If you’ve read about me in any way, you’ll likely know about my issue with the Surrey at-grade rail (Light Rail Transit) proposal. It was the turnkey issue that became responsible for dragging me into a world of politics. As a stakeholder, it motivated me to educate myself as best as I could about issues in the community, and is the reason why I pay attention.
My problem with Light Rail? As much as everyone seems to like the option – especially over a SkyTrain expansion – and as much as it DOES work well in many locations around the world, the reality of Light Rail in Surrey is that it won’t help us achieve ambitious goals (rather restricting us from getting to them ever); won’t move our people the most efficiently; and won’t give us the most benefits for the cost.
These aren’t wild claims; these are facts and stats that have been made clear in numerous studies, including TransLink’s Surrey Rapid Transit Study. So far, people across the city of Surrey – from stakeholders to big advocacy organizations like the Surrey Board of Trade – have disregarded these facts and stats. It really dismays me to see that over $5 million that was put into the Surrey Rapid Transit Study – which was made specifically to compare the rapid transit options from a technical perspective – is largely going to waste.
One of the most alarming things about the proposal for me is that one of the proposed corridors (104 Ave to Guildford Town Centre) will actually see transit worsen with Light Rail, especially during its construction. It’s been a concern not just as a long-time resident of the Guildford area (and a rider on 104th Ave transit routes), but as a generally astute Surrey issues follower for the sake of citizens in all areas, and our region.
With over 5 years of advocacy of Light Rail Transit from numerous city organizations and politicians, stakeholders like me now face a situation where city organizations that control our future unanimously support Light Rail and unanimously disregard its serious downsides. Light Rail for Surrey was recently approved in the Mayors’ Council’s regional transit vision, which is why I believe the time for action is more urgent ever. It’s a perfect time, actually, with the next municipal elections only months away and the attractive lure of political discussion in this city being just around the corner. I think there’s a real potential to turn this around, and I think it has to be done more than ever.
So today I present you with a new Surrey Rapid Transit Vision: a vision that promises more practicality at a lower cost, and with more than twice the transit improvement benefits for our citizens. And, I plead that you don’t ignore this.
It’s the convergence of my best research, put together in a way that residents, current politicians and candidates for the upcoming Surrey municipal elections will be able to understand. In the following months you will be seeing me circulating this presentation to associations in the city and working hard to make this issue clear in advance of the next municipal elections. You’ll see me contacting potential Mayor and Council candidates, current politicians, the media and stakeholders about this issue. You’ll see me working at this because I believe this is a big issue and people NEED to hear about it, right now.
Without further ado:
Vibrant Communities, Productive Citizens: A Surrey Rapid Transit Vision
(Recommended: Tap the icon on the bottom right to view in full screen!)
Above video: the Johnston Heights senior choir performs for students
At Johnston Heights Secondary in Surrey, where I completed my grade 12 education early last year, the ongoing disputes between teachers and the government have caused the cancellation of at least one major school event, one of which I was looking forward to attending: the year-end music (band and choir) concert.
The J.H. Music Program is one of the best in the city, having participated in numerous major provincial events such as MusicFest in Ottawa, 2010 (earning the silver award for both band and choir), several consecutive Kiwanis Music Festivals, and the Envision Jazz Festival in Surrey. As an alumni of this program and a member of both the senior wind ensemble and jazz band, I cannot stress enough how important the year-end concert is in the spirit of learning and school culture.
The year-end concert is a celebration of music and school culture, and it represents the culmination of a year’s worth of practicing, learning, dedication and team-building. It attracts other students, parents, and alumni who were in the music program to witness the music-making talents of a new generation of students who participate in the Grade 8, 9 and 10-12 senior bands; the grade 8, 9-10 junior and 11-12 senior choir; the chamber choir; the string ensembe; and the intermediate and senior jazz bands. The latter four are courses that are held outside of the school time and are the culmination of willful attendance, participation and commitment from both the teachers and the students who are involved.
With the school inaccessible outside of normal school hours (which is also preventing students from using the bandroom facilities for practice), this event has been put off indefinitely for the year 2014. It may be the first year in several consecutive years that the school music program did not hold a year-end concert, and I am sad to see that my peers aren’t going to be able to celebrate their hard work and dedication to music.
