Rapid bus, SkyTrain best option for Langley

Rapid bus, SkyTrain best option for Langley

So I thought I’d put up a newsletter that the Langley Times published today, along with some added sources/notes.

For anyone that’s curious, I intend to be doing some more blogging on the BCER Interurban very shortly.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – Langley Times

Rapid bus, SkyTrain connection still Langley’s best option

Editor: Re: LRT announcement ignores less costly interurban option (The Times, Oct. 2)

We should welcome good transit ideas here in Langley, but there’s a reason that TramTrain isn’t one of them.

TramTrain was possible in Karlsruhe because it’s surrounded by numerous electrified regional railways. We don’t actually have that here in Vancouver; and while the BCER Interurban may seem like a tempting choice, it ran three times a day [1] and wasn’t built to service today’s cities [2].

When the province and TransLink conducted the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, the Interurban was denied because it would cost millions to retrofit yet still fall short on providing useful connections and service frequency [3]. In other words, it would be a giant waste of money.

What we do have are numerous fast highways on which we could operate inexpensive rapid buses. One of those, the Trans-Canada, now has the Fraser Valley Express (FVX) service from Carvolth Exchange to Chilliwack. This service is now providing the alternative that valley commuters asked for — but when it came time to consult locals about the FVX, Rail for the Valley did not participate [4].

That’s because Rail for the Valley’s TramTrain and LRT advocacy doesn’t come from a genuine desire to make transit better — but rather an opposition to extending SkyTrain to Langley, even though it will do the most for transit commuters.

Our SkyTrain system boasts a ridership that is higher than any LRT system in Canada and the US. That’s why over 50 cities worldwide have followed our lead by successfully employing ALRT-style driverless metros [5][6].

As an extension of an existing system, SkyTrain would have the lowest addition in annual operating costs [7]. Without transfers, commuters starting at Langley Centre Station could reach Waterfront Station within 60 minutes [8]. That’s the kind of travel time improvement that’ll get people really wanting to use public transit, and generate the fare revenue to recoup costs.

I’m all for good transit ideas; but when it comes to what will objectively serve Surrey and Langley best, rapid buses and SkyTrain are the way to go.

Daryl Dela Cruz,
Campaign manager
skytrainforsurrey.org

Footnotes

  1. BCER article in Canadian Rail No. 534 issued Jan-Feb 2010 with the writer and 4-time BCER book author, Henry Ewert, stating himself that Fraser Valley interurban trains ran 3 times per day (Mirrored on Exporail.org)
  2. An earlier technical assessment found numerous technical/construct-ability issues with interurban rail. Mirrored [HERE]
  3. Surrey Rapid Transit Study: “Compared to other alternatives, lower population and employment densities along much of the corridor and a less direct connection to Surrey City Centre would result in lower transportation benefits.” See last page of Phase II Information Boards
  4. The BC Transit Public Engagement Reports for the Fraser Valley Express, Abbotsford-Mission (CFVT) Transit Future Plan and the Abbotsford-Mission (CFVT) Efficiency Review indicate that there has been no participation by members of Rail for the Valley and other associated initiatives, with no comments on potential Interurban Rail service.
  5. The Automated Metro Observatory regularly reports on the worldwide progress of driverless transit systems. There is an expectation that the amount of fully driver-less metro systems will triple by the year 2025.
  6. In addition, numerous cities worldwide have implemented the same linear induction motor propulsion technology used by SkyTrain. A full list is on this blog: List of Linear Induction Motor rapid transit systems
  7. Funding Still Missing for LRT Operating Costs news release – SkyTrain for Surrey
  8. Based on Surrey Rapid Transit Study travel time estimates.

NEWSLETTER: Next Surrey Mayor should support SkyTrain

NEWSLETTER: Next Surrey Mayor should support SkyTrain
Concept image of at-grade LRT on 104 Ave
Concept image of at-grade LRT on 104 Ave. Notice the reduction in through traffic lanes.
“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.

