Get Moving BC

So What Happened At Langley Township Council Today?

Jordan Bateman — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:42:00 +0000

Township engineering staff, UMA consultants, and TransLink representatives presented the Township's Community Rail study. Here is the powerpoint from that presentation:

| View | Upload your own

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

Jordan Bateman — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:31:00 +0000

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 BC — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:47:00 +0000

Get Moving BC
For Immediate Release
April 18, 2008

EVERGREEN ROUTE ANNOUNCEMENT IS WELCOME NEWS: GET MOVING BC

Vancouver, 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.com

Online 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

Get Moving BC — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:53:00 +0000

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.

You heard it here first folks!

Get Moving BC — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:31:00 +0000

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

Mayor's stance out of touch

Get Moving BC — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:45:00 +0000

Get Moving BC Advisory Board member, Mike McBratney, had a great letter published in Wednesday's Burnaby Now debunking the claim that 87% of Burnaby's residents oppose the Gateway project. As a professional poll conducted for Get Moving BC by NRG Research demonstrated last fall, 72 per cent of the people in Burnaby support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1, with only 21 per cent opposed and eight per cent who did not have an opinion. Nice work, Mike!

Mayor's stance out of touch

Burnaby Now (Published: Wednesday, March 26, 2008)

Dear Editor:

How does the mayor's antagonistic stance on a new $14-billion transit plan serve the people of Burnaby? The majority of Burnaby residents are actually in favour of twinning the Port Mann Bridge and widening Highway 1, and I suspect they also support the new transit plan.

In attempting to justify his stance against the Gateway project, Mayor Derek Corrigan has gone to some fairly extreme lengths, including having city staff draft a report - using very questionable methodology - that states that 87 per cent of Burnaby's citizens are opposed to the Gateway project. Last September, we at Get Moving B.C. decided to challenge that claim.

We commissioned NRG Research Group - a leading North American public opinion and market research company - to scientifically gauge the level of support among Burnaby residents for twinning the Port Mann Bridge and widening Highway 1. NRG Research interviewed 300 randomly selected Burnaby residents and discovered that 72 per cent of the people in Burnaby support the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1, with only 21 per cent opposed and eight per cent who did not have an opinion. The full report is at http://www.getmovingbc.com/.

How can the City of Burnaby and the mayor claim there is strong opposition to the Port Mann/Highway 1 project in Burnaby? As it turns out, the city's claim is based on an unscientific, non-random, online questionnaire posted on the city's website and circulated at a shopping mall and a Burnaby library.

The city's questionnaire consisted of 11 'statements' about the Gateway project, worded in such a way that it would be nearly impossible to disagree.

In total, the City of Burnaby received 154 responses to their questionnaire, with only 65 of these responses actually coming from residents of Burnaby. Sixty-three responses came from Vancouver residents, with others coming from Surrey, New Westminster, North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Port Moody and seven other municipalities.

Burnaby staff then assigned a 'score' to each questionnaire, based upon a cumulative response to the 11 'survey' questions. Based upon this questionable measure, they decided that 87 per cent of Burnaby's residents were opposed to the Gateway project and were therefore supportive of the anti-Gateway position taken by Corrigan and his majority on city council.

The city's questionnaire never even asked whether the respondents supported or opposed the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1.

When it comes to speaking out against the project, Corrigan clearly does not speak for the people of Burnaby. The evidence does not support the stance he has taken. And considering the positive reception the public and the media have given to the new transit plan, the same can very likely be said for the mayor's negative assessment of the $14-billion transit plan.

Get Moving B.C. supports a balanced transportation system for the Lower Mainland, one that maintains the prosperity of our region and its livability. We believe the majority of Burnaby's citizens also support a balanced transportation system and, in our opinion, Corrigan is clearly way out of sync with the people of Burnaby on this issue.

Michael McBratney, Burnaby, Get Moving B.C.

© Burnaby Now 2008

Peter Ladner's Transportation Tax

Jordan Bateman — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:23:00 +0000

Last week, Vancouver City Councillor and mayoralty candidate Peter Ladner was on The Christy Clark Show to float his idea for a congestion tax to pay for TransLink's $18-million budget shortfall. It was an interesting conversation (available in CKNW's Tuesday, March 18, 2008 audio vault during the noon hour). Here are a few excerpts, and my thoughts on them...

Clark: "When you are talking about those proposals, are you imagining that they would apply to the downtown core of Vancouver, you might see a toll like that on the Burrard or Cambie Street Bridge?"

Ladner: "These cannot be tolls that simply apply in Surrey or Langley or Maple Ridge or somewhere else than in Vancouver. They have to apply everywhere. The principle has to be that we want to raise money."

True enough. If you want to bring these measures in, they shouldn't be limited to just one bridge (i.e., The Port Mann) but they should also ding Vancouver drivers. In fact, Vancouver drivers, in my view, should pay far more for those congestion taxes than South Fraser drivers, as the Vancouver folks have access to all of the rapid transit in the region. Their choice to drive is mind-boggling when you consider they have SkyTrain and oodles of rapid buses.

