Stephanie Ryan: Surrey should hold referendum on light rail transit in 2011

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Surrey residents were invited to “be part of the plan” as TransLink held public consultation sessions on various technology options for future rapid-transit service.

      The four technology options proposed at the meetings were rapid rail (SkyTrain), light rail, rapid bus transit, and what TransLink calls “best bus” service, where all dollars are funnelled into expanding bus service to a much higher capacity, without any capital investment in rapid-transit infrastructure.

      At this point in the planning process there is no plan for where the dollars for these transit service expansions will come from.

      But what was most obvious at the meetings was the omission of an option that has been advocated for some time south of the Fraser—reviving light-rail transit along the Interurban corridor.

      Once upon a time, before the time of the automobile, the Fraser Valley was served by convenient streetcar service. From Chilliwack to Surrey, residents, farmers, and businesspeople alike, could hop on the Interurban streetcar in the valley and ride it all the way into Vancouver.

      For many years now, residents in Surrey and the Fraser Valley, and numerous stakeholder groups, have been advocating for a revival of such a service, along this same corridor, which continues to be publicly owned. There have been public campaigns involving letter-writing, social media, meetings, and other events to rally support for such an option. Even Surrey’s mayor and council have acknowledged the merits of such an option.

      At-grade, light-rail transit is far less expensive in terms of capital costs, per kilometre, than an elevated option like SkyTrain, and the public already owns the rights to use the rail along the Interurban corridor.

      Such a service could connect residents from Langley, Cloverdale, Sullivan, Newton, and Kennedy and link up with SkyTrain at Scott Road. A spur line could also link the Newton Station with SkyTrain in Whalley, one of the light-rail options TransLink is already looking at. Eventually, the line could be extended as far east as Abbotsford and Chilliwack.

      While no one is suggesting that such a line would be the panacea to solve all of Surrey’s many transit woes, many feel that running light-rail service along this corridor could immediately relieve congestion on Fraser Highway for those bus riders currently riding the 395 or 502 from Cloverdale to Whalley, and that it would also provide better connectivity between some town centres.

      Residents in Surrey realize the potential value of such an option. There is widespread grassroots support for studying such an option in Surrey, yet light rail on the Interurban corridor was not of the four technology options considered by TransLink. This indicates a pretty significant disconnect.

      The lack of an Interurban option in TransLink’s shortlist is worrisome because it speaks to a lack of consultation about public transit.

      Surrey has never received its fair share of dollars for public transit, and regardless of which rapid-transit options are chosen for the future, bus service in the city must be dramatically expanded immediately.

      We continue to play catch-up when it comes to transit, and this is while we continue to be among the fastest-growing cities in Metro Vancouver. Service is absolutely dismal, with infrequent bus service, a lack of bus shelters, unsafe SkyTrain stations, insufficient bus routes, and high rates of pass-ups on the most popular routes, like Fraser Highway.

      And while TransLink should focus on improving service, it also must ensure that its consultation process responds to public feedback.

      There is plenty of support for the Interurban option, but it probably won’t be heard within the current framework.

      Mayor Dianne Watts has encouraged voters to attend these meetings to voice their opinion. But she should go a step further. She should call a referendum, to coincide with the 2011 civic election, and ask the public whether or not they favour light-rail service on the Interurban corridor as one of the options for future transit service in Surrey.

      I predict Surrey would support this option and could send a strong message to TransLink, and to all levels of government.

      Surrey residents deserve better transit now and should have a voice in planning future improvements.

      An inch of democracy could provide miles of light-rail transit.

      Stephanie Ryan is the president of the Surrey Civic Coalition.

      Comments

      11 Comments

      Bryan Vogler

      Nov 5, 2010 at 5:57pm

      Awhile back I talked with the President of Southern Rail in New Westminster. They use the track everyday, and the biggest problem is historic. In the bigger centres like Surrey which has not reached capacity, the challlenge is level crossings and fatalities. There is no doubt Surrey will ahve to have more roads crossing the tracks in the future, its unavoidable. We drop the speed and patrol intersections, but still the motorist wants to beat the train to the crossing. Those types of problems were not a threat or did not exsist in the first 20 years of Interurban operation, As time progressed out of the depression The New Patallou bridge was built which opened up crossings everywhere. It got very slow for rail, as the Inturbans got older, and there factories shut down for the war effort. Coming out of the war highway expansion started and continues today and has not plateaued. The former P.S.L buses replaced them on the Fraser highway and supplied good service until to much traffic made it impossible to keep a schedule. Now demanding light rail is full circle, but with no answers to the safety and congestion questions that make the idea less a reality from a railroad perspective.
      If the government supplied the funds, I would not refuse, but they run the service.
      secondly, the twinning of the Pt. Mann bridge has room for a rail service that would go 265 mph straight from Vancouver to langley with no crossings. Hourly service, past Langley maybe at some line point we could connect further out where density is less. However the trend is to keep building and the same problem develops.
      Bond the Transportation Minister thinks a busway to replace the P.S.L down the freeway is a possiblity also. Everybody wants change, and were not far apart, the public will is there, the political will is gainig momentum toward the election. Its generally accepted as done, but safety and route integrity have to be there, That is the problem right now.

      Evil Eye

      Nov 5, 2010 at 10:39pm

      What is the difference between a light controlled road/road intersection and a road/rail intersection protected by lights and a gate?