See also: SkyTrain critic’s alternative to Broadway subway is half-baked

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.

LETTER: I want Surrey’s next mayor to support SkyTrain – Surrey Now

One reader is adamant that expanding SkyTrain would serve Surrey much better than Light Rail Transit.

The Editor,

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.

Daryl Dela Cruz, Surrey

Pattullo Problems – 2: Front Street

ALSO SEE: Pattullo Problems – 1: Advocating for Six Lanes

Railway crossing - Front Street, New Westminster
Railway crossing – Front Street, New Westminster

Last year I was working in a building in New Westminster with a window that overlooked the railway crossing at Front Street. There, I witnessed the passing of trains and truck traffic on a daily basis. I still remember wanting to close the window every time I opened it to enjoy the fresh air, because the air smelled like diesel. It just wasn’t something I wanted to breathe, and I kept that window closed as much as I can for the duration of my stay. According to Councillor Bill Harper, Front Street is one of the “most toxic” areas in the Lower Mainland in terms of air quality.

Trucks that use Front Street, as they do regularly with Columbia Street not being suitable for large amounts of trucks, have to contend with these trains, which slowly continue onto the Fraser River Bridge into Surrey. As well, New Westminster residents have to contend with the train whistles, and the air pollution resulting from the stop and go movement. On a transportation basis, it’s not efficient and not predictable to use front street.

This is where a new six-lane Pattullo bridge replacement – which I discussed in a previous blog article and through letters now published in three Burnaby and New Westminster newspapers – can most handily come in.

This summary map shows the highway projects that were proposed with the Gateway Program (along with other recent major road projects in the region). The previously proposed NFPR is highlighted in purple.
This summary map shows the highway projects that were proposed with the Gateway Program (along with other recent major road projects in the region). The previously proposed NFPR is highlighted in purple.

The Front Street corridor was part of a previous highway proposal called the North Fraser Perimeter Road (NFPR), which was part of the regional Gateway Program. However, both New Westminster and TransLink have placed this project on the backburner, perhaps indefinitely. Plans for a new Pattullo Bridge no longer show a connection with Front Street, and the United Boulevard Extension is off the table.

Instead, the City of New Westminster has discussed the potential to revitalize Front Street into a “neighbourhood street” lined with business and mixed-use development, deconstructing it as the current through route for many trucks travelling from the southwest to the northeast.

The revitalized Front Street concept included a car, bike and pedestrian overpass at Sixth Street, connecting with the new Waterfront Park, to eliminate the railway crossing at Eight Street and – along with the elimination of the Front Street crossing and the closure of Front Street as a through route – result in the elimination of all railway crossings in New Westminster, and associated train whistle habits.

Concept: Revitalized Front Street with Sixth Street rail overpass
Concept: Revitalized Front Street with Sixth Street rail overpass

As a proponent of sustainable urban development and a nearby resident just 10 minutes away by SkyTrain in Burnaby, a revitalized Front Street is something I really look forward to. It has the potential to bring increased business, quality of life and tourism to New Westminster, benefitting everyone in the big picture.

Already, new investments into the community like the Waterfront Park have greatly improved the quality of life in New Westminster, and have given people across the region more reasons to come into New Westminster. More than ever, New Westminster is an accessible, vibrant regional centre – and I think that planners and decision makers should be building on that momentum that started with first steps like Plaza 88 at New Westminster Station and the under construction civic centre across the street.

However, the construction of a six-lane Pattullo Bridge with extra capacity to redirect traffic is the only way the City of New Westminster can realistically follow through with this priority.

While the City has discussed redirecting trucks onto alternate parallel corridors like 10th and Royal Avenues, neither are very suitable for trucks. The former is a two-lane, low-capacity corridor for much of its length not suitable for schedule-oriented goods movement. The latter puts trucks through a climb on a very steep hill, which apart from being an issue for truckers themselves, creates noise and pollution for New Westminster residents.