Clark: "But Vancouver has a disproportionate number of businesses that depend on regional migration. If you make it more expensive to get into Vancouver from Coquitlam, people will shop in Coquitlam Centre rather than coming down here to shop at Pacific Centre."

Ladner: "Well that's what they should be doing. We don’t want…people shouldn't be travelling right across the region to go shopping. There should be a good, as there is, a good shopping mall in Coquitlam Centre and that's where people should shop... as it happens, they can come in on SkyTrain."

Let's walk down that path a little bit. If I were a Vancouver merchant, I'd be concerned about my wannabe mayor suggesting I limit my trading area. As a side note, I'd like to welcome shoppers from anywhere in the region to come spend money in Langley any time. Consider our door wide open to your business!

Whether we like it or not, there are certain regional amenities that only exist downtown. Tens of thousands of regional residents travel to GM Place and BC Place every year for Vancouver Canuck games, BC Lion games, trade shows, concerts, and other events. The PNE is in Vancouver, along with the Pacific Coliseum. There is also toursit attractions like Science World, Granville Island, and, yes, the shops on Robson Street. These are regional amenities located downtown, and I don't think Lower Mainland residents should be punished for having them located there.

As for the SkyTrain comment, it's almost laughable. SkyTrain barely comes into the south Fraser, and its four stops are in the worst part of Surrey (admittedly, Surrey is working hard on improving the area). And SkyTrain doesn't go near the PNE.

Clark: "How much would a toll be?"

Ladner: "Christy, I haven’t done this work. I have no idea. My main message is that we have got to start thinking about measures. It may not be a toll. It could be an increase in fuel taxes. Fuel taxes are effectively a toll on the amount of driving you do. They are an effective tool because they also measure the bigger your engine the more you pollute the more you pay. So you have an option with a fuel tax. You can have a smaller engine and you can share the ride and so on... that’s one alternative."

He is backing away from the congestion tax idea here--even though that's what got the play in the media. To Ladner's credit, he also talked about the need for the feds and province to return more gas tax revenue to transportation projects, and his proposal was by no means the kind of pure congestion tax used in places like London. Nonetheless, you can bet the Sam Sullivan people will be pouncing all over the "I haven't done this work, I have no idea," quote.

Ladner: "I think that the other point this gentleman raises is that we have paid for these things [roads and bridges] or we don't want to spend more money. Okay, well then stay there in the line up in the Port Mann bridge and spend two hours getting to work every day. Or wait in the line up for the buses and watch the buses pass you by. We’re hearing that we need more transportation infrastructure and somehow or another other we have to pay for it."

A Vancouver politician finally admits that there is congestion at the Port Mann!

Transportation First Step of Livability Accord Process

Jordan Bateman — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:02:00 +0000

Last year, the Councils of Surrey, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, and Langley Township signed the Livability Accord, an agreement to work together to convince regional, provincial and federal agencies to better fund infrastructure in these four High Growth Communities (HGCs). At the time, I said this might be the most important thing we do this term (a sentiment I still carry).

Surrey's staff has been spearheading the implementation of the Livability Accord, and the four communities have jointly hired Urban Systems Ltd. to help develop the necessary strategies. Last week, the four councils received an update on the progress. I thought you might be interested in it:

The consultant has nearly completed the information gathering stage of the work and has held a number of meetings/workshops with key staff from the HGCs in commencing the development of the Accord strategies. Staff and the consultant have decided that it would be advantageous to develop one of the Accord strategies as a model to use in expediting the development of the other strategies. The target of this first strategy is "Public Transit and Transportation Infrastucture" (which includes as a necessary subset land use considerations). It is expected that a draft of this first strategy will be completed by the end of March at which time a further report will be forwarded to Council for consideration, followed closely by drafts of the remaining strategies during April.

It is expected that each of the HGC City Councils will consider a draft of the full set of strategies in April and will authorize staff and the consultant to proceed immediately thereafter with public review of the information through open houses and stakeholder meetings, including meetings with officials from other orders of government. Presentations will also be made to the Metro Vancouver Mayors Committee and to the Excecutive Committee of the FVRD. With this public and other stakeholder input in hand, the draft strategies will be finalized and a further report will be provided to each HGC City Council for consideration. the report will include a summary of the public and stakeholder input and will recommend final draft Accord strategies for Council approval. These final draft strategies will be forwarded to Council for consideration and approval no later than September.

I'm pleased to see transportation go first. This is the most pressing need among these four communities, as we share thousands of people who travel regularly among the four municipalities.

TransLink's Property Purchase Process

Jordan Bateman — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:09:00 +0000

Ken Hardie over at TransLink sent me an email outlining a little bit more about the TransLink property issue that I blogged here.

We would not find ourselves in the position of being able to purchase properties along a corridor before there was fairly broad public awareness of the possibilities that a rapid transit line would be constructed. The reason being is that, as before, TransLink is legally bound to support the region's growth management strategy -- currently the Livable Region Plan -- that is adopted by all the municipalities.