This is just one of the many inconveniences students have to face because of the ongoing conflict between teachers and the government. Not just now, but in the past several years of deteriorating school conditions.
At the North Surrey Secondary school here in Surrey, too many students and an overcrowded school building have forced the school to adopt anawkward five-block schedule [CLICK HERE]. NSSS staggers students across the 5 blocks, so that older students study for the first four and younger ones for the last four (or combinations with study blocks).
I have often – in letters to the editor, and in other posts on this blog – discussed the realities being faced by students not just in the current conflict but on a year-by-year basis. Not far from Johnston Heights Secondary and at North Surrey Secondary, 5-block schedules are needing to be adopted to deal with increased overcrowding, lack of facilities, and growth in the community.
In the same manner as North Surrey, many schools have been forced to make serious, critical cuts to deal with cut funding levels and increased teacher stress. I’m not sure if North Surrey still requires a 5-block schedule this year, but I was hearing about it from numerous close friends when I was in high school – and I was also hearing about the troubles this schedule gave them – troubles in scheduling conflicts and stress.
One of the dangerous criticisms I’m hearing in the current debate is how kids are being used as “bargaining chips”, resulting in the implication that the teachers fighting their battle over class sizes and competition and pay levels are careless.
However, critics also forget that many teachers have kids too – and these kids are as much participants in the pubic education program as the ones who are being taught. Many of the teachers I personally knew were parents of one or more kids, and a few of them gave birth to new kin while I was in my high school years. In the short term, these kids will theoretically suffer as much from their parents’ course of actions as the rest of the students participating in this school system, and I think it shows that what the teachers are fighting for is more than just their own living conditions and demands. I think it is evident that it is also about good learning conditions for their kids and ours.
“The LRT or BRT plan to Guildford is very inconsiderate… Never mind the permanent effects – during construction, Guildford residents will be giving up quality transit altogether. Commute times to Surrey Central will double or worsen as 96 B-Line buses must share that one lane of traffic or detour.” All this for several (four plus) years to save one minute using the LRT.
If anything, these words probably highlight one of my original reasons to oppose the Surrey Light Rail transit plan, then as a resident of the Guildford area of Surrey. This later materialized into a strong research effort and the establishment of an advocacy website (skytrainforsurrey.org), one of my biggest efforts since I started discussing transportation and politics issues throughout this region.
My support for SkyTrain-type rapid transit in most any situation, something I understand a lot of you criticize me for, is probably no secret. Yesterday, in a gesture of support for planned SkyTrain on Broadway, I launched an article criticizing one planner’s poorly laid “alternative”. It was a big hit, achieving an April-May viewcount record for my blog and becoming a popular discussion topic on other blogs and boards such as on reddit.
Now that I’m returning to this long-time advocacy priority of SkyTrain for Surrey, I hope to engage the same type of discussion. This is beginning to materialize: the Now just published a newsletter I sent encouraging the next running Mayor for Surrey to show some support for SkyTrain as a rapid transit alternative for Surrey. You can read the new letter in today’s Surrey Now issue or here online.
One reader is adamant that expanding SkyTrain would serve Surrey much better than Light Rail Transit.
Surrey’s departing Mayor Dianne Watts told reporters at city hall one of the things she regrets is that she couldn’t secure Light Rail Transit (LRT) for this city, which will probably do all of us very good.
It was three years ago when she announced her LRT ambitions on the basis that SkyTrain is too expensive and disruptive. But SkyTrain has spurred billions in real estate, building entire communities like Metrotown, Brentwood and downtown Richmond. It’s building our city centre right now and is what’s responsible for making it a more vibrant area.
Because of SkyTrain, Metro Vancouver’s transit system isleading in ridership attraction in North America– ranking third in transit trips per person per year, behind only New York and Toronto. We’re ahead of Montreal, Boston, and Washington D.C. – cities with full-size metro systems – and far ahead of cities with only LRT systems.
LRT has its own downsides. It’s slower, vulnerable to accidents, and we don’t get many transportation benefits. A study suggested the monetary value of LRT’s benefits will not recover costs.
