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?

Combining two of my favourite loves - “Thriller” and rail transit. Sure, we may have SkyTrain parties, but nothing can beat this flashmob.

[via SpacingToronto]

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! :)

After writing up the Green Spaces pillar in my beta civic platform, I’ve been thinking a lot about how wildlife interacts with urban life.

Now, I know people don’t like commenting as much as they like reading, but I thought I may as well try.

I’m really interested in what types of wildlife you’ve seen in your community. Feel free to jot down some animals and your city in the comments section.

Here’s mine:

Surrey

• Raccoons
• Coyotes
• Possums
• Mice
• Squirrels
• Chipmunks
• Herons

Vancouver

• Skunks
• Raccoons (in Yaletown no less!)
• Herons

Burnaby

• Squirrels (they’ve taken over Central Park!)
• Ducks
• Rats

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 periodically working on this project since mid 2007. I was originally planning to release it Monday, but Gordon Campbell was too quick to steal my thunder as I found out Sunday night. I have chosen to hold it off a bit unless the dust on that announcement settled.

I originally thought that my plan might become redundant with the Province’s announcement. Thankfully, it turns out that my plan is almost an extension of the Provincial Transit Plan.

Transit Metropolis Vancouver is my extensive plan based around the idea that transit in this region should work for 90% of the population, not 10%. As you can already tell, this far surpasses the Province’s goal of reaching a 20% transit modal share.

Two unique parts of my plan that weren’t at all touched in the Province’s: expanded commuter rail, and a whole new LRT, or “SkyTrain mini”, rail network. The goal, as I said, is to allow anyone to get anywhere in the region - quickly, conveniently, and comfortably.

Transit Metropolis Vancouver, in my mind, is almost a personal visioning practice for transit past the Province’s plan that ends in 2020. Check it out and let me know what you think.

I haven’t ever done this, but with a recent increase in readership, I thought I may as well try.

You’ve seen the plan. You’ve viewed the news reports.

Now, what do you think?

There’s a poll below, and I’m leaving this posts comments wide open. It’s a free for all.

What are your concerns? Does the plan meet your needs? How will this effect you? What bumps in the road do you predict?

If you have anything to say, say it!

Premier Gordon Campbell put our money where his mouth is and the proposal is quite satisfying. 9 new RapidBus lines, 3 new Rapid Transit lines, 1500 new clean buses across the province, a commitment to turnstiles and a smart card system. Overall, it is quite huge, comparable in fact to a 2020 transportation plan set out in Ontario by Dalton McGuinty’s government, which also included a vast expansion of transit services. We should all be commending the provincial government for taking this necessary step - certainly a far more balanced situation than just getting Gateway.

However, as always the devil is in the details, and it’s the details that are lacking in the plan.

Funding

For example, the provincial government is not spending $14 billion. Only $11.1 billion is actual new money, and of that, the province is only putting in $4.75 billion - over the next 12 years. One could argue they aren’t really pulling their fair share of a plan they have initiated.

How’s the rest going to be paid? Well, Campbell is relying on Harper putting in a share of $3.1 billion - something the federal government has yet to do with Ontario transportation plan that also required a 1/3 share from Ottawa.

Then, the estimates are that TransLink will have to put in almost $2.75 billion. The agency currently has a surplus fund of $400 million - something that used to sound like a lot; not so much anymore. TransLink’s only way of raising any money is through a combination of increased fares, property taxes, and gas taxes. Over the course of 12 years, that means TransLink needs to raise an additional $230 million. The recent fare increase raised an additional

Seems likely that the $5 three zone fare is going up some more soon. Or maybe they’ll move forward on pursuing possible money from transit oriented development near stations…

In other areas of the province, municipalities will be throwing in about $500 million as well.

But don’t forget the private corporations. As we’ve already seen with the Golden Ears Bridge and the Canada Line, the provincial government is keen on having private corporations foot part of the bill as well. Kevin Falcon has already stated that even smaller projects, like the estimate $100 million it will cost to install turnstiles, will be handled by a private corporation through a P3.