The process of developing that growth management strategy involves a review of potential rapid transit corridors. For example, the Millennium, Evergreen and Canada Line corridors have all been identified in the LRSP for over ten years. All of the bus rapid transit corridors in the province's plan are on the map as a result of transit planning that has involved a great deal of public consultation. TransLink would not be able to quietly assemble land and then suddenly announce to the world that it was going to build a rapid transit line through or by those properties.

What we have done in the past, though, is purchase properties that we know we're going to need for a project as they come up for sale -- we did this in a few locations along the Evergreen Line. The difference now is that we can purchase additional property over and above what we need for the project itself, in the interests of generating some of the benefits from higher property values back to the public, which has paid for the line in the first place.

Fraser Valley Ponders Gas Taxes

Jordan Bateman — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:29:00 +0000

The Fraser Valley Regional District is considering adopting the TransLink model of increasing gas taxes to fund transit. The group is also still pondering joining TransLink.

The New TransLink Funding Model: A Municipal Councillor's Perspective

Jordan Bateman — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:24:00 +0000

Apologies for the Langley-centric consideration of this, but I am a Langley Township Councillor, after all:

In yesterday's Vancouver Sun, TransLink chairman Dale Parker outlined his board's plan to go to a new style of funding rapid transit. Basically, TransLink will decide a rapid transit route, plot out the stations, and quietly buy the land around them. Then they'll make the big announcement, get the zoning changed, and watch as property values around the station skyrocket. Then TransLink will flip the land (at a profit) to a private developer or enter a partnership with the private sector to build a station and other amenities.

This model has been used to great success in Hong Kong. I should also note that Get Moving BC is pleased with this announcement.

Money for transportation expansion has to come from somewhere. While some folks have floated the idea of a Portland-style payroll tax paid by any business or charity who employs a person, I prefer the Hong Kong model. One thing is certain: we need to find models to pay for transportation that don't include more property taxation. Property is the only way for municipalities to generate taxes, and other levels of government (I'm looking at you, TransLink, and you, Victoria!) should get their hands out of that pocket.

That being, said, blogger Rob Chipman raises some perfectly valid concerns about the model. There has to be a balance, as a community’s wishes--expressed through their duly-elected (and thoroughly accountable) Mayor and Council--must be taken into account.

The last thing we want to see happen is a battle between TransLink and municipalities as we work through routing issues. One concern I had with our high-rise bylaw was that we weren't precise enough with where to put towers, thus opening a lot of areas for TransLink to look at rapid transit lines. Furthermore, I, like most Langley residents (and the Mayor of Surrey, incidentally), prefer street-level light rail to the overhead guideways of SkyTrain. Density is a great negotiating tool, and may be the best chance municipalities have of guiding where these lines go--and what kind of rail technology we get.

Going forward, it will be important to negotiate carefully with TransLink on issues like this. Mayors and Councils will need to be clear and precise as to what our rapid transit priorities are (mine are street rail along 200th Street and commuter rail on the Interurban line), and where we see possibilities for densities. I'm also hopeful that TransLink will look at more than just building height when pondering density. You can get a lot of density with 4-6 storeys, done right. I am leery of having a 20-storey tower or two stuck in the middle of a sea of 4 storey buildings, looking out awkwardly.

I do wonder about one more thing: how will the Interurban alignment will stack up in this model? Look at Langley City for example: the area is chock-a-block full around the rail line. Where would TransLink squeeze in a station and high-density buildings? Where could they find enough land to make it worthwhile to put all that? How much space do they need to make a spot viable? I’m not worried about the 200th corridor, as running street-level rail north-south would provide TransLink with plenty of land options.

One last thing: take a look at this website for more on transit-oriented development. It's a great resource full of ideas and possibilities.

GET MOVING BC APPLAUDS TRANSLINK REAL ESTATE PLAN

Get Moving BC — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:25:00 +0000

Get Moving BC
For Immediate Release
March 19, 2008

GET MOVING BC APPLAUDS TRANSLINK REAL ESTATE PLAN

“Stop going back to the taxpayer” message heard loud and clear – TransLink plan responds to previous call by Get Moving BC to adopt Hong Kong’s successful real estate funding model to help pay for $2.75 billion unfunded share of transit plan and ongoing operational costs

Vancouver, B.C. – Get Moving BC is today applauding TransLink’s plan to adopt an innovative funding model used by Hong Kong to successfully expand and fund its transit system – one of the few profitable public transportation systems in the world.

“We’re thrilled by this news today,” says Get Moving BC spokesperson Sheri Wiens. “This is exactly what our group called on TransLink to do over a month ago in a February 11th press release.”

Wiens says she has nothing but praise for TransLink’s newly-appointed professional board for “thinking outside the box” and embracing good old fashioned entrepreneurial spirit and common sense ingenuity to help build one of the best transit systems in the world “without having to reach into the pockets of B.C. taxpayers.”

Get Moving BC Advisory Board member, Ian MacPherson, fully agrees with Wiens and says he’s confident that TransLink’s currently unfunded $2.75 billion share of the $14 billion transit plan can be paid for – in whole or in part – by linking development of the transit system to real estate development the way they’ve done it in Hong Kong.

