Burnaby wants a Port Mann twin
Get Moving BC Advisory Board member, Mike McBratney, has a great letter in today's
Burnaby NewsLeader. Many thanks, Mike, for exposing - yet again - the methodological flaws in the City of Burnaby's anti-Gateway survey.
Burnaby wants a Port Mann twin
May 07, 2008
Re: Who says residents want Port Mann twinned (Letters, NewsLeader, April 24)
Russ Leach questions where the polls are to suggest the majority of Burnaby residents are in favour of twinning the Port Mann Bridge and improving Highway 1. The “independent poll results” which demonstrate that 72 percent of Burnaby residents support these projects are part of a scientific poll conducted by NRG Research Group, a leading North American public opinion and market research company.
Our group, Get Moving BC, commissioned this independent poll last September in response to Mayor Corrigan’s claim that 87 percent of the people in Burnaby opposed the Gateway project. NRG Research interviewed 300 randomly selected Burnaby residents. NRG asked straightforward questions and discovered that 72 percent of the people in Burnaby do indeed support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening Highway 1, with only 21 percent opposed and eight percent who did not have an opinion. These independent poll results are available in their entirety on our group’s website at http://www.getmoving.bc.com/ (see our resources page).
The question that really needs to be asked, then, is how the City of Burnaby and Mayor Corrigan can claim “strong (87%) opposition to the Port Mann/Highway 1 project” in Burnaby when a professionally-conducted scientific poll shows that only 21 percent oppose the project.
The mayor’s 87 per cent claim is based on an unscientific, non-random, online questionnaire posted on the city’s website and selectively circulated at a shopping mall and a Burnaby library. The questionnaire consisted of 11 “statements” about the Gateway project worded in such a way that it would be nearly impossible to disagree with them.
The City of Burnaby received only 154 responses to their questionnaire; and only 65 of these responses actually came from residents of Burnaby. Sixty-three responses came from Vancouver residents, with five each coming from Surrey and New Westminster, four from North Vancouver, three from Coquitlam, two from Port Moody and one each from seven other municipalities.
Burnaby staff then assigned a “score” to each questionnaire based on a “cumulative response” to their questions. Based upon this questionable measure, they decided that 87 per cent of Burnaby’s residents were opposed to the Gateway project.
And as absurd as it seems, the city’s anti-Gateway questionnaire never even asked whether the respondents supported or opposed the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1.
The people of Burnaby are in favour of the Port Mann Bridge/Highway 1 project, and this fact has been demonstrated independently, scientifically and fairly.
Michael McBratney
For Get Moving BC
Burnaby
Interurban, and Langley's Streetcar Possibilities
Last summer, I released
my draft paper on bringing light rail to Langley, with a focus on the 200th Street corridor. In the months since that release, I have continued to dialogue with experts and to do my own research on the various forms of light rail.
Today, I presented my thoughts on the possibilities to
VALTAC, a transportation advocacy group that is especially interested in the old Interurban line that runs through the south Fraser region. It was a good meeting, and I was able to show how I think the 200th line (which would serve local Langley transportation patterns) could tie into the Interurban (which, as you can tell by the name, is a regional service).
Here is the slideshow of my presentation:
Slide 22 is the dream--the "Jordan has all the money in the world for streetcar lines, and Langley is pretty much built out (i.e., it's 2040) option."
The Port Mann should be twinned, writes Burnaby resident
Gary Bizzo in this
letter to the Langley Times:
Editor: Regarding the misguided opposition to twinning the Port Mann Bridge and improving Highway 1, the Port Mann Bridge was built more than 40 years ago when there were less than a million people living in the Lower Mainland. Most of those people were living on the north side of the Fraser River.
Today, there are more than 2.3 million people living in the Lower Mainland and almost a million them are living south of the Fraser River.
Before too long, there will probably be more people living south of the Fraser than there are people living north of it.
Yet according to some misguided individuals, we don’t need any more roads or bridges to serve the Lower Mainland’s growing population beyond the four-lane Port Mann Bridge that was built more than 40 years ago.
Correction: five lane bridge — the NDP repainted the lines on the Port Mann Bridge back in the 1990s, turning four lanes into five.
Fortunately, those opposed to improving the Lower Mainland’s transportation systems are in the minority. The majority of people in the Lower Mainland fully support the investments being made to twin the Port Mann Bridge and widen Highway 1.
Just look at the angry public pasting Carole James took when she decided to announce she was opposed to twinning the Port Mann Bridge.
The Port Mann Bridge is going to be twinned and Highway 1 is going to be improved, and most of us can’t wait to see that happen (along with improvements to the transit system) because it’s going to improve life for a lot of people in the Lower Mainland.