There are other implications. The LRT or BRT plan to Guildford is very inconsiderate, removing two traffic lanes on 104th Avenue. Never mind the permanent effects – during construction, Guildford residents will be giving up quality transit altogether. Commute times to Surrey Central will double or worsen as 96 B-Line buses must share that one lane of traffic or detour. Graduating students and Guildford’s many low-income residents won’t find the options they need to manage busy lives, access jobs and get to classes.
All this for several (four plus) years to save one minute using the LRT.
SkyTrain can cost more money to build but will give us actually veritable benefits. Imagine this: vibrant communities and productive citizens. Less traffic and safer roads. Newton to Guildford in 13 minutes.
Our high-quality, grade-separated rapid transit system gives us these benefits and more, and I want to see the next Surrey mayor pushing for SkyTrain.
This was a horrible accident which has changed many people’s lives. I feel for all these people and hope they have the support and understanding they require to recover as best they are able to continue on with their lives.
However, during the period when my daughter attended Kwantlen University I often dropped her off and picked her up at different times of the day, I saw many of the local high school students crossing the street wherever they wanted instead of using the safer alternative of crossing the street at 72 Avenue and 128, which is a light regulated cross walk and not far off their chosen path. In addition, these students were often on their cell phones, engaged with one another and not paying attention to the traffic and their own safety.
High school students go on to Kwantlen campus (why?) and often walk in a horizontal line across the limited driving lanes in the parking lot, disrespectful of vehicle drivers doing their best to safely navigate through a maze of students, who are not walking where and as they should be (on the side, single file). Drivers have to come to complete stops and wait. It was a very frustrating situation for drivers accompanied at times by rude behavior from the students.
I hope that the administration at Princess Margaret high school have had numerous pedestrian safety workshops for students teaching them their own responsibilities when walking in traffic, and that Kwantlen University is not their ‘playground’.
Perhaps the Surrey School District should share in the responsibility and have secure high fences around the entire school premises with designated entries/exits which would file students/visitors on and off the premises using safe methods (e.g. entry/exit onto 72 Avenue where they would then walk to the street corner to cross in the light-controlled crosswalk; entry/exit at the back to then cross at the new crosswalk). Otherwise, 128 Street could be ‘littered’ with crosswalks every half block based on where the high school students choose to cross the road! What a traffic nightmare that would be.
I hope that the safety of all improves with this new crosswalk, student traffic/safety education and that suggestions from community people be heard and possibly implemented.
According to City of Surrey & BC by-laws, students crossing to reach the businesses at 70th Avenue are not jaywalking. This is because they are crossing more than 1 block away from the lighted crosswalk – and Surrey bylaws state that if there’s no crosswalk, you’re expected to just cross. Lunch break at Princess Margaret is just 45 minutes long. You seriously cannot (and I mean CANNOT and SHOULD NOT) expect students to go out of their way to 72nd Ave on limited lunch time. I reckon that habits of running and hurrying would make them even less safe than with the current arrangement where they cross 128th St closer to the businesses.
As I mention in my above write-up, I am a graduate from Johnston Heights Secondary in Guildford. Previous to my 9th grade year, students were regularly crossing 4 lanes of 100th Avenue, either at an unmarked location on 153rd Street – not within 1 block of any signalized intersection – or at varying points to the west and east, within 1 block of a signalized intersection and thus doing so illegally. This crosswalk and another on 152nd St was signalized in 2009 and all students use the signalized crosswalks today. They were a huge success, and they are benefiting not only school students, but also the entire neighbourhood through improved access on several fronts.
128th Street does not have to be littered with crosswalks every half block – there are two spots where signalized or at least marked crosswalks do make sense. My experience at JH demonstrates that one or two crosswalks would probably be fully successful at preventing crossing at any unmarked spots.
I don’t think that money spent to educate students on where to cross and not cross the road would be money not well spent, but think of the logistics – you’d have to do this every single year. A signalized crosswalk, on the other hand, would be not only be a one-time investment – there would be a cost offset through economic benefits, as the crosswalk may encourage students to check out the local businesses. It can’t be denied that ease of access matters a lot in our society. Why do you think high-density neighbourhoods are popping up along the SkyTrain lines throughout Metro Vancouver?