MacPherson points to the Tsing Yi station built by Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway Corporation which is located next to the 4-story Maritime Square shopping centre the corporation also developed. Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway Corporation also developed the adjacent Tierra Verde housing complex.

“In Hong Kong, TransLink’s counterpart has successfully leveraged commercial and residential real estate development to help pay for the expansion and operation of their transit system, and I’m pleased that TransLink is now going to be doing the same,” says MacPherson. “We have to stop this mentality of always going back to the taxpayer to fund and operate big transit projects.”

Get Moving BC’s Sheri Wiens agrees with MacPherson and says B.C. taxpayers should be able to benefit from the real estate development potential of properties located near public transit: “We can build the kind of transit system we need without increasing property taxes or hiking the gas tax,” Wiens says, “by letting the development potential along rapid transit routes and around transit stations provide the funding needed to expand and run the system.”

“The big question for most taxpayers,” Wiens says, “is how do we catch up and build a transit system that is the envy of the world without bankrupting B.C. taxpayers? By adopting Hong Kong’s approach the new TransLink board has found the answer.”

A key goal of the recently announced transit plan is to increase the market share of public transit in Metro Vancouver from its current 12 per cent share to 17 per cent by 2020 and 22 per cent by 2030.

– 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’s media desk at 604-678-5567 or by email at info@getmovingbc.com

Online References and Attachments:
· http://www.getmovingbc.com/
· Get Moving BC press release from February 11, 2008 : Get Moving BC Says “No” To New
Transit Taxes http://www.getmovingbc.com/press_release/February11_2008.html
· Peter Ladner responds to Get Moving BC: http://www.getmovingbc.com/2008/02/peter-ladner-responds-to-get-moving-bc.html

Port Mann project passes major milestone with Bill 14

Get Moving BC — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:46:00 +0000

Pro-Transportation group says public-private partnerships have proven themselves here in B.C.

Vancouver, B.C. – The Port Mann Bridge project successfully passed a major milestone on the road to completion last Thursday with the introduction of Bill 14. And according to Get Moving BC spokesperson Sheri Wiens that’s great news for the thousands of frustrated Lower Mainland commuters who’ve been gridlocked by the aging forty-four year old Port Mann Bridge for far too long.

“Bill 14 is great news for frustrated Port Mann commuters,” Wiens says. “They can all breathe a little easier knowing the project isn’t a far off thing anymore, it really is becoming more real every day.”

Bill 14 – which is formally called the Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act – establishes a new crown corporation that will partner with private sector companies to design, build, finance and then operate the new Port Mann Bridge and improved Highway #1.

Wiens says public-private partnerships combine the strengths of the private sector with the strengths of government in a way that creates great value for taxpayers. When it comes to bringing major projects in on time and on budget, Wiens says, public-private partnerships have a superior record to governments going it alone, and they produce top quality work.

“There’s no question that public-private partnerships have proven themselves here in B.C.,” says Wiens pointing to a number of examples of successful public-private partnerships here in B.C. like the new Abbotsford Hospital, the Gordon and Leslie Diamond Health Care Centre at VGH, the new Kicking Horse Canyon Bridge and even the new Canada Line that is currently ahead of schedule.

“Partnering with industry, and making use of industry’s ability to innovate, just makes good sense for taxpayers,” says Wiens. “Governments should stick to what they do best and not try to reinvent what private industry already does really well.”

Wiens says Get Moving BC has also called on TransLink to look at adopting Hong Kong’s proven public-private partnership model to help expand the Lower Mainland’s transit system and help pay for the $14 billion transit plan announced by the provincial government. Wiens says leveraging commercial and residential real estate development using a public-private partnership model would not only help pay for the expansion of the transit system it would also contribute to the long term operating costs of the system.

“Hong Kong has one of the few profitable transit systems in the world, which is why we called on TransLink to adopt Hong Kong’s innovative public-private development model,” Wiens says. “Public-private partnerships work and they’ve proven themselves, and we’ve got plenty of great examples we can point to right here in the Lower Mainland.”

– 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.com

Online References and Attachments:
· http://www.getmovingbc.com/
· Get Moving BC press release from February 11, 2008 : Get Moving BC Says “No” To New Transit Taxes http://www.getmovingbc.com/press_release/February11_2008.html

Development will fund transit

Get Moving BC — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:07:00 +0000

Get Moving BC Advisory Board member Ian MacPherson had a great letter published in yesterday’s Vancouver Province.

Development will fund transit
Published: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Funding an effective public transit system for a fast-growing area doesn't have to be done by burdening the taxpayer.
The group I belong to, GetMovingBC, recently asked TransLink's newly-appointed board to consider linking development of the transit system to real-estate development, as is the practice in Hong Kong.
B.C. taxpayers could benefit from the development potential of properties near transit systems, because it would provide the funding needed to build out our transit without raising taxes.
Ian MacPherson, Surrey

Peter Ladner responds to Get Moving BC

Get Moving BC — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:56:00 +0000

Vancouver City Councillor Peter Ladner was kind enough to respond to last Monday’s Get Moving BC press release which called on TransLink to adopt Hong Kong’s successful real estate funding model to help pay for the Transportation Authority’s currently unfunded $2.75 billion share of the new transit plan.

