Let’s NOT make a Deal A?ai??i??ai??? Property tax hike for transit only choice before mayors
Is TransLink like the Titanic, sailing full steam ahead into a "financial" iceberg?
TransLink is at it again, playing brinkmanship with regional mayors and I hope the valley politicos see through this tawdry charade, which has become a clichA?Ai?? for TransLink’s haphazard planning efforts.
- Behind door number 1, you have option A
- Ai??Ai??behind door number 2, you have option B;
- behind door number 3, you have option A & B.
But here’s the trick, you got to play TransLink’s game because provincial transportation minister, Shirley Bond insists that regional mayors do play. Some regionalAi??Ai??mayors, including FassbenderAi??Ai??from the City of Langley are acting the part of the country rube, easily outwitted by TransLink’sAi??Ai??hucksters selling financial snake oil.
TransLink is in deep financial trouble, yet it plans more expensive metro lines; BRT, a transit mode with a poor record in attracting ridership; community buses, which mostly run empty; and continuing with the $1.00 a day U-Pass, a heavily subsidized student fare which clogs up buses and fills metro cars, leaving transit customers who pay full fare standing or just taking the car instead! To pay for this nonsense, the regional taxpayer is once again going to be forced to pay for really amateur transit planning, done by a bureaucracy which cares more about their perks and pensions, than planning for an affordable and accessible public transit system.
So here is the Zweisystem solution for transit funding. Let the municipalities with SkyTrain, pay for SkyTrain and the municipalities who have only bus operation, pay only for bus operation. As SkyTrain and light-metro financing so dominate TransLink’s balance sheet, the cities with one or more light-metro lines should pay more for SkyTrain and associated improved bus operations.
Example:
- Municipalities which only operate buses are charged a flat fee of $150 on their property assessments.
- Municipalities withAi??Ai??one light-metro line pay a flat fee of $275 on their property assessments.
- Municipalities with two light metro lines pay a flat fee $400 on their property assessments.
- Municipalities with three light metro lines pay a flat fee of $525 on their property assessments.
- Municipalities that operate trolley buses pay an additional flat fee of $50.00 on their property assessments.
This simple formula, taxes those municipalities and cities who benefit from light-metro and trolley buses and provide an incentive for taxpayers to insist getting the biggest bang for their buck!
It is time to stop playing; “Let’s make a Deal” with TransLink and the provincial government and insist that those who benefit in having light-metro actually pay their fair share for light-metro.
Property tax hike for transit only choice before mayors
By Jeff Nagel
Local mayors will not be asked to vote on imposing a vehicle levy to fund transit expansion A?ai??i??ai??? at least not this year.
Instead, the only option to finance the Evergreen Line and possibly other transit improvements will be an increase to property taxes.
If approved, a typical $600,000 home will pay $31 in increased tax to raise $465 million for TransLink’s share of the $1.4-billion Evergreen SkyTrain line to Coquitlam and the first phase of the North Fraser Perimeter Road.
Mayors council chair Peter Fassbender said it was too late to contemplate the Transportation Improvement Fee, a levy which would have raised the same amount of money by charging $15 to $55 per registered vehicle each year, depending on their carbon footprint.
“It would require legislative change, administrative changes and a number of elements for that to even be considered,” the Langley City mayor said of the vehicle levy.
“And it’s going to get significant pushback from south of the Fraser.”
Metro mayors meet Tuesday (Nov. 9) to be briefed on the proposed financial supplement for TransLink, which still has to be assessed by the independent TransLink commissioner before it goes to a vote on Dec. 9.
But Fassbender is still hopeful a scenario is possible where the mayors are able to negotiate different TransLink funding sources with the province, in line with an accord struck in September.
In essence, he thinks the property tax hike could be voted in now to satisfy the provincial government’s insistence of funding certainty for the Evergreen Line, which breaks ground next year.
But Fassbender notes the extra revenue from TransLink won’t be needed until 2012.
That means a property tax lift pencilled in now could be erased next year if Victoria agrees to provide alternative sources A?ai??i??ai???Ai??Ai??such as road pricing, a share of carbon tax or even the vehicle levy A?ai??i??ai???Ai??Ai??which could flow by 2012.