On the issue of high school students going into Kwantlen and crossing the parking lot the way they do…. well, it’s a parking lot. Do you seriously expect students to adhere to unwritten rules of walking along the edge of a parking lot that does not have any proper sidewalk or walking path defining a pathway to Kwantlen? I would think that Kwantlen needs to make changes to their parking lot design if through pedestrian traffic is supposed to be accommodated.
Lastly, please allow me to say that I take issue with your suggestion that PM Secondary be turned into a prison with high fences around the entire premises and limited exits from all directions. What did we do to deserve that kind of shame? And, what do you think we are? Sheep!?
Like many other riders and observers of the 96 B-Line, one of the first things I thought when I noticed the new artic buses going down King George Blvd. and 104th Ave, alongside the usual 321 and 320 buses, was that many 96 B buses weren’t as well used as the crowded 320s and 321s.
When I started my classes at KPU this fall, I often found myself going through Surrey Central Station in the mid-day (1:30-2PMish) on a near-empty 96, passing long lineups for both the 320 and the 321. It was something that was being noted by many members of Skyscraperpage – an urban observation forum – in a discussion during its launch.
The whole situation had me concerned as an early adopter of the 96 B-Line for my commutes and a transit rider in Surrey, and so I brought the following points to the discussion at SSP:
The 96 is a bit of a special case; with the exception of the 104 Ave corridor (and the 337 will still exist, and is extremely popular), it’s not really replacing any main express services that previously existed. It IS the first express service.
That was different in the case of the other B-Lines. I’m pretty sure that before the #99, there was another express bus of sorts that made its way to Broadway (I think it was the #85). In the case of the #98, it took over many direct-to-Vancouver 400-series express services from Richmond (and some were later reintroduced during peak hours only). The #97 replaced the express bus route #147, and its introduction was aided by the new Millennium Line.
The issue here is that riders are still seeing the #96 as a complement and not as the main service. There’s been a definite need for this B-Line, however, and so this should change as time goes by. People need to be given time to make discoveries of how there are benefits. The 96 will be heftily more reliable than the 321 as the service is far more predictable with less stops. Ridership moving onto the 96 will eventually improve conditions for those who insist on continuing to use 321.
Neither TransLink nor the City of Surrey have done well on the part of marketing. The City of Surrey could have lauded its introduction in a press release of sorts (with a Mayor or Councillor speech maybe) and that would have hugely helped introduce the bus route to the entire city. TransLink could put some signage at the 320 and 321’s major terminals to direct riders onto the 96. Also, destination signs; 96 is labelled as Guildford Exchange/Newton Exchange, and so it might not be immediately clear to 321/320/etc riders that this bus also services riders headed to SkyTrain. Those appear to be the primary issues that are preventing the 96 from gaining huge traction.
Notice the two points I highlighted in bold: wayfinding signage at stations, and desgination signs on the buses.
In mid-September I noticed that the 96 B-Line articulated buses were starting to have “via Surrey Central” signs on the front window of the bus, visible to any riders that might be looking at the bus and thinking that it did not connect with SkyTrain at Surrey Central and King George. About the same time, I noticed one wayfinding sign put up at Surrey Central Station to direct some riders to one of the 96 stops.
Today I was back at Surrey Central heading into Surrey, and noticed a barrage of new 96 B-Line wayfinding signage on the station houses and in places otherwise directly visible to riders. At least one of the signs was inside the main station house, directly visible to exiting SkyTrain riders. Pictures below (click to enlarge):
Whether TransLink was actually having a look at SSP or not and whether I may have unintentionally actually influenced the execution of the 96 B-Line bus route is yet to be actually confirmed. I can, however, report on the effects of this.
I’ve been noticing a number of other things about the 96 B-Line, as a regular rider. Firstly, the buses are indeed being used well and are gaining ridership faster than I had predicted in early September. On September 23rd – after 20 days of 96 B-Line service – I spotted the first full, standing-room-only 96 B-Line bus departing for Newton from Surrey Central. I rushed to take a picture of it with my smartphone, and put that photo on Twitter:
I think that the adjustments to the execution are really helping.