In his email, Councillor Ladner acknowledges that Get Moving BC raised “some excellent points.” However, Councillor Ladner does not agree with everything Get Moving BC said in our release and he raised some questions that we would like to help clarify:

Councillor Ladner’s email states: “I assume you will also extend this campaign to paying for new roads, which are also funded by taxpayers and have many real estate opportunities attached.”

Get Moving BC’s response: The type of real estate opportunities we’ve suggested for TransLink are focused on the high density rezoning potential associated with rapid transit nodes like SkyTrain stations – just as they are in Hong Kong. However, it is possible that road-related real estate opportunities also exist for TransLink and these are also worth exploring as part of a total road, bridge and highway funding strategy. As we noted in our press release, we have to stop the mentality of always going back to the taxpayer to fund big transit projects, and the same thinking could easily apply to our roads, bridges and highways. Get Moving BC certainly encourages the new TransLink board to think outside the box and to use some old fashioned entrepreneurial spirit and common sense ingenuity to build us one of the best transit and transportation systems in the world without reaching into the pockets of B.C. taxpayers. If TransLink can expand on the funding model we’ve suggested in our press release then we would fully support that.

Councillor Ladner’s email states: “Also, if TransLink captures the added value from development around transit nodes, can you advise the municipalities, which now benefit from upzonings around transit stations, where they will find the money they currently raise through those upzonings to pay for parks, sewers, child care, street improvements etc., without raising municipal taxes?”

Get Moving BC’s response: Councillor Ladner seems to be confused on this point. We’re not suggesting that TransLink should become the beneficiary of Development Cost Charges and Amenity Charges that municipalities normally derive from developers. What we’ve clearly stated in our press release is that TransLink should become the developer (continuing to pay the appropriate DCCs and amenity charges to municipalities along with paying the property taxes on the increased value that higher densities produce for municipalities) and in some cases work with municipalities to assemble land that can be rezoned and sold as a package to private developers for a profit. The key point we’re making is that TransLink needs to leverage the resources it has in order to increase its resources rather than continually relying on the taxpayers to pay for everything.

Councillor Ladner’s email states: “And are you aware how many 'professionals' were on the previous TransLink board? You might want to do the count before using the expression "professional board" to describe the new board, as though the old board was less than "professional". Hint: several lawyers, an accountant, business entrepreneurs, planner etc.”

Get Moving BC’s response: The term “professional board” that we used in our press release comes straight out of the Ministry of Transportation’s October 23, 2007 News Release announcing legislation to “revamp TransLink.” The term is in common use with the B.C. media and the meaning of the term, as it is being used by the media, is very clearly understood by the public. We can certainly understand how Council Ladner might feel about the suggestion that he and some of the previous board members were not “professionals” considering the fact that some of them were. However, the term “professional board” is being used to denote the fact that the newly-appointed TransLink board members are appointed, not elected, and that they have qualifications and professional experience that is directly relevant to the operation of a complex organisation with the size and scope of TransLink. The term “professional board” is not being used as a pejorative. It is just a term that describes the role and the experience of the new TransLink board and points to the increased operational load being placed on this new board.

Get Moving BC would like to thank Councillor Ladner for his email and his comments. This is exactly the kind of dialogue on transportation issues that Get Moving BC wants to see taking place. We welcome all comments and discussion on transportation issues in B.C. and our blog is the perfect forum for such a discussion to take place.

Get Moving BC

Revolution Through Competition: the Automotive X PRIZE

Carl Congestion — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:27:00 +0000

The race is on to claim the $10 million Automotive X PRIZE. For all you non-Geeks out there who don’t follow such things, an X PRIZE is a multi-million dollar award given to the first team to achieve a specific goal (set by the X PRIZE Foundation) which has the potential to benefit humanity. Rather than awarding money to honour past achievements or directly funding research, an X PRIZE fosters radical innovation and technological breakthroughs by tapping into the competitive and entrepreneurial spirits.

The X PRIZE Foundation set the Automotive X PRIZE in order to accelerate the pace of change and stimulate the kind of breakthroughs in automotive technology that are needed to bring about a new generation of super-efficient, super-clean and commercially viable mainstream vehicles. The Automotive X PRIZE will be awarded to the first team to build a production-capable vehicle that exceeds 100 MPG fuel efficiency, produces less that 200 grams of greenhouse gases per mile, and then wins a long-distance race against other clean, production-capable vehicles that exceed 100 MPG.

The X PRIZE Foundation’s method of accelerating innovation through competition was inspired by the $25,000 Orteig Prize, offered in 1919 by wealthy hotelier Raymond Orteig, to the first pilot who could fly non-stop between New York and Paris. The prize was finally won in 1927 by an unknown airmail pilot named Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh’s world-changing achievement spawned a $300 billion aviation industry.

