paulhillsdon.com

I recently attended a “limited” public forum with about 60-80 other stakeholders from the region helping TransLink to develop their strategy for the next 30 year regional transportation plan: Transport 2040. Let me be clear however, that this was a very broad look at the transport system, and they attempted to avoid any specifics. It was a deliberate attempt to form 7 main strategies for the new plan, and then, perhaps, some more particular policies that could reinforce these strategies. Yes, it was very, technospeak (aka: public relations picky-wording).

To begin, I will link you to two important documents that we were given at the forum. There is a backgrounder, and a discussion guide. I have absolutely no idea why these are not currently public on their website (they should be! TransLink isn’t even private yet and they hold back this info!).

The main outline of the Transport 2040 plan revolves around 7 strategies. The ones proposed by TransLink, which were discussed at the forum, are as follows:

1. Use our assets to their fullest potential and keep them in a state of good repair.
2. Strategically expand the supply of transportation to provide real alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel.
3. Minimize environmental impact of transportation.
4. Build and operate a safe, secure and accessible transportation system.
5. Secure funding that is stable and predictable, and that influences transportation choices.
6. Implement and manage transit investment in ways that encourage development of communities that are designed for transit, cycling and walking.
7. Work collaboratively with other transportation and planning agencies and stakeholders in the Lower Mainland.

When I first arrived, it struck me how many suits there were in the room. Obviously, TransLink is more than just transit, as it’s mandate covers the whole regional *transportation* system. However, it was funny overhearing the “business” people talk about taking the SkyTrain downtown, as if it was something they rarely ever did. Frankly, SkyTrain is a very attractive rapid transit system that everybody in the region, even politicians and business people, should be using.

The concept of a “limited” public forum was odd to me. It seems like TransLink invited organizations with whom they have a good relationship (aka: BEST, Gateway Council, Vancouver Board of Trade, etc.). This was very upsetting to me. I mean, first of all, they seem to be rushing through this whole 30 year plan development process, trying to complete it all in less than 3 months. Not that it’s impossible, but it seems very rushed for something so important for the future. Furthermore, the public is not at all informed that the development of this new plan is even going on, let alone allowing them to have a voice in it.

However, it wasn’t all doom and gloom. As things got going, people began to participate, and the mood was very Canadian. While there was a number of strong positions on certain topics, people were not as polarized as I would have expected. The business people rarely mentioned Gateway, and continued to show much support for environmental protections and vastly expanded, and efficient transit. The transit and eco people, while tending to knock Gateway at every chance, ensured that roads were still very much a vital part of the economy and of the transportation system as a whole. The amount of symbiosis on the many struggles and suggestions for improvement of the transport system was very surprising to me.

Throughout the discussions, everyone, from the cyclists, to the TransLink staff, to the business leaders seem to be on the sustainable bandwagon, specifically using the term “sustainability” over and over. I wonder though how many fully understand the very deep and complex values that real sustainability entails with it.

Also, when we went into each of the seven strategies, reuse of the old Interurban route throughout the Valley for rail transit continued to be brought up time and time again. Many times by John Buker, of Rail for the Valley, but also from business people from the South of Fraser, like Peter Holt. It’s obvious that many people support the revival of the Interurban, and understand the benefits such a line could bring to the region. Unfortunately, TransLink hasn’t been very receptive to the idea so far, so I’m not sure how much help it did talking about it at the forum.

There was also a very resounding underlying thought throughout the forum that congestion pricing needed to be looked at as a new funding source. Basically, it’s an idea whose time has come. People wanted TransLink to do a comprehensive review of congestion pricing options, from bridge tolling, to distance charges, to emissions charges, etc. and develop a long term strategy for the implementation of the recommendations.

There were many other intriguing tidbits that I noted throughout the day. Some range from suggested improvements, project, and policies, to general comments. The list is long, so beware!

• New thinking on choice of travel, mode, time
• Dedicated transport corridors for personal travel, goods movement, etc.
• Industrial Land Reserve
• “User pay” and other traffic demand management strategies
• The good investment/return rate of Intelligent Transportation Systems
• The issue of aging infrastructure
• Increasing/diversifying modal choice
• Transport’s strong connection to land use
• Developing a 5 year plan for capital projects with rolling schedule
• Develop/expand/secure greenspace & agricultural reserves
• The need for affordable, mixed housing
• Increase in local job creation
• The problem of senior governments principles conflicting with local governments
• Reducing the amount of municipal governments
• Make the LRSP binding to all Metro Vancouver municipalities
• “Gateway” Land Reserve (aka: Industrial Land Reserve)
• Increase densification along transit corridors
• Creation of buffer zones between Industrial/”Gateway” areas & local communities
• Government funding holistically - not one project at a time, timed for elections
• Problem of converting commercial and industrial lands to residential (i.e. in Downtown, along SkyTrain routes)
• Creation of unfragmented/continuous greenspace
• Better transit outside the Growth Concentration Area
• Ensuring affordable transit
• Transport system offering community spaces
• More inclusive process (i.e. more public forums)
• Stable planning, financing, governance
• Protection of transport corridors
• “Green” transit, using alternate energy sources than gasoline
• Fixing the grid road network in the region
• New town centres growing into second Downtown/taking over Downtown
• Mitigation efforts for future earthquake
• Environmental consultation on all developments
• Road/Transport pricing strategy (supported by the BC Chambers of Commerce)
• 37% of population immigrants
• 83% service sector workforce
• Travel patterns changing from hub and spoke to pick and sticks
• Climate change affecting infrastructure design life and service reliability
• Accessibility big issue in future when 25% of people will be over 65
• Frequent service most important. Fit size of vehicles around demand, but keep steady frequency at a high rate throughout the day and night
• Remove property tax from funding schemes
• Do not rely on gas tax, because funding will decrease as people shift out of cars, or to other fuels
• Reintroduce parking levy
• Look at transportation demand management, or carbon tax
• Senior governments need to invest in transportation
• Create a diverse list of funding sources
• In Abbotsford, local businesses are paying for sidewalks and cycling lanes, understanding their impact on livability and on the overall health of the local economy
• Market a “transit lifestyle”, in particular to youth
• There was no representative on site from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, despite TransLink’s Transport 2040 *having* to fit the growth goals of the provincial governments (aka: accepting Gateway)
• More public forums!
• New governance structure though out backwards. Decided on new structure, funding then did 30 year plan, versus other way around
• Very risky aftereffects yet to be seen from P3s (public private partnerships. aka: Canada Line, Port Mann twinning). Investments made by private corporations will limit the control and flexibility on local governments on how to use these services. i.e. tolls from new Port Mann would go to private corp, instead of back to TransLink to fund transit initiatives
• Road diets

If there was one thing that annoyed me most, it was the lack of true public awareness and input on this plan. They said it will be made available on their site in November, but we will see…

For your information, we were all seated inside the large roundroom at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue. Most of the seats were filled. Each strategy had discussion on it from 10-15 minutes, and people were allowed to voice their opinions. However, as time was limited, sometimes those who wanted to talk were not able to. And considering it was such a large room, it was very difficult to do any real creative brainstorming with one another, not to mention rather scary for those who aren’t great ay public speaking in front of big crowds (who isn’t?!). A number of the organizations invited were allowed to submit their own specific ideas as well to TransLink, and they each did a short 5 minute summary of their proposals to the larger group.

Your thoughts?

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.