I wrote quickly in response to a couple of letters in last Tuesday’s Surrey Leader complaining about the new 96 B-Line in Surrey. The Surrey Leader has delivered, and you can read my letter response which appeared in Thursday’s issue. Meanwhile, here’s a snippet….
This letter is for frustrated 320 and 321 bus riders.
I ride transit every day and like you, I have seen the situation on the 96 B-Line, 320 and 321; adaptation has been slow, 320s and 321s are often sardine-can full and the 96 is not always sardine-can full.
Before you decide to be dismissive about the 96, I would like to suggest that you look at what it is providing for other riders, and to potentially you.
The 96 B-Line may be the single biggest improvement TransLink has ever granted to a corridor in history: it is the only B-Line route ever introduced that is not replacing previous express buses. The 99, 98 and 97 all replaced express buses that were well utilized.
If you’re riding the 320 and 321 and not having a great experience, I encourage you to take note of the 96 and see how it fits with your commute – try it first. One letter writer who dislikes the 96 could walk two blocks in either direction to a stop served by it…..
In light of the popularity of my recent discussion on how some accidents in Surrey seem to correlate around the condition and safety of the surrounding facilities, I have decided to further my voice in this issue and sent this letter below to Mayor Dianne Watts and to every member of Surrey City Council.
To Mayor Watts, to Council and to all other officials at the City of Surrey,
In light of not only a recent incident affecting three Princess Margaret Secondary School students, but also a previous hit-and-run incident in June that hospitalized a 5-year-old near Fleetwood that I have not had a chance to speak about, I urge the City of Surrey to construct a crosswalk on 128th Street south of 72nd Avenue now, and modify its policies so that proper crosswalk facilities are constructed and in place at appropriate locations near all schools in the city by the end of Spring Break in 2014.
Hundreds of visitors have taken to the discussion post I have posted on my blog (see: featured on http://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/) regarding how accidents in Surrey seem to correlate to the condition of the facilities around them. I have received praise for writing this article both privately and publicly on various websites, which has made me wish to further my action on this issue.
I would like to say that I am extremely disappointed by the fact that most requests for safety infrastructure in this city – including traffic calming devices and crosswalks – are put through studies and rigorous standards whose requirement and criteria are very questionable, and take an extremely long time to process. A clear justification for the immediate construction of a marked crosswalk should have already been established by the demand alone, and the adjustment that has to be made for school areas to accomodate for the different mindset of students and children.
As a resident of the Guildford area and an alumni of Johnston Heights Secondary school, I think it is extremely questionable why Johnston Heights was able to get two signalized crosswalks in 2009, but Princess Margaret, after requests for the same thing in 2010, has received nothing. 100th Ave is much like 128th St; it carries between 10,000 and 15,000 vehicles daily, is a four-lane arterial road, and is crossed near-daily by students who need to cross for various purposes, including getting to and from school during morning, lunch and after-school periods.
I could conspire that there was a signfiicant change in city policies past 2009 that has resulted in a lowering of investment in safety infrastructure, although I also know that mentioning that would not get me anywhere in promoting and raising awareness of this issue.
I have heard from multiple city residents from neighbourhoods all over Surrey, including South Newton and (as recently as last night) Fraser Heights who have had to wait for many years (3-4) for crosswalks to be installed.
I understand now that a crosswalk in this area was planned to be put in place in the year 2014. This is one year too late, and completely unacceptable. The construction of proper crosswalk and safety facilities near all Surrey schools needs to be fast-tracked at whatever cost.
A crosswalk can be as simple as marking the roadway and installing a few signs – an inexpensive, upgradeable first-step solution that can create a massive safety benefit in the right location.
It is completely unacceptable that lives have to be lost because of extrenuously conservative fiscal policies and general political incompetence in this city.
I hope that my letter encourages you to take action on behalf of all students in the City of Surrey who deserve improved safety around school facilities and elsewhere.
Daryl Dela Cruz
Police searching for driver of silver four-door Mercedes with tinted windows and large, stock rims CBC News Posted: Jun 07, 2013 4:06 PM – RCMP are searching for the driver of a silver-coloured Mercedes who struck a young boy and drove away in the Surrey neighbourhood of Fleetwood Friday afternoon. Five-year-old Arshdeep Singh Sidhu is recovering in hospital after being struck by the car, his aunt told CBC News.