For the naysayers out there who say it can’t happen, take note of the fact that the $10 million Ansari X PRIZE, which sought to bring about a radical breakthrough in the advancement of human spaceflight, has already been won by SpaceShipOne on October 4, 2004. A private team led by famed aerospace designer Burt Rutan and financier Paul Allen of Microsoft were the first to build and launch a spacecraft capable of carrying three people to 100 kilometers above the earth's surface, twice within two weeks. Space travel will never be looked at the same way again.

For anyone interested in knowing more about the Automotive X PRIZE there is a great article in the January issue of Wired Magazine entitled “1 Gallon of Gas, 100 Miles — $10 Million: The Race to Build the Supergreen Car.”

Carl Congestion

Price gives transit plan due kudos

Carl Congestion — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:56:00 +0000

Monday morning’s announcement of a $14-Billion Public Transit Plan for the Lower Mainland has been unquestionably well-received by practically everyone in the Lower Mainland. Even notable opponents of the Port Mann Bridge twinning like Gordon Price are giving the transit plan its due kudos.

An article by Jeff Nagel in Thursday’s Burnaby NewsLeader entitled “Former critic lauds province’s transit pledge” quotes Price extensively. Here’s an excerpt from that article:

Premier Gordon Campbell’s massive commitment to expand rapid transit is winning applause from some critics who fought the province’s twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.

SFU City Program director Gordon Price said the decision marks a turning point for the future of the Lower Mainland.

“It’s historic,” Price said. “It takes what was a backlogged and frustrated planning process and has moved it forward at least a generation.”

Instead of transit being an afterthought and neighbourhoods built on the assumption of mostly car travel, he said, Campbell’s vow means commuters can look forward to transit being a viable choice that’s built on “a scale serious enough it can change the direction of the region.”

He said it also clearly puts cities on notice that they must design development around transit corridors and stations and densify their cities to take advantage of it. Price said it still depends on finances and follow through, but said the government deserves credit.

“They’ve backed it up with enough specifics you can take it seriously,”

He predicted Greater Vancouver and cities like Port Moody in particular will be held up as textbook examples of how to reinvent the urban landscape so residents aren’t car-dependent.

“If they can free themselves from at least one car if not two then their range of housing choices broadens,” Price explained. “They become more oriented toward local neighbourhood shopping. It gets you more character in your community. People walk more so they’re healthier. There are less greenhouse gases—it all works together.”

Coupled with the $3 billion Gateway Program, the $14 billion Transit Plan provides a big picture view of what a balanced transportation system looks like and how it’s all going to fit together here in the Lower Mainland.

Carl Congestion

$14 billion for transit

Jordan Bateman — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:03:00 +0000

I don't have time to go into this now, but Premier Gordon Campbell has just unveiled a $14 billion plan to improve transit in BC:

* $10.3-billion investment in four new rapid transit lines in Metro Vancouver – the Evergreen Line, the UBC Line, the upgraded Expo Line and the Canada Line (for which $2 billion was previously committed);

* $1.2 billion for a new, cutting-edge energy efficient, high capacity RapidBus BC service along nine major routes in the high-growth urban centres of Kelowna, Victoria and Metro Vancouver; and

* $1.6-billion investment in 1,500 new, clean energy buses and related maintenance infrastructure to provide communities around the province with improved bus service.

This, in conjunction with Gateway, should make a huge difference for the region. As we've been saying all along, the Lower Mainland needs a balanced solution.

I'll be looking forward to seeing the details on the south Fraser improvements.

Here’s to Sputnik!

Carl Congestion — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:48:00 +0000

Everyone knows the Space Age began in 1957 when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I, the world’s first artificial satellite. Sputnik’s success was a great milestone in transportation history.

But did you know that last Thursday (January 3rd) marked the 50th Anniversary of Sputnik’s fiery return to Earth?

Back in 1957 Sputnik had the cosmos all to itself for 3 whole months as it merrily orbited the Earth every 96 minutes at a height of 150 miles. Now, 50 years later, it can take that long just to travel from one side of the Port Mann Bridge to the other.

I’ll wager that more than a few frustrated people have found themselves lined up to cross the Port Mann bottleneck wishing they could just launch themselves, and their vehicle, into the air like Sputnik and fly across the gridlock. I know I have.

So, here’s to Sputnik. And here’s to all those who are working to twin the Port Mann Bridge and bring it into the 21st Century.

Carl Congestion

Anti-Gateway gang high on something!

Carl Congestion — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:12:00 +0000

Black Press columnist Tom Fletcher had an amusing column last week in which he likened the conspiracy-minded anti-Gateway movement to a “Council of Canadians meeting held in the middle of a large patch of magic mushrooms.”

Perhaps Fletcher is onto something here. Could it be that the real objective of the anti-Gateway movement is to keep their favourite magic mushroom patches secret and intact? Maybe the best magic mushrooms grow in the flight path of the Port Mann’s future twin and that’s what their real issue is.

One thing is certain: The anti-Gateway gang are definitely high on something. How else can we explain their persistent irrational belief that traffic gridlock can be solved by buses alone and that we've already built all the bridges and roads the Lower Mainland will ever need?