Timeline

Compared to the past, when the Lower Mainland received 1 rapid transit line per decade, we are now getting three in 10 years. A good increase for sure.

But, what you have to realize is that many of these routes should have already been built. So in fact, we are playing catch up - and with this plan, the lines will continue to be 5-10 years away. Is that fast enough to relieve the congestion we have already? How much transit demand will there be that far away in the future? What intermediate steps will be taken to fix the situation in the meantime?

The fact remains, we need these rapid transit expansions today. What lines will we be needing by 2020, when the current extensions are just finishing?

Furthermore, there has been no estimate at all for the RapidBus BC system. Obviously, the Highway 1 route won’t be possible until the Port Mann is expanded - potentially completed by 2013.

The whole point of using buses is that they are a low cost option that can be launched in under a year. Whether these advantages are adopted has yet to be seen. It would be a very big shame if the routes took a number of years to implement, especially since we could start right now and get many of them in place immediately.

Routing

One of the things I find most interesting about the Rapid Transit and RapidBus plans is their routes. Frankly, it’s not all that surprising to see the UBC Line where it is, and the same goes to a lesser degree with the Evergreen Line. However, having the Province decide something like a possible extension of the Expo Line in Surrey doesn’t seem like the best choice to be made.

The Province doesn’t have a full grasp on the area first of all. I mean, just looking at where they’ve proposed it makes no sense at all. It seems like it attempts to get a station close to Guildford, even though it’s obvious that it’s quite a few blocks away from the mall no matter what. Then, it goes southeast towards 88th and Fraser, cutting right through a neighbourhood. I personally think that the current terminus is the best situation, but if they are going to extend it into Surrey further, it should just continue directly down Fraser Highway, and should end in an area where a large transit exchange and park and ride could be built - potentially at Fraser and 168th St.

I also found it amusing that the Province promotes RapidBus on routes that already have or are soon getting a B-Line: i.e. the Hastings to SFU route and the Joyce to UBC route via 41st. TransLink has been planning these for a while, and put the money in this year to create these B-Lines. What’s going on? Where is there overlap? Is it going to be a B-Line or a RapidBus BC route?

Same thing goes with the planned King George Busway by TransLink that has been adopted by the Province.

You’d also notice the White Rock to Richmond route - which is already a semi premium express coach route by TransLink.

What’s going on? Why is there overlap? What’s with the lack of coordination?

Where’s TransLink in this?

With this plan, what is the new role of TransLink. It seems that not only has the Province literally chosen the routes, timelines, and technologies for future rapid transit - not just rail based, but road based as well! Why should TransLink pursue a new regional transportation strategy if the Province is just going to institute a plan from the higher ups? Is TransLink simply going to be the agency that draw up the feeder routes? Is TransLink just the scapegoat of the Province - the operator, per say, that gets all the rider’s complaints?

The Reality of Governments and Plans

First off, we must understand that this is not so much a plan as it is a vision. That’s because, well, the money, past the first phase, is not at all guaranteed, and the government that’s in office in 2012 or 2017 could easily just scrap this plan altogether.

Take a look at what the Campbell government did to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Clark government for the Millennium Line. That was a government agreement that the province would provide the funding to complete the rapid transit line, following a detailed routing and technology analysis. Once the NDP got booted out in 2001, whatever happened to that Memorandum of Understanding? Gordon Campbell through it out with the outgoing government.

Plans change and evolve so much these days that it’s very difficult to look at the maps and routes as something concrete - that is until funding is secured and the real work begins. Until then, this is nothing more than a vision.

Thankfully, however, we will soon see what amount of money the province is truly committed to when they release the February budget. At that time, we will find out what is included and is actually going to happen in the short term.

Wishful thinking

The plan is great. But there are definite concerns and it’s unfortunate that they released this plan without much of any coordination with TransLink or the municipalities. We are taking a huge step forward with this initiative - I just wished it happened faster and it looked out farther into the future.

Maybe that’s for my generation to plan once Campbell retires. But with more visions like these, I don’t think he’s going to leave the Premier’s office anytime soon. And maybe that’s a good thing. Hey, it worked out alright for transit in Metro Vancouver…

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