The issues with 10th and Royal were being discussed in detail in New Westminster’s official downtown community plan. However, these discussions seem to have been ignored in more recent viewpoint establishments.

It remains a fact that the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR) with an expanded Pattullo Bridge can fulfill a role that Front Street currently dominates: getting trucks and goods from the South-of-Fraser ports in Delta to Northeast sector ports and industrial centres. A six-lane Pattullo Bridge is the only way to facilitate a direct connection between the SFPR and Columbia Street and totally replace Front Street as well as the heavily congested Queensborough Bridge in this segment with a reliable alternative.

Featured image: The SkyBridge, with the New Westminster Waterfront in the background. From the "Inn at the Quay" website - no copyright specified
Featured image: The SkyBridge, with the New Westminster Waterfront in the background. I think we could we be seeing this view differently with a six-lane Pattullo Bridge in place. From the “Inn at the Quay” website – no copyright specified

I think the City of New Westminster could be taking this into account in having a position on a Pattullo Bridge replacement. Being open to six lanes, the possibilities with Front Street would be endless.

NEXT UP: Pattullo Problems – 3: Queensborough Matters

NEW: Read my letter supporting a six-lane Pattullo Bridge as it appeared on the Royal City Record

Pattullo Bridge needs six lanes – Royal City Record

Dear Editor:

New Westminster’s Jim Lowrie told us that a six-lane Pattullo would cost about twice as much as a four-lane bridge, but the released study reports an entirely different number. Given the actual premium for two extra lanes stands at a more reasonable $200 to $300 million, I am in favour of a six-lane bridge.

Before anyone complains, I think it’s important to establish first what exactly the extra lanes will be for, where will they go, and what are the benefits.

I have heard some complaints about how McBride would become a “six-lane expressway” and overload New Westminster and Burnaby streets with traffic. But TransLink’s concepts from last year’s consultations show that the third lane is intended to split off towards Columbia Street north of the bridge – a road leading away from New Westminster….

[READ MORE – Royal City Record]

Pattullo Problems – 1: Advocating for Six Lanes

Introduction

This is the first in a series of several blog articles I’m going to be publishing on why I think a Six-lane Pattullo bridge (as opposed to a four-lane Pattullo bridge or other options) does make sense and should be built. The articles will publish every week and discuss my viewpoint in-depth.

Six-lane Pattullo makes sense

Re: New West makes Pattullo pitch in Burnaby (NewsLeader, March 14)

I am in favour of a six-lane Pattullo bridge.

Before anyone complains, I think it’s important to establish first what exactly the extra lanes will be for, where will they go, and what are the benefits.

[READ MORE – Burnaby NewsLeader]

^ This is the headliner for a recent Letter to the Editor I submitted to the Burnaby News Leader (and to other local newspapers, pending publishing) with my viewpoint on the Pattullo Bridge. In it, one of the things I’m trying to do is get readers to start asking and finding answers to the question:

Why do we need a new Pattullo Bridge? And how could it be useful to us?

I think the first and foremost reason and benefit is the most obvious and well known: the current bridge is built to old standards with narrow lanes and poor seismic resistance, and could potentially be a major liability for the regional transportation authority. It is past its lifespan and needs to be removed or replaced. Since the bridge is an established goods movement corridor for close to 70,000 vehicles daily, the consensus has been that it needs to be replaced – but some decision-makers, including a few in my current city of residence, are suggesting that the bridge should be torn down with no replacement.

I think the most important things we need to consider – the aforementioned questions of why and how, and the establishment of the actual issues – have been missing from the many viewpoints I have read over what needs to be done for the Pattullo Bridge, from both locals with an opinion and officials with decision-making authorities.