Gary Bizzo,
Burnaby
So What Happened At Langley Township Council Today?
Township engineering staff, UMA consultants, and TransLink representatives presented the Township's Community Rail study. Here is the powerpoint from that presentation:
As I previously wrote,
I filed a notice of motion on this issue:
Whereas transit service in the Township of Langley is the poorest, per capita, in the Lower Mainland, and
Whereas the vast majority of trips south of the Fraser stays south of the Fraser, and
Whereas a desire for light rail, streetcars, and community rail has been expressed throughout the south Fraser region, including the Township of Langley,
Therefore be it resolved that the Township support the concept of community rail and pursue the following measures:
1. A study of the possible routes for community rail within the South Fraser region,
2. An EMME2 and micro-simulation ridership study, as recommended in the UMA community rail report, for community rail improvements in the South Fraser and Fraser Valley regions,
3. The Township continue to protect key right-of-ways for possible community rail or other transit use, including, but not limited to, the Interurban rail line, 200th Street, 208th Street, Fraser Highway, 88th Avenue, and 96th Avenue.
4. Send a letter of support to the Fraser Valley Heritage Rail Society reinforcing the Township's support for their efforts, and
5. Send an update to the TransLink Board, Ministry of Transportation, and the Mayors and Councils of the Cities of Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford, and Chilliwack regarding this motion, and offering these agencies an opportunity to participate in the routing and ridership studies.
The rail motion comes back at our May 5 meeting.
Langley Township Talking Rail Today
Today's scheduled presentation from our UMA emgineering consultants on the high level review of Langley Township Community Rail report is getting
a lot of buzz around the blogsophere already. (UMA will present at 4 or 4:30 today, at the Council meeting in the Fraser River Presentation Theatre).
Having read the UMA report carefully, I have come to some conclusions and have put together a notice of motion for our May 5 meeting.
I think the most perplexing part of this issue is the resistance of the transportation establishment to really look at the growing desire for light rail in the South Fraser. In TransLink's own trip diary report, we read the following statistics:
- The vast majority of trips in Langley and Surrey stay within their municipal boundaries (1.1 million internal trips in Surrey every day, 284,200 in Langley--that's almost 1.4 million total trips).
- A grand total of 78,000 trips are made from Surrey and Langley into Vancouver. To get there, they have all of the local transit options--every bus route in this region is designed to feed SkyTrain, which is designed to get our residents into Vancouver.
- But almost twice that number, 140,000 trips, are made between Surrey and Langley every day. And we have the lowest per-capita transit service to help them get there.
- On top of that 140,000, another 37,000 trips leave Langley and Surrey to go outside the GVRD, presumably Abbotsford and Chilliwack.
More than double the trips are happening amongst the Interurban communities that happen from Langley and Surrey into Vancouver--let alone the trips that stay within our own municipal borders. These are the people that light rail and streetcars can serve, and in a way that will attract riders who would never set foot on a bus.
Community rail, based on the British model and proposed by UMA in this report, makes sense to me. It's a good place to start--and I think it would so successful that we would soon be upgrading both its frequency and its reach. Whether it ends up on the old Interurban line, or on a new alignment through Langley and Surrey, I don't know. Local Interurban enthusiasts, please don't panic over that statement. I'm merely saying that we should look at options for the Fraser Hwy. and Hwy. 10 corridors, as well. While the Interurban line may be the cheapest, it may not be the best value for dollar, and we need to keep all of the options open at this point. If the Interurban is as viable as many of us think it is, it will stand up to that type of comparative scrutiny.
There are some exciting things happening around the world with community rail and streetcars.
I read on the weekend that Charlotte, North Carolina, has designed their system so light rail vehicles and streetcars can use each other's tracks. This is the kind of innovative thinking we need south of the Fraser.
I do know that we need to get rolling. We need a plan, the research and documentation to support it, and the will to move it forward.
I prefer light rail to SkyTrain in every way. It is less intrusive, and has a better community feel. It is also far more saleable politically to our communities. SkyTrain frightens many people, with its industrial, concrete, overhead guideways, and the perception that crime springs up around every station. Light rail is also much, much cheaper. And when light rail is one-quarter the cost of SkyTrain, that means you can go four times further.
None of the obstacles in this report seem insurmountable. The key now is to get TransLink's attention with some well-researched business plans, ridership studies, and development scenarios.
This leads me to some practical questions. Clearly, we need to approach Surrey (whose mayor,
Dianne Watts, is already on record as supporting light rail) and see how we can work together to get this done.