“Can this get us far enough down the road that it gives us time to find other solutions?” Fassbender asked, referring to temporary approval of a property tax hike.
“If we can take pressure off one way or another so we have some breathing space, let’s do it.”
That scenario would require trust A?ai??i??ai???Ai??Ai??several other mayors fear no such deal with the province may be forthcoming once they sign off.
Transportation minister Shirley Bond has also hinted the government may take unilateral action to ensure TransLink raises the money if mayors vote down the supplement.
Then there’s the resignation of the premier and the ensuing Liberal leadership race that clouds the political landscape and will distract some of the players.
Fassbender said even that could work in favour of a deal.
“We’re in a very interesting time because of the changes,” he said, suggesting the government and leadership contenders will likely want to preside over good news, not discord.
More time to negotiate would provide a better chance to consider the how to implement something like the vehicle levy, he said, noting there’s been talk of options like adjusting the rate depending on the level of local transit service.
Fassbender said TransLink’s plan to introduce smart card payment will also open up intriguing options like rebating vehicle levy or road pricing fees collected back to motorists in the form of transit credits, encouraging them to switch modes some of the time.
“When you pay that fee you get an equivalent amount of transit fares built into that card,” he suggested. “That way we not only raise revenue but also help to shift behaviour.”
Mayors will also have the option to vote on a larger set of transit upgrades, including bus service increases and various SkyTrain station upgrades. That would cost an additional $338 million, lifting the property tax hit to $54 for a typical home.
PROPOSED TRANSLINK INVESTMENTS
OPTION A:
Evergreen Line A?ai??i??ai??? $412 million
(TransLink capital contribution, bus and facilities integration, wayfinding and Broadway-Commercial station)
North Fraser Perimeter Road phase 1 A?ai??i??ai??? $53.2 million
(United Boulevard extension)
OPTION A TOTAL: $465.3 million, requiring $39 million per year
PROPERTY TAX IMPACT: $31 per $600,000 home or $5.20 per $100,000 value.
OPTION B:
Bus service boost to accommodate U-Pass expansion: $85.1 million
Bus service boost to meet minimum service standards: $51.3 million
Highway 1 Bus Rapid Transit: $40.9 million
(Linking Lougheed Station- Surrey Central-Walnut Grove with buses every 10 mins)
Minor Road Network minor capital: $37.9 million
Bus service boost to keep pace with population growth: $36.7 million
Cycling projects: $17 million
Main Street Station upgrade: $16.3 million
Metrotown Station upgrade: $12.9 million
King George Boulevard B-Line Bus service: $12.6 million
New Westminster Station upgrade: $9.2 million
White Rock to Langley bus service: $7.5 million
(community shuttles every 30 mins)
Surrey Central Station upgrade: $5.9 million
Lonsdale Quay upgrade: $4.2 million
TOTAL FOR OPTION B: $337.6 million
TOTAL OF OPTIONS A + B: $802 million, requiring $68 million per yearPROPERTY TAX IMPACT OPTIONS A + B: $54 per $600,000 home or $9 per $100,000 assessed valueAi??Ai??
Let’s NOT make a Deal A?ai??i??ai??? Property tax hike for transit only choice before mayors
Is TransLink like the Titanic, sailing full steam ahead into a "financial" iceberg?
TransLink is at it again, playing brinkmanship with regional mayors and I hope the valley politicos see through this tawdry charade, which has become a clichA?Ai?? for TransLink’s haphazard planning efforts.
- Behind door number 1, you have option A
- Ai??Ai??behind door number 2, you have option B;
- behind door number 3, you have option A & B.
But here’s the trick, you got to play TransLink’s game because provincial transportation minister, Shirley Bond insists that regional mayors do play. Some regionalAi??Ai??mayors, including FassbenderAi??Ai??from the City of Langley are acting the part of the country rube, easily outwitted by TransLink’sAi??Ai??hucksters selling financial snake oil.
TransLink is in deep financial trouble, yet it plans more expensive metro lines; BRT, a transit mode with a poor record in attracting ridership; community buses, which mostly run empty; and continuing with the $1.00 a day U-Pass, a heavily subsidized student fare which clogs up buses and fills metro cars, leaving transit customers who pay full fare standing or just taking the car instead! To pay for this nonsense, the regional taxpayer is once again going to be forced to pay for really amateur transit planning, done by a bureaucracy which cares more about their perks and pensions, than planning for an affordable and accessible public transit system.