What makes 6 lanes more special than 4

Featured image: Construction crews build the six-lane Golden Ears Bridge, completed in 2009 linking Langley and Maple Ridge
Featured image: Construction crews build the six-lane Golden Ears Bridge, completed in 2009 linking Langley and Maple Ridge

As early as two years back I had been commenting on opinions discouraging the build-out of the Pattullo as a six-lane bridge, finding that the writers are not exactly seeing the big picture. When I lived in Surrey two years ago, I sent a letter to the New West News Leader pushing very much the same viewpoint I am trying to push now. I contended a person with the thinking that the lineups approaching the bridge will increase with the expansion of the lanes and the removal of merge points:

Pattullo Bridge problem is merging, not lane count

posted Jun 11, 2012 at 11:00 AM

There is an unusual mentality among many New Westminster residents complaining about a six-lane Pattullo Bridge expansion. It particularly caught my attention last week when Mr. Vladimir Krasnogor sent in a letter to this paper.

I’d like to point out one ridiculous claim: “With a new six-lane bridge, the traffic jams will extend to five to six blocks, but the actual number of cars going over the bridge to Surrey will not increase by much.”

If there will be no more vehicles crossing the new bridge than the existing one but the bridge will have more capacity and through lanes that prevent merging movements, wouldn’t lineups through New Westminster get shorter? His logic defies itself.

[READ MORE – New West Leader]

While the City of Surrey has contended that a six-lane Pattullo Bridge is necessary, it has done so in a way that many New Westminster residents and officials have found to be quite ignorant – which has allowed this wave of incomplete, not-so-well-thought-out opinions to dominate the public scene. While I don’t disagree in that the city of Surrey has not exactly been very mindful of New Westminster’s community integrity, I do agree with the need for a new six-lane connection over the Fraser River to replace the Pattullo Bridge.

It’s just the fact that constructing a six-lane Pattullo is the most practical solution for so many problems – more than New Westminster residents have been thinking of. In one go, we could solve all of these problems with widespread support for a six-lane Pattullo Bridge:

  • Seismic and road-standard safety issues on the existing Pattullo Bridge
  • Safety issues on the existing Queensborough Bridge – which, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, also has very narrow lanes
  • Congestion and pollution on New Westminster’s Front Street, Columbia Street and Royal Avenue(s) through SFPR connections
  • Major flaws in New Westminster’s plan to revitalize Front Street
  • Growing congestion levels on the Queensborough Bridge, hampering commutes on some of the region’s fastest growing regional bus routes and hampering growth, prosperity and productivity in Queensborough
  • Growing congestion levels on approaching roads such as 20th Street and 6th Avenue, which hamper intra-community movement in New Westminster
  • Growing congestion levels on the Alex Fraser Bridge, affecting goods movement from port to port
  • Funding (because a six-lane Pattullo Bridge expansion decongests the Queensborough and Alex Fraser Bridges, which are important ports and goods movement corridors for the region and for the country, there is a significantly improved case for provincial and federal funding for the Pattullo replacement).

You’re a pro-transit advocate. Why do you even support more lanes!?

There are actually a number of transit-related problems that a Pattullo replacement with six lanes could help solve – in particular, I’m talking about transit routes downriver crossing the Alex Fraser and Queensborough Bridges. In the following weeks, I will be elaborating and writing on the above reasons and many others in a new topic-centric blog series (akin to my popular “No Credit for TransLink” series) titled “Pattullo Problems“, which will discuss the many problems brought up by the current Pattullo setup and potentially solved by a new one.

The next article will discuss how a 6-lane Pattullo Bridge can tie in with New Westminster’s Front Street revitalization plan.

UPDATE: This article has been published as Pattullo Problems – 2: Front Street

Self-taken: the SkyBridge (SkyTrain rapid transit bridge), with the Pattullo Bridge in the background.
Self-taken: the SkyBridge (SkyTrain rapid transit bridge), with the Pattullo Bridge in the background.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Give the 96 B-Line a chance

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Give the 96 B-Line a chance
TransLink/Coast Mountain Bus Company D60LF at Surrey Central Station. This bus will serve on the future 96 B-Line.
96 B-Line at Surrey Central Station

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…..