Carl Congestion

More on the new TransLink

Jordan Bateman — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:12:00 +0000

Dianne Watts is the first chair of TransLink's new mayors' council. This is outstanding news--we need the kind of fresh thinking and consensus building that Mayor Watts can offer.

Meanwhile, the Park the Tax folks issued a press release on the new TransLink:

The Park the Tax Coalition representing more than 23,000 small medium and large businesses and their customers supports the BC Government’s passage of Bill 43, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, to reorganize the current TransLink governance and funding structure.

“The Park the Tax Coalition applauds the BC Government’s decision to adopt the recommendations of the TransLink Governance Review Panel and get on with the business of building a truly efficient and responsibly financed transportation system that promotes the socio-economic development and growth of the region into the future,” said Ted Williams, Chair of the Park the Tax Coalition.

The Park the Tax Coalition, working in cooperation with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, spearheaded one of the largest tax fighting coalitions in British Columbia’s history, bringing together more than 23,000 small, medium and large businesses and their customers across the Lower Mainland opposed to TransLink’s ill-conceived, unprecedented parking area tax.

This was a tax that unfairly targeted one economic sector, was inefficient to implement and administer, was wildly unpopular and contributed only marginal public transportation revenue. In short, it was bad tax policy.

“We want to thank the BC Government for making the right decision and for taking action to create a fiscally accountable transit authority, and, for eliminating the parking tax,” added Mr. Williams.

The Coalition looks forward to working cooperatively with the new transportation authority called the South Coast Transportation Authority to achieve revenue sources that are fair, equitable and transparent, and, transportation planning that promotes reasonably financed transit services and transportation solutions to encourage the sustainable social and economic vitality of the region.

Get Moving BC also supports the new TransLink:

New legislation that removes TransLink from the control and influence of politicians and puts day-to-day operations and planning into the hands of a professional board of directors is a welcome step and one that’s long overdue says Get Moving BC spokesperson Sheri Wiens.

Wiens points to Vancouver International Airport which took the very same step fifteen years ago by putting a professional board of directors in place. Today, she says, Vancouver International Airport is one of the world’s most highly regarded airports with numerous awards to its name.

Wiens says the list of accomplishments and awards achieved through the efforts and guidance of the airport’s professional board is not only impressive it’s indisputable.

For example: construction of a north runway that has substantially relieved aircraft congestion; construction of a new international passenger terminal and trans-border terminal; opening of a 400-room, four-diamond hotel attached to the terminal facilities; improvement of gate areas and passenger lounges; renovation of the South terminal building; and construction of a new parking structure to name just a few.

As for awards, Wiens points to the fact that, for the second consecutive year, the airport has been named Canada's top airport in the Travel Agents’ Choice Readership Survey.

The airport has also been acclaimed as one of B.C.’s Top 30 employers and rated as the No. 6 airport in the world in its size category (15 million to 25 million passengers) and No. 4 overall in the Americas (2006).

“Considering the obvious success that a professional board can achieve, why should the people of the Lower Mainland settle for the mediocre results we’ve seen from TransLink’s current board? The airport’s successes over the last fifteen years more than demonstrate the superiority of a professional board when it comes to transportation infrastructure.”

Wiens adds that TransLink’s existing board and governance model is one of the biggest reasons the Lower Mainland is so far behind when it comes to transportation infrastructure.

“Why shouldn’t the people of the Lower Mainland have an award-winning transportation system on par with our award-winning airport,” she asks. “Why should we shoot for second best when we can have the best?”

Wiens says the airport’s professional board has allowed the airport to attain outstanding success and implement badly needed improvements in a timely manner; adding that fifteen years ago the airport’s professional board set out to build a better airport for B.C. and they did.

“Solving the Lower Mainland’s transportation problems requires that we tap into the best minds and resources available,” says Wiens, “professionals who know how to get the job done.”

Wiens and Get Moving BC believe it’s time to put best practices to work for the Lower Mainland’s gridlocked transportation system by reinventing TransLink and putting some real transportation expertise in place.

The new TransLink

Jordan Bateman — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:22:00 +0000

Yesterday, the TransLink reorganization was passed in the Legislature. Today, the council of mayors will meet with Mike Harcourt and his committee to vette their list of Board nominees.

During debate in the Leg, Mary Polak summed up what most Langley residents have been feeling for years:

In the time that I've spent in municipal politics in Surrey and as an MLA in Langley, I can think of a lot of things that people have said to me about TransLink. They've said things like: "What a mess," and "Oh, please blow it up."

They've said all manner of complaints and concerns and outright frustration, but the one thing I don't think I ever heard anyone say about TransLink was that they were accountable. To speak now about this new governance model and address it as being somehow less accountable than the TransLink that currently exists is absolutely laughable for anyone who lives in the lower mainland.

Let's talk a little bit about what people said, or have said in the past, about the existing TransLink model. We have the mayor of Surrey, currently, Dianne Watts who says: "There needs to be one plan that everybody is working together on. There's no point in having different levels of government having different plans." Former mayor of Surrey Doug McCallum talking about TransLink said: "We have serious structural problems in governance." Larry Campbell was quoted as saying: "Quite frankly, I don't see it working" — meaning TransLink. "We have got to get rid of the parochialism." Not my words; Larry Campbell's words.