So here is the Zweisystem solution for transit funding. Let the municipalities with SkyTrain, pay for SkyTrain and the municipalities who have only bus operation, pay only for bus operation. As SkyTrain and light-metro financing so dominate TransLink’s balance sheet, the cities with one or more light-metro lines should pay more for SkyTrain and associated improved bus operations.
Example:
- Municipalities which only operate buses are charged a flat fee of $150 on their property assessments.
- Municipalities withAi??Ai??one light-metro line pay a flat fee of $275 on their property assessments.
- Municipalities with two light metro lines pay a flat fee $400 on their property assessments.
- Municipalities with three light metro lines pay a flat fee of $525 on their property assessments.
- Municipalities that operate trolley buses pay an additional flat fee of $50.00 on their property assessments.
This simple formula, taxes those municipalities and cities who benefit from light-metro and trolley buses and provide an incentive for taxpayers to insist getting the biggest bang for their buck!
It is time to stop playing; “Let’s make a Deal” with TransLink and the provincial government and insist that those who benefit in having light-metro actually pay their fair share for light-metro.
Property tax hike for transit only choice before mayors
By Jeff Nagel
Local mayors will not be asked to vote on imposing a vehicle levy to fund transit expansion A?ai??i??ai??? at least not this year.
Instead, the only option to finance the Evergreen Line and possibly other transit improvements will be an increase to property taxes.
If approved, a typical $600,000 home will pay $31 in increased tax to raise $465 million for TransLink’s share of the $1.4-billion Evergreen SkyTrain line to Coquitlam and the first phase of the North Fraser Perimeter Road.
Mayors council chair Peter Fassbender said it was too late to contemplate the Transportation Improvement Fee, a levy which would have raised the same amount of money by charging $15 to $55 per registered vehicle each year, depending on their carbon footprint.
“It would require legislative change, administrative changes and a number of elements for that to even be considered,” the Langley City mayor said of the vehicle levy.
“And it’s going to get significant pushback from south of the Fraser.”
Metro mayors meet Tuesday (Nov. 9) to be briefed on the proposed financial supplement for TransLink, which still has to be assessed by the independent TransLink commissioner before it goes to a vote on Dec. 9.
But Fassbender is still hopeful a scenario is possible where the mayors are able to negotiate different TransLink funding sources with the province, in line with an accord struck in September.
In essence, he thinks the property tax hike could be voted in now to satisfy the provincial government’s insistence of funding certainty for the Evergreen Line, which breaks ground next year.
But Fassbender notes the extra revenue from TransLink won’t be needed until 2012.
That means a property tax lift pencilled in now could be erased next year if Victoria agrees to provide alternative sources A?ai??i??ai???Ai??Ai??such as road pricing, a share of carbon tax or even the vehicle levy A?ai??i??ai???Ai??Ai??which could flow by 2012.
“Can this get us far enough down the road that it gives us time to find other solutions?” Fassbender asked, referring to temporary approval of a property tax hike.
“If we can take pressure off one way or another so we have some breathing space, let’s do it.”
That scenario would require trust A?ai??i??ai???Ai??Ai??several other mayors fear no such deal with the province may be forthcoming once they sign off.
Transportation minister Shirley Bond has also hinted the government may take unilateral action to ensure TransLink raises the money if mayors vote down the supplement.
Then there’s the resignation of the premier and the ensuing Liberal leadership race that clouds the political landscape and will distract some of the players.
Fassbender said even that could work in favour of a deal.
“We’re in a very interesting time because of the changes,” he said, suggesting the government and leadership contenders will likely want to preside over good news, not discord.
More time to negotiate would provide a better chance to consider the how to implement something like the vehicle levy, he said, noting there’s been talk of options like adjusting the rate depending on the level of local transit service.
Fassbender said TransLink’s plan to introduce smart card payment will also open up intriguing options like rebating vehicle levy or road pricing fees collected back to motorists in the form of transit credits, encouraging them to switch modes some of the time.
“When you pay that fee you get an equivalent amount of transit fares built into that card,” he suggested. “That way we not only raise revenue but also help to shift behaviour.”