[READ MORE – SURREY LEADER]

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: TransLink didn't propose .5% sales tax

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: TransLink didn't propose .5% sales tax

I almost let this one slip under my nose! It looks like the Langley Times published one of my letter submissions from last month.

One of the things I noticed in the letter I responded to is how misinformed some TransLink critics can be on who did what. I could explain more, but the best explanation would probably be to read my letter:

Editor: I think that Gordon Price is right — whoever set this widespread anti-TransLink agenda has really damaged the state of transit debate in this region.

Particularly, the recent letter in The Times (“TransLink is never satisfied,” Sept. 12) is like many I’ve read before, in that it’s painting a completely incorrect picture of TransLink. If you’ve heard about the .5 per cent sales tax proposal recently, it was brought up by two well-known South of Fraser transit advocates — not by TransLink. TransLink’s board has never requested a sales tax of such calibre for transit.

The .5 per cent sales tax proposal was first brought up earlier this year by a group of people we have previously elected to lead us: our mayors. The Regional Mayors’ Council has been very vocal in trying to ensure that transit investment in this region can move forward.

Why is that? Because they know that investing in transit is the most efficient way of providing needed new transportation options for a growing population….

[READ MORE – Langley Times]

Double responses to Fraser Heights NIMBY/anti-transit letter

Double responses to Fraser Heights NIMBY/anti-transit letter
A transit bus waits during a "layover" at Surrey Central SkyTrain Station. Photo credit: CC-BY-NC-SA Flickr: Dennis Tsang
A transit bus waits during a “layover” at Surrey Central SkyTrain Station. Photo credit: CC-BY-NC-SA Flickr: Dennis Tsang

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])

Full-size buses welcome in Fraser Heights – Surrey Leader

Re: “‘Cast-off’ buses geared for Surrey riders,” Letters, The Leader, Aug. 15.

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……

See more at: The Leader website

…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]).

Surrey bus service suffers from bottlenecks – Surrey Now

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……

See more at: The Now Newspaper website

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.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Split from TransLink makes little sense

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Split from TransLink makes little sense
Looking forward inside a Vancouver transit bus. Photo: CC-BY-NC-ND Flickr: Cyprien
Looking forward inside a Vancouver transit bus. Photo: CC-BY-NC-ND Flickr: Cyprien

The two points I made in the last sentence of this letter are the only two points I make in favour of my position on where the South of Fraser region should stand on transit and TransLink. The reason for just two is because I think that’s all I really need to say about this, really.

If anyone’s wondering about the Toronto fares mention, you can confirm this through my article and infograph: Transit is more affordable in Vancouver (infographic)

There are some things I just can’t grasp when it comes to south-of-Fraser views on transit issues, from the notion from our leaders that SkyTrain expansion will split communities (SkyTrain has built communities), to the idea that the south-of-Fraser region should split from TransLink.

Take the recent column by Frank Bucholtz suggesting splitting from TransLink, for instance. (CLICK HERE to view – “Time to Break from TransLink”)

Frank is fed up by the seemingly “discriminatory” attitude towards transit expansion south of the Fraser.

Yet, in the past several years, the south-of-Fraser area has received the highest proportion of service hours during expansions. There would have been more, were it not for the limits being set by funding issues for everyone in the region.

He is also fed up with three-zone fares ($5.50) to reach Vancouver from Surrey or Langley. But it must be realized that the distance between Surrey and Vancouver is at least 17 kilometers; many trips exceed 30 kms, and TransLink often has to pay for one or two buses and a SkyTrain trip from your flat-rate fare.

Trying to travel the same distance in Metro Toronto between cities would cost between $6.25 and $7.75 each way, every day. It costs just $5.50 here, during peak commuting hours only – and just $2.75 on evenings and weekends.