Editorials in The Vancouver Sun going back to 2004: "TransLink has come to represent political gridlock in the lower mainland rather than a transit system that moves fluidly." Or again: "Instead of blindly heading down this road, it's time to admit that TransLink itself is broken, that it is incapable of doing the job it was created to do."

So no question that there are problems that exist in the current structure of TransLink, problems that won't get us to the kind of transportation solutions we need so desperately on the lower mainland.

Another one rides the bus

Carl Congestion — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:21:00 +0000

It seems we have a long way to go before transit becomes a truly attractive commuter option. About a month ago, I came across the following letter-to-the-Editor in the Westender * (October 11th).

The bus makes me puke

I’ve been a daily commuter on the SkyTrain and buses for quite awhile. It has just been literally making me sick — these people who are let on the bus are nothing but lowlifes. I was once puked on by some jerkoff who didn’t have the sense to turn away from the nearest person. Just last week, some drunken lowlife lady decided to projectile vomit on everything. What’s wrong with all these degenerate, unemployed wasters? Do they feel that the bus is their own vomitorium? Another thing that has angered me in a nauseating way is those types who haven’t showered or worn clean clothes in so long that the smell comes off them in layers. Do these lowlifes know they smell like the Hastings alley they woke up in, or do they just feel they have to make the rest of us smell their misery?

I was gonna start lobbying for a two-tier transit system; one that has buses for people who have a two-digit IQ and have a yearly income under 35k. (Whoa... easy there! —Ed.)... So, I decided to screw going green: I bought a car. All those lazy lowlifes who feel it’s okay to stink up the bus and use it as a puke bag can enjoy their loser cruiser.

Done with Transit

Wow! Waiting in the rain for a bus that never comes pales in comparison to this person’s experience. Please remind me not to sit next to him/her on the SkyTrain just in case “lightning” ever decides to strike a third, fourth or fifth time.

Unfortunately, what this letter writer describes is not a unique experience; and simply making transit available (as some suggest) obviously isn’t the sole determining factor when it comes to attracting ridership.

Carl Congestion

* The views expressed in this letter from the Westender are not necessarily those of Get Moving BC or Carl Congestion. The letter has been presented for the purpose of discussion and is indicative of frustrations and experiences of transit riders.

What will Victoria do?

Jordan Bateman — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:25:00 +0000

The Vancouver Sun reports that various mayors are busy bending the provincial governemnt's ear on transit improvements and strategy.

Langley Township mayor Kurt Alberts and the other members of the Livability Accord communities (Surrey's Dianne Watts, Abbotsford's George Ferguson, and Coquitlam's Maxine Wilson) met with the Premier earlier this month. His recipe for attracting provincial transit dollars was simple: density, density, density.

That sounds good in theory, but here is my concern. Port Moody just cooked up a batch of that same recipe by densifying their community. They had been promised rapid transit, and it still hasn't materialized. Gridlock is so bad there now that Port Moody's mayor votes against further development. They have the density, but no rapid transit.

I'd be a lot more comfortable with high densification if the Premier proved out his commitment by funding the Evergreen Line in Port Moody and Coquitlam. I'd also love a written commitment from the Premier stating the exact level of density he wants/needs to see in order to trigger these provincial investments. Right now, we're being asked to densify without a nickel of provincial transportation dollars to support it. All that will mean is training a generation of high rise dwellers to drive everywhere (Remember--Langley isn't scheduled to get north-south rapid bus service until 2031). And that means gridlock.

As Get Moving BC has been saying all along, we need investment in both roads and transit. We need it all!

So citizens aren't allowed to have opinions?

Jordan Bateman — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:08:00 +0000

In the wacky world that is the anti-Gateway group, it seems no one is allowed to have an opinion that differs from them. In this week's Georgia Straight, anti-Gateway crusader Donna Passmore picks on a Langley resident, Rudy Storteboom for his support of the project, and for daring to write letters to newspapers supporting it.

Rudy is not a member or part of Get Moving BC, although the Straight seems desperate to try to lump him in with us. Rudy is an outstanding citizen of Langley City (not the Township, where I serve as a councillor, I should note), who is passionate about transportation issues. He has given countless hours to sit on the City's transportation committee. He was a member for years of TransLink's public advisory board. He's been to VALTAC meetings. He attends Chamber of Commerce meetings. He is well-versed in the issues facing his community. And, yes, he is pro-Gateway--like the vast majority of the region's residents.

Shame on the Straight and Ms. Passmore (and her "non-partisan" Gateway 40 coalition that includes the NDP Agriculture Committee and the BC Green Party) for not wanting someone like Rudy to have a perfectly valid opinion.

The last word should belong to Rudy: "The problem with people like Donna Passmore is they are using their opposition to Gateway as a political vehicle to try to embarrass the B.C. Liberal government. The fact is, we really need Gateway. The folks here south of the Fraser River, their traffic has been tied up in knots for years."

Hear, hear!