Surrey RCMP Cpl. Bert Paquet said the hit and run happened in the 16100 block of 92nd Avenue at around 3 p.m. PT. (More on CBC news)
It has only been a few months since I took notice of an incident this past summer in Fleetwood that sent a 5-year-old boy to the hospital. The incident gained particularly big attention from the media as it was a hit-and-run. I was just reading the news that day and it struck me that the accident occured in a place that is within easy biking distance of my home. So, the next day, I decided to head out on my bike and check out what the area looks like.
This is what I found:
First of all, let me start off by pointing out what is wrong in these pictures:
One side of the road does not have a sidewalk, which is violating city policies that mandate that collector roads have sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Despite a downhill approach, there is absolutely no measure on the road for slowing vehicles down – something that is especially heinous, given that the downhill direction is the side without a sidewalk.
Despite that the road crosses commute paths to a local school, and borders its grass sports field, there are no markings or signs to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings.
Although nearby signage points out that children may be playing in the area and advises drivers to slow to 30km/h, there is absolutely nothing ensuring that drivers will be actually at that speed, and so this stretch of 92nd Avenue is a recipe for disaster. I wrote a letter to the editor denouncing that city policies may have contributed to causing this accident, citing the low investment in pedestrian and cycling facilities and the stringent process for applying for traffic calming, and also forwarded this letter to the nearby school’s principal and parent advisory council. It was never published on the newspaper.
A teenage girl is dead and two others have been seriously injured, along with the rider of a motorcycle, following a traffic accident just before noon today in Surrey, B.C. RCMP Cpl. Bert Paquet said the motorcyclist was travelling southbound on 128 Street near 68 Avenue at 11:30 a.m. PT when he struck the three teenage girls as they were crossing the street. (More on CBC news)
Yesterday, I heard the news that a teenage girl from Princess Margaret Secondary was killed in an accident not one block away from my current school (Kwantlen Polytechnic University). I know many friends personally, who go or went to Princess Margaret Secondary, and who know the girl that was killed in a recent motorcycle accident during the lunch hour. It caught my attention when an R.I.P. post appeared on my Facebook news feed. So, I decided to look into the incident and the area where this accident occured. This is what I found:
128th Street is a four-lane arterial road signed at 60km/h. Despite the nearby presence of both a post-secondary and a secondary institution, there is absolutely no signage to notify drivers that they should expect students.
There are no crosswalks on the entire four-lane stretch of road.
There are no crosswalks fronting the local business cluster, despite the school, significant residential and transit stop on the other side.
There is nothing else on the road stretch that compromises the right-of-way and could possibly slow vehicles down. It is a straight stretch of completely unobstructed road, signed at 60km/h, and an enticing environment for over-speeding.
128th Ave carries 13,000 vehicles daily, which does not even necessarily warrant a four-lane road to begin with. Yet whoever at the City of Surrey decided to pursue an expansion of this road anyway. And so, it is possible to go 60km/h or over on 128th Ave very easily, as there are no obstructions to face. On the entire four-block stretch of road, there are no crosswalks.
The girl who was killed, one among three girls who were crossing (the two other girls were injured), was crossing just north of 69A Avenue. Her destination was a pizza restaurant on the other side of the road way at a business complex. The Vancouver Sun interviewed several people from the local area who conjured these responses:
Local residents say the spot where the teens were hit is a particularly dangerous section of road, where Princess Margaret students often jaywalk across four lanes in the middle of a very long block to get cheap slices of pizza or a samosa during lunch. “There’s always a big problem with (students) crossing,” said Cherenjit Dhillon, who owns a retail building near the crash site. “The kids don’t have enough time to go to the traffic lights and cross.” Read more: Vancouver Sun
Where the girl was crossing the street, it is absolutely legal and okay to cross*, and according to a student from Princess Margaret Secondary School I was talking to, students do it often.
While even a basic crosswalk with just markings and signs could have been doable for a very small cost, there are no plans for a crosswalk outlined in the City’s 10 year servicing plan.