True, there are some inexcusable nitpicks like the lack of a Surrey stop on the Highway 1 RapidBus.

However, it’s hard to say whose fault that is. Neither the province nor nearby developers were able to build a place for TransLink to safely stop without incurring delays and/or extra costs.

I’m all for better transit south of the Fraser, but a separate south-of-Fraser transit authority is not the answer.

It doesn’t make sense. Attempting to split off would complicate decisions on funding methods, and it would affect transit service during the process.

Daryl Dela Cruz

Surrey

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Interurban is just a piece of history

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Interurban is just a piece of history
Interurban car 1225 rests at Marpole Station on the old Steveston Interurban
Interurban car 1225 rests at Marpole Station on the old Steveston Interurban in this old-time picture posted on Vancouver Is Awesome

I sent the blog post I created on the Interurban being “dead” as a newsletter to the Surrey Leader, responding to this column about it by Frank Bucholtz. Looks like it was published today on their website, and is likely going to be on tomorrow’s paper issue.

As I have a feeling that this is going to spark some further controversy regarding my comments and my stance on transit, I’d like to offer some additional comments as to why I have set my foot on this position.

The Fraser Valley interurban right-of-way has long been a target for transit advocates here in the South of Fraser (take note: Rail for the Valley initiative, South Fraser on Trax, other groups and individuals), largely on what seems to be a established bases of:

  1. Having been a previously-used transit service
  2. Being a public-owned right-of-way, therefore:
  3. Being “ready-to-build” for a relatively inexpensive Fraser Valley rail transit service.
A map of the Fraser Valley interurban right of way, and the Trans-Canada Highway.
A map of the Fraser Valley interurban right of way, and the Trans-Canada Highway.

Between these advocates and official transportation planning and funding authorities like TransLink, BC Transit and the Province in general, there has been a lot of argument. Conflicting studies suggesting different capital costs per km have been thrown around here and there and claims of bias have been called by some of these advocates, pitting one study over another and citing differing reasons as to why.

Yet, at the same time, it seems that many of these advocates haven’t answered certain questions important in determining what investments are useful and what are not; in particular, the first question I note in my newsletter: “What is the current demand, and how will it change”. How many people are even travelling between Abbotsford and Chiliwack, and between those two points and Metro Vancouver. It’s reasonable to want a constantly-running alternative to driving, but in a province mired with billions in debt, I would think that the alternative has to be very well justified.

It also doesn’t seem that any of them have bothered to look at other alternatives to providing quality transit to the Fraser Valley from Metro Vancouver. An official proposal by B.C. Transit, albeit it is without funding and without a (detailed) implementation timeline, suggests a 10-minute peak rapid bus service extending from the new Carvolth Exchange in Langley Township to Abbotsford via the Trans-Canada Highway, and a 15-minute peak service to Chiliwack. I like this idea. I think that this is a very responsible and reasonable alternative, because it does provide a quality service, and only costs enough to warrant debate if demand warrants more buses or an upgrade to trains.

What the future of Fraser Valley transit could look like, according to an official proposal.
What the future of Fraser Valley transit could look like, according to an official proposal.

I’m not an anti-history person. On the Interurban cars and service, I believe they are a truly fascinating subject on how our region has grown and how people used to get around. Last week during the Salmon Festival in Steveston, I decided to check out Interurban car #1220 (as the admission was free for the day) and found myself fascinated by the ability to switch the seat backs from forward-facing to rear-facing (driver cabs are on both sides, so the seats can be re-oriented when the train reversed), something not done even on our current SkyTrain system. I must remind myself to soon check out that actual running interurban car – no thanks to the Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society – in Cloverdale right now, which lets people relive the past transportation experience in addition to just being around it.

