniors living alone, far from aid or services. It solves the problem of families and kids not having safe places to play together. It solves the problem of workers taking 3 hours out of their days to travel back and forth from home. It solves the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions from everyone driving everywhere. It solves the health problem as people are more inclined to walk and bike to and fro. It solves the small business problem as the ground level streets are lined with mixed uses of private and corporate business.

We just need to figure out how best to recreate the Downtown success in our other regional and municipal town centres.

A problem is occurring on roads intended as long-haul links with other parts of the Province - such as the Trans Canada Highway between the Port Mann Bridge and Chilliwack. These roads are acting as conduits for urban sprawl and are increasingly losing their function for long-haul traffic. They are instead providing commuter capacity for outlying areas where there is affordable housing, but this is occurring through the pre-emption of long-haul transport capacity at the provincial taxpayer’s expense and that of the overall economy. Some roads (such as the King George Highway in Surrey, or the Lougheed Highway through Burnaby) have already reached the point where they have lost their original function and have been surrendered to local or intra-regional traffic. But it is not too late to protect critical sections (e.g. of the Trans Canada Highway) which lie outside the currently urbanized area. The proposed solution to this problem is to restrain tightly all single-occupant vehicles commuting from the valley towns (such as Langley, Abbotsford, Matsqui, Maple Ridge, Mission and Chilliwack) into the urban areas. Long-haul road capacity should be rationed by limiting access onto the inter-regional links, e.g. by:

• charging deterrent tolls at or near on-ramps at the valley towns, large enough to cut down demand; and/or
• restricting access through computerized, coordinated traffic lights at on-ramps; these would feed vehicles into the traffic flow at a rate which maintains travel speeds and prevents congestion from developing on the long-haul facility.

This approach represents a dramatic reversal of past practice, which would typically suggest a major widening of roads such as the Trans Canada Highway for mixed traffic, and improving interchanges to give better access to the rapidly growing valley towns.

Such an approach is also consistent with a policy of using transportation to help shape the target land-use plan, since it reduces in relative terms the accessibility of areas - the valley towns - which the growth management proposals suggest should follow a less-than-trend growth rate.

It is important to note that the proposed solutions will fail unless the change in supply policy is enunciated clearly, applied consistently for decades, and backed by parallel municipal land-use controls, acre-by-acre, in the valley towns.

- page 55 of the Long Range Transport 2021 Plan

As many should know, Translink, officially the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, is a branch of the GVRD that controls transportation in the region. This all changes with the Translink overhaul, when, over time and with agreement by all new municipalities, their arms will apparently reach all the way from Whistler to Hope. I was messing around with some maps the other day, and the expansion is actually quite dramatic to see visually.

The blue is the GVRD, the red is the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, and the green is the Fraser Valley Regional District.

From the libertarian perspective, it’s not necessarily a good thing. Services are easier and better provided when done small and locally, generally speaking. With too many levels of bureaucracy, it’s hard for the average Joe to get his voice across. Arguably, is this respect, Translink is already a bit too big, as service in many places isn’t always prime.

However, with amalgamation, you get the supposed reduction in costs to provide these services, by eliminating any crossover between the multiple service provides (in this case, transit authorities).

So there’s pros and cons from a technical perspective. I do think it’s a good move though. Basically, it will enable Translink to pull in a much larger pot of cash, while they will only have to provide minimal services to these new communities. I mean, Chilliwack, pfft, what is that, three bus routes and a Community Shuttle, at max!? Based on my Transit Metropolis Vancouver, Translink could satisfy these new communities by basically building/extending commuter rail north from West Van up to Whistler, and east from Mission, through Abbotsford, Chilliwack, and to Hope. Translink would just have to build these lines to satisfy the public, and then not invest much more in these areas for a while. I mean, it’s not like Hope or Squamish are going to outgrow Vancouver or Surrey anytime in the near future. I personally believe it’s the one of the few good things coming from Kevin Falcon’s boneheaded move to privatize Translink.

It’s hard to see, but there’s purple line going out to Hope (West Coast Express extension), and a black line going north to Whistler.

I’ve been pondering the effect of parks on people for a bit. Parks are not only gathering places, but centres for recreation and a place to reconnect with nature. Perhaps, that’s why Vancouver’s initiative to have all residential areas “so-and-so” close to a park is so revolutionary. Such a policy truly understands how important parks are to people’s health and overall wellbeing.

While Danny Lyon, from the New York Times, may have mentioned it tongue in cheek, he’s got the right idea:

“#7. Ten percent of all city space shall be where you can “touch the dirt”. If there is not enough room, we can demolish the banks and turn them into fields of native grasses and flowers. One quarter of open space shall be for growing vegetables.”

We are already pioneers in saving agricultural lands, and if that policy survives, we won’t have to concern ourselves to heavily on it. However, Surrey, and other municipalities in Metro Vancouver, need to adopt Vancouver’s park policy. People need close access to parks. But let’s go beyond just patches of park surrounded by buildings. Let’s adopt a biotope policy.

Via wikipedia:

“…it is commonly emphasized that biotopes should not be isolated but be connected with each other because without connection to others, animals and plants there could not move out and biotopes would not effectively work as place for diverse organism to live. That is, one of the most effective strategies to regenerate biotope is to organize a stretch of biotope, not just a point so that animals and plants could come and go. (Such organic traffic course is called corridor.) In this method, the centre of the network would be large green tracts of land: a forest, a natural park, or a graveyard. By connecting them with smaller size those such as a green belt along the river, small parks in the town, apartment garden, or even roadside trees, the biotopes will work systematically. In other words, biotope is not closed but open system and practical strategy.”