* For clarification, while jaywalking is discouraged, it is not actually illegal in British Columbia (see: Section 179 MVA) to do so. Municipal authorities do, however, have the power to set some of their own by-laws regarding motor vehicles and pedestrians (see: Section 124 MVA); in the City of Surrey, jaywalking is illegal, but crossing at an unmarked location is only considered jaywalking if the crossing is done within one block of a signalized intersection or marked crossing (see: Bylaw No. 13007).
Why students will cross
The alternative to reaching this pizza store by crossing 128th Street at an unmarked location is a 6-7 minute each way detour (at a reasonable 100 metres per second, and accounting for signal waiting time) to 72nd Avenue to cross at the signal. The lunch break time at Princess Margaret Secondary is only 45 minutes (including the time between the warning bell and absolute class time), which means that students have reasons to be in a hurry. A clear justification for this crosswalk should have already been established by the demand alone, in addition to the fact that students will require crossing facilities on a more on-demand basis.
Often times, kids can’t make the BEST decisions possible. That’s why most developed societies have set different laws for anyone who is under 18. The government recognizes a child’s inferior ability to reason and make rational decisions, so they make laws that account for that. It’s all risk compensation at the end of the day. Unfortunately, this mindset does not necessarily extend to infrastructure policies, and that is something that has the potential of being a huge problem.
In my times as a high school student at Johnston Heights Secondary School, I witnessed jaywalking all the time. It couldn’t be stopped. Students were in a hurry. Lunch break at my school was 50 minutes long, slightly longer than at Princess Margaret. Students would pass through a nearby townhouse complex from the school, emerging at 100th Avenue and 153rd Street. Here, many students crossed to reach a major T&T Supermarket and food court and other local businesses. The alternate and staff-mandated route was to have students cross at 152nd Street and 100th Ave, which a lengthy detour for students heading to some of the establishments, such as T&T.
In spite of staff notifications telling students not to cross there, crossing at 153rd Street was nevertheless a popular shortcut for accessing local businesses during lunch time and homes both before and after school – so popular that during my 9th grade, the demand alone was noticed and resulted in the installation of a full, signalized crosswalk. Another crosswalk was installed on 152nd Street at 99th Ave. This project was successful, and the crosswalk is now well used at all times of day. My younger sister, who goes to the school now and is entering the 8th grade, is benefiting from this crosswalk, as it is the closest way to school from home.
How the City responded
The CBC article reports that the nearby secondary school (Princess Margaret) where these students attended requested a crosswalk in this area three years ago, and were told “no” by the city. At a community association meeting in Fraser Heights today, I noticed how much emphasis was being put on feedback having been received from the city that stated that “there is no money in this year’s budget” to solve a safety problem on a section of 156th Street in Fraser Heights. At 128th Street, the city rejected the crosswalk on the basis that according to a study, a crosswalk was not appropriate. But, is it really that a crosswalk is not necessary, or that the city spends far too conservatively for a crosswalk to be acceptable in their eyes without meeting a minimum standard, except in certain circumstances?
That stretch of 128th Street, like the stretch of 100th Avenue in my community that received a crosswalk, services between 10,000 and 15,000 vehicles daily. Like 100th Ave, there is a clear demand for constant crossing between the local businesses and residents/other patrons. Unlike 100th Ave, there is also a bus stop nearby, where riders most certainly cross the street at least once a day for that purpose.
The same 10-year report I linked earlier listing future city projects also reveals that there’s not a lot of money going around in this city to invest in basic road safety. Behind the Mayor’s boasting that Surrey has the lowest taxes in the region is the fact that Surrey dedicates just $4.95 million a year to pedestrian/cycling infrastructure projects – less than half the dedication put forward by Vancouver, despite that Surrey is bigger than Vancouver in size and will soon eclipse it too in population. If there was more money available to be dedicated to improving pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, there would most certainly be less or lower standards. Although, that’s debatable, since the current policy of not being wasteful and requiring rigorous standards may hold through higher investment.
Politicial incompetence kills
I have been saying for a long time that our Mayor and Council need to realize that there can be serious consequences to Surrey’s minimal taxes and spending policies, which do not offer much leeway for proactive spending. Their failure to realize this is part of why we are hearing of this unfortunate reality that a girl is dead.