I read on page 24 of the UMA report that "EMME2 and micro-simulation modeling be completed for these rail service scenarios in combination with future employment and potential scenarios for various combinations of bus, bus rapid transit, and rail improvements in the South of Fraser area and outside the region to the Fraser Valley." I also know that from recent changes at TransLink, that the transportation authority will look carefully at options that can be funded through development of stations and surrounding areas. I think Surrey and Langley are better positioned than any other community in the Lower Mainland to provide that type of financial upside for TransLink.
So my question to the UMA folks today is simple: how do we get this rolling? What are the next steps? UMA's answers, some of which are in their report, will refine a notice of motion I plan to put on the agenda for our May 5 afternoon meeting (a draft version of which is below):
Whereas transit service in the Township of Langley is the poorest, per capita, in the Lower Mainland, and
Whereas the vast majority of trips south of the Fraser stays south of the Fraser, and
Whereas a desire for light rail, streetcars, and community rail has been expressed throughout the entire south Fraser region, including the Council of the Township of Langley,
Therefore be it resolved that the Township support the concept of community rail and pursue the following measures:
1. A study of the possible routes for community rail within the South of Fraser region,
2. An EMME2 and micro-simulation study, as recommended in the UMA community rail report, for community rail improvements in the south of the Fraser and Fraser Valley regions,
3. The Township continue to protect key right-of-ways for possible community rail or other transit use, including, but not limited to, the Interurban rail line, 200th Street, 208th Street, Fraser Highway, 88th Avenue, and 96th Avenue.
4. Send a letter of support to the Fraser Valley Heritage Rail Society reinforcing the Township's support for their efforts, and
5. Send an update to the TransLink Board, Ministry of Transportation, and the Mayors and Councils of the Cities of Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford, and Chilliwack regarding this motion, and offering these agencies an opportunity to participate in the routing and ridership studies.
Evergreen route announcement is welcome news
Get Moving BCFor Immediate Release
April 18, 2008
EVERGREEN ROUTE ANNOUNCEMENT IS WELCOME NEWS: GET MOVING BCVancouver, B.C. – Today’s announcement that the Evergreen Line will follow the northwest route comes as no surprise, but it’s still welcome news to people living in the Lower Mainland’s fast-growing northeast sector according to
Get Moving BC Spokesperson Sheri Wiens.
“We’ve been eagerly expecting this northwest route announcement for more than a month,” said Wiens. “It’s great to know the Evergreen Line project is now officially on track and moving forward.”
Wiens says building the Evergreen Line is as important to a balanced transportation system for the Lower Mainland as twinning the Port Mann Bridge and improving Highway #1. “Commuters need convenient choices,” she said. “I’m pleased the Evergreen Line is soon going to be one of those choices.”
Wiens says she is also pleased about the new Rapid Bus Network that was announced in January as part of the province’s $14 billion transit plan.
“The Rapid Bus Network is going to have a huge positive impact on the reach and effectiveness of the Evergreen Line and the region’s other rapid transit lines,” said Wiens. “The Rapid Bus Network puts POCO, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission into the rapid transit picture, and we really needed to be part of that picture—it’s a very good start.”
Wiens says she is also relieved that fears the Evergreen Line would be pushed aside in favour of a westward expansion of the Millennium Line have finally been put to rest.
“Last October, when Sam Sullivan said completing the Millennium Line was Vancouver’s top transit infrastructure priority and that he would get it done, we called on the Provincial Government to fully fund the Evergreen Line and get the project underway,” said Wiens. “Our biggest fear at that time was that the Millennium Line would get built before the Evergreen Line, which would leave POCO, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission out of the rapid transit picture for years to come, and we felt that was just plain unacceptable.”
Wiens was quick to add that
Get Moving BC is not opposed to extending the Millennium Line, and is pleased that the Millennium Line project will move forward too, but not at the expense of the Evergreen Line.
“The Evergreen Line was on hold for way too long now,” said Wiens. “I’m glad it’s finally becoming a reality—it really can’t wait any longer.”
The TransLink board approved plans for the Evergreen Line in principle in October 2004. When completed, the Evergreen Line will serve the people in one of the fastest growing areas of the Lower Mainland—the northeast Sector.
– 30 –
Get Moving BC is dedicated to holding governments accountable for a balanced transportation system and was formed to provide a voice for the majority of Greater Vancouver residents who support improving our roads, bridges and transit systems.