You see why the biotope idea is so revolutionary as well? Animals, plants, people… they don’t just sit in an isolated park. They need to move around, and by providing these continuous connections to other parks, they can. That is why we need biotopes in the cities and across the region. The side effect of having biotopes is that we humans can have long, beautiful stretches of multi-use pathway through the biotopes, for recreation or transportation.

This is simply a policy of reserving lands and right-of-way. It’s a policy of working together with stakeholders to get the best situation for everyone, including nature. If Metro Vancouver is involved, perhaps municipalities can get financial aid for buying or retaining these green areas for biotope use. Germany has proven that it works - who will be the one to step up and bring it to Metro Vancouver? People need nature more than they think.

That is my prediction. It’s because that’s the way Campbell’s BC Liberals work. They are economy first; social services second. You’re already beginning to see it happening. Now that the economy is in full swing, and we’ve seen a series of provincial surpluses, the provincial government is ready to start putting funding back from where they once took: education, healthcare, the environment. Just look at the announcement several months ago about a huge expansion of social housing - that came from nowhere, all because the money is finally there.

As people love to point out, there’s no way we can meet the environmental reduction targets without seriously reducing our greenhouse gases, and considering transportation covers about 45% of our provincial emissions, that’s where drastic reductions are going to come from. You have to remember though that the end date for these goals is 2020. Just because they haven’t gotten into full gear with the plan so far, doesn’t mean they won’t start soon.

The Gateway project is a perfect example of the Liberals’ mentality. They are taking care of the major “economic” transport expansions projects now, so that they have the revenues to pay for and support transit and cycling expansion later down the line.

The Translink overhaul occuring in 2008… the completion of the Gateway project by 2010… the climate change intiative with reductions by 2020… the stranglehold on Evergreen Line funding… it all lines up too perfectly. That’s without mentioning how Translink will be putting together a new 30 year rapid transit plan over the next year, and how the Livable Region Strategic Plan will have to be rewritten or severely updated soon as well.

I can see it already. As soon as the new Translink is in place, they will complete a review of the current plans. The Evergreen Line may change to SkyTrain. Kevin Falcon will proudly announce during the groundbreaking of the Port Mann twinning how the Liberals will fund the Evergreen Line. And over the course of the next year, as Translink completes it’s 30 year vision, the Liberals will announce immediate funding to expand the Millennium Line, and to fast track rapid transit expansion south of the Fraser. They will also fund vast bus improvement and expansion plans, and new cycling routes.

It works, doesn’t it?! I can see it happening.

And it really doesn’t have to do with all the pressure people have been putting on the Liberals. They don’t actually give in. They fund the social services as they are able to - according to their way of running government. This is why the Port Mann will get twinned, regardless of what people say, and why it’s getting funded instead of transit expansion.

The only good thing about all the complaining people do is make sure their ideas get on the table. The louder the Valley is, the higher on the list of priorities rapid transit for their area will be. If they don’t make a peep, plans won’t get written up, nor will we ever get the money.

See, this is why it is essential the government knows what we want as a region. Because when 2008 rolls around, and they get to the finance department and decide how much they want to spend and where to spend it, they will be looking at what the people are demanding and what makes the most sense in terms of cost/benefit ratio - not only financially, but politically (and thus, how their announcements will be taken and/or spun in the media).

This is why the south of Fraser region needs to be united with rapid transit they want. Will they settle for BRT? Do they want SkyTrain or will LRT work? Where will the routes go - Fraser Hwy, King George, the Interurban line, 200th, etc.? We need to put our heads together on this and decide what exactly we want.

Vancouver already knows it’s demands: Millennium Line down Broadway to UBC, and funding for the Downtown Streetcar Initiative. The Tri-Cities want the Evergreen Line, but they may ask for it to be SkyTrain by the time it’s actually back on the table. There’s too many voices calling for too many things in the south of Fraser region.

Stay tuned for my Transit Metropolis Vancouver plan. I’ve already gotten several good reactions to it, and I truly think, out of all the suggestions for rapid transit lines in the region that I’ve heard of, this plan brings together the best ideas. If we need something to rally around, and I believe we do, this plan will be it.

UPDATE: I might’ve been closer to the truth that even I expected!

Some news in today about how investing in cycling in the UK will save that country money in the longterm by reducing healthcare costs and aid in combatting climate change.

The chairman of Cycling England, Phillip Darnton, said, “There are very few activities that tackle so many of the things that the government is concerned about, from health and obesity to government and pollution. An investment of £70m is small in terms of government spending, and this study shows that it will work.”

One intriguing way that Washington, D.C. is supporting the bicycle is by forcing developers to include bike parking in their buildings. This motion puts the “required parking spots” policy on a 360.

The proposal would require that all apartment buildings with more than eight units set aside one bicycle parking space for every four residential units. Commercial landlords would have to provide enough bicycle parking to match at least 10 percent of the number of available automobile spaces.

These are the types of policy moves that cities around the Metro Vancouver region should be pushing for. Cities have a lot of power, and politicians need to start being bold and making the proper steps, for the betterment of all citizens.