I watched a recent and excellent documentary called Speed Kills your Pocketbook (you should all watch this) that explores how and why speed can be better fine-tuned to improve safety. Still, while speed can kill your pocketbook, it can still kill lives. A crash with a pedestrian is more deadly if the driver is going faster, an indisputable fact that is reported in many studies.
Political incompetence can be very much the same way. Political incompetence, in the sense of a politician being both a wasteful and extravagant spender, kills your pocketbook. Political incompetence in the sense of being too ignorant and dismissive can kill lives.
However, political incompetence is also unlike speed. While the issue of speed killing pocketbooks and lives can both be solved, in the case of political incompetence, you can only solve one or the other. Saving lives might come at the expense of killing pocketbooks (okay, perhaps killing would be a bit extreme, but it could be painful). It’s a fine line – and a very significant one – that ultimately the residents of this city are going to have to think about.
A girl is dead.
“Unnecessary” should not be an excuse. Families of Surrey, I hope this makes you think about whether this could be your child in a future incident.
Read a nearby city resident’s attempt to construct a “business case” document for a missing stop on a new rapid bus line now!
A permanent contribution from me to City of Surrey residents, particularly in Fraser Heights, Guildofrd and Fleetwood.
This business case is for everyone; everyone can use this business case. It can be used by the City of Surrey, by TransLink, by other advocates, by anyone. It’s been sent to City of Surrey staff. It will shortly be sent to the media. It’s my bigshot attempt to get some action done on this.
It’s attached below.
(You may wish to click the “full screen” button – bottom right – to see it better)
In what can be considered a major victory for Fraser Heights transit riders, there have been two responses to a letter to the editor/rotten tomatoes submission from a Fraser Heights resident, who dislikes the noise of full-size buses going through the neighbourhood.
One of the two was mine and was published today in the Surrey Leader…. (8/28 – The Now has also published a varied version I wrote [CLICK HERE])
This letter is very insulting to the many Fraser Heights residents who are repaying the recent bus size increases with their patronage.
As a frequent rider of the 337 Fraser Heights (I get on/off at 156 Street), I can say from experience that the full-size buses on the 337 are indeed necessary. Peak-hour trips see standing-room only loads, and off-peak hour trips see more than the 24 people that can be accommodated by a community bus.
TransLink’s response has been justified. The recent bus performance report revealed that the 337 has the fastest-growing ridership of any bus route in Surrey, and the full-size buses are preventing pass-ups and keeping the 337 reliable for the demand……
…and the other was from another letter-writer who would seem to live further into Fraser Heights than I do; this was published on The Now Newspaper last week (but should also be on the same edition of The Leader – [CLICK HERE]).
The Editor, Re: “A bus full of rotten tomatoes to TransLink for its decision to run intrusive, noisy large buses through Fraser Heights’ small streets, 16 hours per day. Most of these buses carry less than the capacity of our former small ‘community buses.’ This is a waste of money and an assault on our senses!” the Now Roses and Rotten Tomatoes, Aug. 8, and “TransLink gets credit while lowly subsidize,” the Now letters, July 30.
There have been comments published in the Now newspaper that said most of the buses servicing Fraser Heights were old and empty. Yes, many buses are “old” but then, age is just a number if they are well maintained.
Not knowing where on the Fraser Heights bus route the writer of this comment lives, he/she may not know the majority of people get off and on the buses within the first or last few stops in Fraser Heights, so the buses would have few people until they loop around to pick up those leaving Fraser Heights.
The buses are full with standees in the mornings heading out of Fraser Heights (even during the summer) and packed with standees in the afternoons, heading into Fraser Heights……
I think it was particularly interesting that I wasn’t the only one who sent in a response to this letter-writer, and that the other letter was based upon very similar concerns and experiences. It looks like it’s clear what are the priorities of Fraser Heights and area residents (especially transit riders).
Regarding the stats, this is the document you need to look at (on TransLink’s website – CLICK HERE). The 337 placed 3rd in ridership growth between South-of-Fraser bus routes in 2010-2011 with 13.3% growth, and placed 1st in 2011-2012 with 14.1% growth. It now services more than 750,000 boardings annually.