Mayors will also have the option to vote on a larger set of transit upgrades, including bus service increases and various SkyTrain station upgrades. That would cost an additional $338 million, lifting the property tax hit to $54 for a typical home.
PROPOSED TRANSLINK INVESTMENTS
OPTION A:
Evergreen Line A?ai??i??ai??? $412 million
(TransLink capital contribution, bus and facilities integration, wayfinding and Broadway-Commercial station)
North Fraser Perimeter Road phase 1 A?ai??i??ai??? $53.2 million
(United Boulevard extension)
OPTION A TOTAL: $465.3 million, requiring $39 million per year
PROPERTY TAX IMPACT: $31 per $600,000 home or $5.20 per $100,000 value.
OPTION B:
Bus service boost to accommodate U-Pass expansion: $85.1 million
Bus service boost to meet minimum service standards: $51.3 million
Highway 1 Bus Rapid Transit: $40.9 million
(Linking Lougheed Station- Surrey Central-Walnut Grove with buses every 10 mins)
Minor Road Network minor capital: $37.9 million
Bus service boost to keep pace with population growth: $36.7 million
Cycling projects: $17 million
Main Street Station upgrade: $16.3 million
Metrotown Station upgrade: $12.9 million
King George Boulevard B-Line Bus service: $12.6 million
New Westminster Station upgrade: $9.2 million
White Rock to Langley bus service: $7.5 million
(community shuttles every 30 mins)
Surrey Central Station upgrade: $5.9 million
Lonsdale Quay upgrade: $4.2 million
TOTAL FOR OPTION B: $337.6 million
TOTAL OF OPTIONS A + B: $802 million, requiring $68 million per yearPROPERTY TAX IMPACT OPTIONS A + B: $54 per $600,000 home or $9 per $100,000 assessed valueAi??Ai??
The future of public transit in America A?ai??i??ai??? will Canada Follow?
The following is from Lyndon Henry, from the Light Rail Now folks, who is an avid supporter of public transit and light rail in the United States.
I fear, as many do in Ontario, that our current populistAi??Ai??politicians will lead us to a new public transit dark age, where precious transit monies are spent on glitzy, politically prestigious projects like subways on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain them and highways, creating more gridlock and land use chaos. Transit advocates must stand alert for political inference and “take no prisoners” on politically inspired and expensive transit initiatives that will do little or nothing for the transit customer.
I find it a very sour irony that, after 8 years of a far-right
administration hostile to rail transit and intent on dismembering
Amtrak, the replacement of the “nightmare” regime by the “Hope and
Change” regime has led to prospects for rail transit, Amtrak –
indeed, all public transport – that may be even more dire than ever.Even more disastrous than the outlook for a Congress more
dysfunctional (and malicious) than before is the clear trend toward a
blanket renunciation of virtually all socially beneficial public
investment, and the new Fear campaign now emerging focused on the
potential takeover of the USA by China as a consequence of deficit
spending (have you seen the latest TV ads promulgating this?).As far as I can tell, the prevailing mindset in the top echelons of
America’s ruling circles has embraced a renunciation of significant
public investment in favor of a policy focus on near-term profit
engorgement, a Gilded Age business vision, and basically a fairly
brutal, barren YOYO (You’re On Your Own) world. I believe this
explains the billions now being funnelled into ongoing political
campaigns to further the new objectives of this mindset.I would not expect public transport to fare well in this emerging
political climate. Public transport advocates should be ready for
some very rough times.Lyndon
The future of public transit in America A?ai??i??ai??? will Canada Follow?
The following is from Lyndon Henry, from the Light Rail Now folks, who is an avid supporter of public transit and light rail in the United States.
I fear, as many do in Ontario, that our current populistAi??Ai??politicians will lead us to a new public transit dark age, where precious transit monies are spent on glitzy, politically prestigious projects like subways on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain them and highways, creating more gridlock and land use chaos. Transit advocates must stand alert for political inference and “take no prisoners” on politically inspired and expensive transit initiatives that will do little or nothing for the transit customer.