While it’s great to see that a part of our history is back to be celebrated for being a part of what has created today, I sent this letter and wrote what I did because I believe it’s important that people know why history is deemed history, and that looking at doing better for the now and for the future isn’t a simple matter of looking at the past and making a suggestion that is vague, somewhat unsupported, and sole among other potentially good alternatives.

Next up on this blog: an examination of why the Interurban has been largely rejected, and an examination of reasonable alternatives that haven’t been suggested by advocates.

Until then, I have put a snippet of the letter below, and you can read the rest of it on the Surrey Leader website:

Interurban just a piece of history – Surrey Leader

Great transit is like the SkyTrain, or maybe it’s like the new 555 rapid bus: It’s reliable, frequent, runs several times daily, and is filled with choice riders – riders who justify transit over driving, largely because the services they choose are of high quality.

In one survey of riders on the new Canada Line SkyTrain, trip speed is the favourite aspect.

The old Fraser Valley interurban, which was recently described in a Frank Bucholtz column (“Surrey had great transit… 100 years ago”) as “great transit”, ran only thrice daily.

When the service started in 1910, not many could actually afford the recently invented car. It’s easy to see why ridership declined after the 1940s as the car became more affordable and routes became straighter. For many, the new options won over a three-times-daily service that cannot be missed.

I agree that it was inexcusably short-sighted that the recently partly restored interurban was ended in 1955 without a reasonable alternative, but the old interurban was not great transit. It was just… transit.

READ MORE ON THE SURREY LEADER – [CLICK HERE]

LETTER to Mayor Watts and Council: FCM choices were inconsiderate

LETTER to Mayor Watts and Council: FCM choices were inconsiderate
The Fairmont Hotel in Vancouver
The Fairmont Hotel in Vancouver, the staying place of Mayor Watts and Council during the FCM conference. Photo: CC-BY, Flickr – Karen Neoh

I was unhappy enough about the Mayor and Council’s decision to stay at a hotel for the FCM conference rather than commute that I decided to send a letter to them expressing my displeasure. A shortened version of this is being sent to the Surrey Now as a newsletter in response to a news article.

To Mayor Watts and Council,

There’s some legitimacy in the arguments you made to stay overnight in Vancouver, one I can recognize as a previous participator in Model United Nations hotel conferences, where students can and will dish out cash to be closer to the debate and enjoy the full experience of the conference.

I understand that there are costs for doing business. However, I think that the fine line between spending that is necessary and spending that is inconsiderate was indeed crossed last weekend when you decided to make US pay for your hotel bills.

For one, I don’t understand how commuting completely takes away from business and productivity, or costs nearly as much at all. It shouldn’t be excessively expensive to arrange a carpool or take the SkyTrain (you were given transit passes for free).

You mentioned that the time that was taken to commute was used to do your day-to-day business in terms of returning emails and phone calls. I thought that’s what your shiny smartphones (you should have them) are for, because I do this all the time during my commute. I have been learning to read and write Japanese on the SkyTrain. Keeping up with what’s going on in my life during a commute is an integral part of my daily life, because like most Surrey residents, it takes me so long just to get to places, and it would eat my time otherwise if I did not utilize transit for productivity.

Every day, tens of thousands of Surrey residents set aside their OWN money (and their time) for what they can buy out of Surrey’s transportation network. They don’t get a lot. They get high gas prices, substandard transit options, long and stressful commute times, and (by far) fewer options for jobs and schools compared to citizens North of Fraser.

No matter whose fault those issues are, I think it’s very inconsiderate that you have to take that same money – which Surrey doesn’t collect a lot of (lowest business & residential tax rates in Metro Vancouver) – and subsidize transportation breaks that the rest of Surrey doesn’t get, at the expense of the transportation improvements that are also paid for by those taxes.

$180-380 is a small part of your yearly salary. I promptly request that you re-insert those funds into the city budget and pay your share like the rest of us.

Daryl Dela Cruz
Surrey resident, Johnston Heights Secondary School 2013 alumni