      The road/rail intersection is ten times safer than a light protected road/road intersection.

      What translink is offering is three modes of transportation (bus, light rail and metro), not technologies and each mode is built to accommodate various transportation problems.

      If TransLink hasn't a clue about providing public transit, then how the hell can the public trust TransLink with any type of transit planning?

      The real problem is that TransLink, like BC Transit before have created a SkyTrain myth, based on deceit and deception and cannot be trusted, period!

      http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/the-fruit-of-the-poison...

      Eric C

      Nov 6, 2010 at 12:35am

      Stephanie, can't Surrey run its own Streetcar or LRT service without TransLink? Surely, it can by-pass the province to apply for transit grants directly from the federal government. Really, can’t Vancouver do the same like other cities? TransLink can't be everything to everyone and tries to juggle its transit priorities pitting regions against each other (Vancouver and Surrey).

      Transit fares here are the highest in Canada and TransLink has failed to provide affordable transit. TransLink has created an inefficient centralized transit juggernaut, instead. Time to say good bye to TransLink, it is keeping us from having the transit that Metro-Vancouver wants.

      We don’t want TransLink to socially engineer a sprawling region with people commuting hours every day for work. We want good local streetcar or LRT transit for businesses to set up locally for us to live and work locally in our communities. Regional transit by TransLink is not sustainable.

      RealityCheck

      Nov 6, 2010 at 9:35am

      The level crossings argument is a straw man always put up by the pro-Skytrain lobby. Portland, Seattle and other cities have LRT with level crossings that work perfectly every year.

      Grumpy

      Nov 6, 2010 at 10:58am

      Here is the real choice for voters:

      1) SkyTrain - with construction costs starting at about $100 million/km.
      Maximum capacity - 20,000 to 30,000 persons per hour per direction.

      2) Light Rail - with construction costs starting at $6 million/km. (TramTrain)
      Maximum Capacity - 20,000 to 30,000 pphpd

      Rapid bus (BRT) - With construction costs starting at $10 million/km.
      Maximum capacity 10,000 pphpd.

      Notes:

      The Port Mann replacement bridge has two lanes reserved for rapid transit, most likely BRT as no modern road bridge built has ever had 'rail' transit added retroactively.

      Has Mr. Vogler read the RftV/Leewood study, Grumpy thinks not as concerns for road safety have been addressed.

      The density issue is a SkyTrain issue, not a LRT or bus issue. Because of SkyTrain's massively high costs, the metro needs one hell of a lot of ridership to justify its operation, to get the ridership, densities along the line must be increased dramatically. This makes SkyTrain a developers delight.

      LRT, being much cheaper to build can economically service areas that are impossible to service by a metro (SkyTrain), thus LRT can servcie small population centres such as Chilliwack.
      Grumpy is as Grumpy does!

      Grumpy

      Nov 6, 2010 at 12:35pm

      Why not Surrey and the rest of the South Fraser municipalities secede from TransLink and let those spoiled children in Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond pay for their gold-plated SkyTrain Lines!

      SkyTrain is great for Vancouver, when everyone else pays for it, but that means no transit for those living in South Surrey.
      Grumpy is as Grumpy does!

      Eric C

      Nov 6, 2010 at 4:08pm

      If rail crossings are unsafe at vehicle intersections, can't we build under-passes for cars to avoid the danger for streetcar transit or LRT collisions? This seems like an easy fix.

      It also wouldn't add anywhere near the cost of automated robot like SkyTrain transit which drags guide dogs to their near death and which provides a convenient location at SkyTrain stations for creeps to stalk unsuspecting transit users, mostly women, and for drug addicts to make their drug-deals. TransLink and its crime riddled SkyTrains have to go:

      http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Guide+dragged+SkyTrain+touches+he...

      http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/31/bc-katherine-...

      http://www.vancouversun.com/news/hospital+after+late+night+swarming+SkyT...

      oui

      Nov 6, 2010 at 7:20pm

      Who is in favour of streetcars or LRT? Vote agree !

      Evil Eye

      Nov 6, 2010 at 8:58pm

      Those who think that light rail/road intersections are unsafe and need to be grade separated, then they must think all road intersections are unsafe and need to be grade separated!

      Um a red light means stop and one must stop for a car or a train. But no, those who want multi billion dollar SkyTrain lines, don't believe they have to stop at a red light because they are special people.

      Damn it a red light means stop!

      @Evil Eye

      Nov 7, 2010 at 12:48am

      True, still a car is no match for a train, and if the intersection is a busy one, it doesn't hurt to make it intrinsically safe with an under-pass or over-pass. I agree with you about the SkyTrain transit being just plain dumb, and the C-Line in Richmond was a big mistake which bankrupt TransLink.

      The scoundrels running TransLink fleeced the taxpayers to keep Gordon Campbell happy for his ride on the C-Line and his photo opportunity for the opening C-Line ceremony. Expense picture, wasn’t it, and would it not be justice to jail everyone involved at TransLink for the deception when the truth comes out after Mulroney or should I say Campbell is out of the way?

      Of course, TransLink will not admit that the $130 million extra that TransLink squeezed out of us for its annual operating budget was to pay for the C-Line. It is just a coincidence that it was desperately required by TransLink just as the C-Line went into operation. For some reason, I'm skeptical.