I find it a very sour irony that, after 8 years of a far-right
administration hostile to rail transit and intent on dismembering
Amtrak, the replacement of the “nightmare” regime by the “Hope and
Change” regime has led to prospects for rail transit, Amtrak –
indeed, all public transport – that may be even more dire than ever.Even more disastrous than the outlook for a Congress more
dysfunctional (and malicious) than before is the clear trend toward a
blanket renunciation of virtually all socially beneficial public
investment, and the new Fear campaign now emerging focused on the
potential takeover of the USA by China as a consequence of deficit
spending (have you seen the latest TV ads promulgating this?).As far as I can tell, the prevailing mindset in the top echelons of
America’s ruling circles has embraced a renunciation of significant
public investment in favor of a policy focus on near-term profit
engorgement, a Gilded Age business vision, and basically a fairly
brutal, barren YOYO (You’re On Your Own) world. I believe this
explains the billions now being funnelled into ongoing political
campaigns to further the new objectives of this mindset.I would not expect public transport to fare well in this emerging
political climate. Public transport advocates should be ready for
some very rough times.Lyndon
Surrey Leader – DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit
DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit
Surrey Leader
Published: November 04, 2010 12:00 PM
The recent announcement by TransLink, concerning the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, dismissed the Interurban corridor as having no role to play in solving the regionA?ai??i??ai???s transit problems.
During the workshops held in Surrey, participants found it difficult to understand why such a wonderful public asset and low-cost option was so easily cast aside.
TransLink staff seemed to be struggling to find a reason too. So much so, that in the closing summary, the very person who spoke to the media, dismissing the Interurban corridor, was suggesting that a sober second look be in order. A sober second look is exactly what is needed.
Premier CampbellA?ai??i??ai???s preferred option of a SkyTrain extension to Langley City will cost over $2 billion or about $125 million per kilometre in todayA?ai??i??ai???s dollars.
He appears to be a lone voice advocating this Cadillac option. SurreyA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Watts, Langley Township Mayor Green and many others were certainly not taken in by this shameless ploy to insert a 20-year delay clause into creating A?ai??i??Ai??beyond the busA?ai??i??A? transit options for South of Fraser taxpayers.
With an additional 650,000 residents already starting to flow into the South of Fraser region, the need to influence future land use, by modifying community plans and implementing critically needed transit improvements, is now.
TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s previous attempts to hoist a transit master plan on the South of Fraser have fallen far short of what is needed for a region scheduled to grow from todayA?ai??i??ai???s 850,000 to over 1.5 million by 2040.
With no master plan we are being forced to make risky decisions, or are we?
If there are options available that involve minimal cost, little disruption to current traffic flow, and speedy delivery, are these not worth exploring first?
This is what many local rail advocacy groups are pleading for.
The recent, very credible, report commissioned by Rail for the Valley from UK transport consultants clearly comes to the conclusion that the publicly owned interurban rail corridor is exactly this low risk option. Langley TownshipA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Green and his South Fraser Community Rail Task Force of elected representatives have a similar view promoting a passenger rail demonstration project for the line.
Rail based solutions can be a vital part of future South-of-Fraser transit options and they donA?ai??i??ai???t need to cost billions or spend any time on the shelf. The time for action is now.
Peter Holt
Valley Transportation Advisory Committee
via Surrey Leader – DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit.
Dont dismiss South-of-Fraser transit as VALTAC Supports Rail for the Valley!
The following letter, printed in the Surrey Leader,Ai??Ai??from Mr. Holt from the Valley Transportation Advisory Committee is most welcome and shows the growing support for the RftV/Leewood Report for a TramTrain service in the Fraser Valley, using existing railway infrastructure.
DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit
The recent announcement by TransLink, concerning the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, dismissed the Interurban corridor as having no role to play in solving the regionA?ai??i??ai???s transit problems.
During the workshops held in Surrey, participants found it difficult to understand why such a wonderful public asset and low-cost option was so easily cast aside.
TransLink staff seemed to be struggling to find a reason too. So much so, that in the closing summary, the very person who spoke to the media, dismissing the Interurban corridor, was suggesting that a sober second look be in order. A sober second look is exactly what is needed.
Premier CampbellA?ai??i??ai???s preferred option of a SkyTrain extension to Langley City will cost over $2 billion or about $125 million per kilometre in todayA?ai??i??ai???s dollars.