For more information please contact
Get Moving BC at 604-678-5567 or by email at
info@getmovingbc.comOnline References and Attachments:
·
http://www.getmovingbc.com/· The Evergreen Line:
http://www.translink.bc.ca/EvergreenLine/default.asp
Use P3 to bring streetcars back to Vancouver
CKNW recently ran an online poll that asked whether Vancouver city council should consider using a P3 to bring streetcars back to Vancouver? 64.48% said “Yes” and 35.51% said “No.” This is a very interesting result.
As we recently saw with the City of Burnaby’s online Gateway project poll, online polls can produce highly
questionable results. But in the case of CKNW’s poll the question asked was very direct and very straightforward and their website receives more than enough hits everyday to provide some random statistical substance to the poll results.
What strikes us as being noteworthy is the fact that two-thirds of the CKNW poll respondents were in favour of the P3 approach to bringing back streetcars; a fairly overwhelming endorsement of the P3 approach when you consider the vast amount of time and money that different vested interest groups have spent spreading anti-P3 propaganda in B.C. over the past few years.
Lately, P3 success stories have been piling up in B.C. faster than gridlocked cars on the Port Mann Bridge: The new Abbotsford Hospital, the new Kicking Horse Canyon Bridge, the new Canada Line, and the Gordon and Leslie Diamond Health Care Centre at VGH are just a few examples of notable P3 successes we can point to here in B.C., with the Port Mann Bridge and the Evergreen Line soon to join the list.
There is an old saying that you can’t argue with success. Unfortunately the great success of P3’s in B.C. hasn’t stopped the anti-P3 vested interests from trying. But if I was an anti-P3 propagandist I would probably be thinking about making a career change sometime soon.
Labels: Burnaby, CKNW, P3, Port Mann Bridge
You heard it here first folks!
The
Vancouver Sun ran a great
editorial on Saturday endorsing Hong Kong’s real estate development model as a way to expand the Lower Mainland’s transit system without reaching into the pockets of taxpayers.
We’re particularly pleased about the Sun’s editorial because we’ve been pitching the Hong Kong approach for nearly two months. In fact, the Hong Kong model has been central to our last three
press releases. Remember folks, you heard it from
Get Moving BC first.
TransLink has to start milking its cash cows to pay for expanded service
Vancouver Sun - Published: Saturday, March 29, 2008
The notion that transit lines don't have to be bottomless pits for public dollars is a radical departure from past experience in Metro Vancouver.
In Hong Kong, however, the public transit system is not only run at a profit, new lines and stations are seen as cash cows, not just added costs.
Hong Kong's MTR Corporation started service in 1979. After aggressive expansion, it has a network of 211 kilometres of rail with 150 stations.
That expansion was financed by real estate development, which MTR regards as a primary business function.
MTR began as a government enterprise and was transformed into a publicly traded corporation. In 2007, it had a net profit of more than $1.1 billion Canadian.
We can't duplicate these results in the Lower Mainland. Hong Kong is a much more densely populated city with a more authoritarian government, but we can profit from the principle that makes the MTR so lucrative.
That principle is that while transit is expensive, it also creates value. Developers have long known this. They harvest that value by using proximity to transit as a selling point.
Now the recently reformed Metro Vancouver Transportation Authority, armed with new enabling legislation from the province, is finally getting serious about capturing some of that value to help pay for new transit.
It's a welcome move. Dale Parker, the chair of the new TransLink board, hopes to raise up to $1.5 billion through a real estate arm now under development.
The key to that success will involve persuading municipalities to go along with bidding for the routing of new transit lines with their willingness to assign added density around stations.
These are early days, but one obstacle that will have to be overcome is the possibility of speculators jumping in and tying up property around potential station sites.
Private developers can play an important role in creating both value and exciting urban neighbourhoods around transit stations. But this scheme will only work if municipalities make it clear from the start that much of the initial value for added density is going to be used to pay for construction of the transit line.
So if a developer, existing owner or speculator wants to build larger buildings with more units than allowed by the existing zoning, much of the windfall value of changing the zoning will go to TransLink, not into their pockets.
Such exchanges already occur when developers seek higher density for buildings. In return, municipalities extract benefits, such as parks, social housing, community centres, green space or land for schools. Those benefits typically eat up a significant portion of the value of the increased density.
In this case, municipalities will have to be persuaded to share with TransLink benefits they have until now taken as their own.
In return, TransLink may be able to deliver new transit lines more quickly.
So, for example, if the city of Vancouver wants the Broadway line extension to jump the queue, council will have to look at ways to create valuable density along the route and offer it up to pay a larger share of the construction cost.
No doubt there will be considerable difficulties in following this route, including some yet to be imagined. But we know where the traditional methods of financing take us -- straight to higher taxes, slow progress and continuing congestion.
This looks like a better route.
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