He appears to be a lone voice advocating this Cadillac option. SurreyA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Watts, Langley Township Mayor Green and many others were certainly not taken in by this shameless ploy to insert a 20-year delay clause into creating A?ai??i??Ai??beyond the busA?ai??i??A? transit options for South of Fraser taxpayers.
With an additional 650,000 residents already starting to flow into the South of Fraser region, the need to influence future land use, by modifying community plans and implementing critically needed transit improvements, is now.
TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s previous attempts to hoist a transit master plan on the South of Fraser have fallen far short of what is needed for a region scheduled to grow from todayA?ai??i??ai???s 850,000 to over 1.5 million by 2040.
With no master plan we are being forced to make risky decisions, or are we?
If there are options available that involve minimal cost, little disruption to current traffic flow, and speedy delivery, are these not worth exploring first?
This is what many local rail advocacy groups are pleading for.
The recent, very credible, report commissioned by Rail for the Valley from UK transport consultants clearly comes to the conclusion that the publicly owned interurban rail corridor is exactly this low risk option. Langley TownshipA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Green and his South Fraser Community Rail Task Force of elected representatives have a similar view promoting a passenger rail demonstration project for the line.
Rail based solutions can be a vital part of future South-of-Fraser transit options and they donA?ai??i??ai???t need to cost billions or spend any time on the shelf. The time for action is now.
Ai??Ai??Peter Holt
Valley Transportation Advisory Committee
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/opinion/letters/106710283.html
DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit A?ai??i??ai??? VALTAC Supports Rail for the Valley!
The following letter, printed in the Surrey Leader,Ai??Ai??from Mr. Holt from the Valley Transportation Advisory Committee is most welcome and shows the growing support for the RftV/Leewood Report for a TramTrain service in the Fraser Valley, using existing railway infrastructure.
DonA?ai??i??ai???t dismiss South-of-Fraser transit
The recent announcement by TransLink, concerning the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, dismissed the Interurban corridor as having no role to play in solving the regionA?ai??i??ai???s transit problems.
During the workshops held in Surrey, participants found it difficult to understand why such a wonderful public asset and low-cost option was so easily cast aside.
TransLink staff seemed to be struggling to find a reason too. So much so, that in the closing summary, the very person who spoke to the media, dismissing the Interurban corridor, was suggesting that a sober second look be in order. A sober second look is exactly what is needed.
Premier CampbellA?ai??i??ai???s preferred option of a SkyTrain extension to Langley City will cost over $2 billion or about $125 million per kilometre in todayA?ai??i??ai???s dollars.
He appears to be a lone voice advocating this Cadillac option. SurreyA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Watts, Langley Township Mayor Green and many others were certainly not taken in by this shameless ploy to insert a 20-year delay clause into creating A?ai??i??Ai??beyond the busA?ai??i??A? transit options for South of Fraser taxpayers.
With an additional 650,000 residents already starting to flow into the South of Fraser region, the need to influence future land use, by modifying community plans and implementing critically needed transit improvements, is now.
TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s previous attempts to hoist a transit master plan on the South of Fraser have fallen far short of what is needed for a region scheduled to grow from todayA?ai??i??ai???s 850,000 to over 1.5 million by 2040.
With no master plan we are being forced to make risky decisions, or are we?
If there are options available that involve minimal cost, little disruption to current traffic flow, and speedy delivery, are these not worth exploring first?
This is what many local rail advocacy groups are pleading for.
The recent, very credible, report commissioned by Rail for the Valley from UK transport consultants clearly comes to the conclusion that the publicly owned interurban rail corridor is exactly this low risk option. Langley TownshipA?ai??i??ai???s Mayor Green and his South Fraser Community Rail Task Force of elected representatives have a similar view promoting a passenger rail demonstration project for the line.
Rail based solutions can be a vital part of future South-of-Fraser transit options and they donA?ai??i??ai???t need to cost billions or spend any time on the shelf. The time for action is now.
Ai??Ai??Peter Holt
Valley Transportation Advisory Committee
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/opinion/letters/106710283.html
Stephanie Ryan: Surrey should hold referendum on light rail transit in 2011 | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com
Stephanie Ryan: Surrey should hold referendum on light rail transit in 2011
By Stephanie Ryan, November 5, 2010
Surrey residents were invited to ai???be part of the planai??? 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 ai???best busai??? 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 Fraserai??i??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 Surreyai??i??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 Surreyai??i??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 TransLinkai??i??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 wonai??i??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.
Canada Line Puzzle A?ai??i??ai??? What’s The problem?
Subways & metros cost a lot of money to build and operate.
The cost of the Canada Line is now understood to be over $2.5 billion, with some estimates as high as $2.8 billion. The article illustrates the problems with automatic (driverless) transit systems is that when problems arise, service suffers. When metro stems stops it greatly inconveniences customers, many of whom have to make transfers to buses to complete there journey.
It is inexcusable that such a problems is plaguing the Canada Line and when a transit systems operates erratically, customers look elsewhere for their transportation needs.
Read, they will take the car instead.
Canada Line’s woes have people asking questions
By MATT KIELTYKA, QMI AGENCY
The Canada LineA?ai??i??ai???s operators are trying to get to the bottom of an issue thatA?ai??i??ai???s plagued the $2.1-billion system this week.
Commuters at the rapid transit lineA?ai??i??ai???s Richmond stops were left frustrated during Wednesday and ThursdayA?ai??i??ai???s morning rush hour, and again on Sunday evening when trains unexpectedly stopped between the Aberdeen and Lansdowne stations.
PROTRANS BCA?ai??i??ai???s Jason Chan said sensors on the car are detecting a loss of traction but engineers havenA?ai??i??ai???t been able to determine whether the problem is mechanical or simply an electronic glitch.
Whatever the cause, the issue has forced trains to run on a single track instead of the usual two.
ThatA?ai??i??ai???s meant delays for people looking to get in and out of Richmond.
A?ai??i??Ai??There is no definitive conclusion to this,A?ai??i??A? Chan said. A?ai??i??Ai??WeA?ai??i??ai???re trying to find out exactly what is going on and resolve the issue.A?ai??i??A?
Chan also dismissed the notion that the year-old system was experience teething issues.
A?ai??i??Ai??It ran all last year, and during the Olympics, with no problem,A?ai??i??A? he said.
Scheduled maintenance track work was completed on the same section of the line last weekend during the night when service levels are low, but Chan said the service disruptions this week are unrelated
Canada Line Puzzle A?ai??i??ai??? What’s The problem?
Subways & metros cost a lot of money to build and operate.
The cost of the Canada Line is now understood to be over $2.5 billion, with some estimates as high as $2.8 billion. The article illustrates the problems with automatic (driverless) transit systems is that when problems arise, service suffers. When metro stems stops it greatly inconveniences customers, many of whom have to make transfers to buses to complete there journey.
It is inexcusable that such a problems is plaguing the Canada Line and when a transit systems operates erratically, customers look elsewhere for their transportation needs.
Read, they will take the car instead.
Canada Line’s woes have people asking questions
By MATT KIELTYKA, QMI AGENCY
The Canada LineA?ai??i??ai???s operators are trying to get to the bottom of an issue thatA?ai??i??ai???s plagued the $2.1-billion system this week.
Commuters at the rapid transit lineA?ai??i??ai???s Richmond stops were left frustrated during Wednesday and ThursdayA?ai??i??ai???s morning rush hour, and again on Sunday evening when trains unexpectedly stopped between the Aberdeen and Lansdowne stations.
PROTRANS BCA?ai??i??ai???s Jason Chan said sensors on the car are detecting a loss of traction but engineers havenA?ai??i??ai???t been able to determine whether the problem is mechanical or simply an electronic glitch.
Whatever the cause, the issue has forced trains to run on a single track instead of the usual two.
ThatA?ai??i??ai???s meant delays for people looking to get in and out of Richmond.
A?ai??i??Ai??There is no definitive conclusion to this,A?ai??i??A? Chan said. A?ai??i??Ai??WeA?ai??i??ai???re trying to find out exactly what is going on and resolve the issue.A?ai??i??A?
Chan also dismissed the notion that the year-old system was experience teething issues.
A?ai??i??Ai??It ran all last year, and during the Olympics, with no problem,A?ai??i??A? he said.
Scheduled maintenance track work was completed on the same section of the line last weekend during the night when service levels are low, but Chan said the service disruptions this week are unrelated
Recent Comments