The Truth about Translink’s Push Poll On SkyTrain Expansion

From the South Fraser Community Rail Folks.

Comments about TransLink’s recent push poll about expanding SkyTrain in Surrey.


May 26, 2019

             South Fraser Community Rail

“Hydrogen iLink Passenger Rail, Scott Rd. SkyTrain to Chilliwack” #connect the valley



Press Release May 26th, 2019


Look into the untold facts behind TransLink’s misrepresentation! It’s startling!

The TransLink Survey results just released by TransLink yesterday exposes this organization for what it does very well, they are irresponsible with your tax dollars, conduct one sided Open Houses with only ONE option, conduct in-house on-line surveys with only ONE option and conduct market research offering only ONE option with ONE Question – Add all of this up, you get a ONE sided result surprised!

IMPORTANT – Added to the above is the fact the area being surveyed is absolutely starved for Transportation of any kind. In Langley/Surrey you get the results that have been published, all manufactured by TransLink for your pleasure. Wasting tax dollars is something they do very well.

Real Market Research seeks out the public’s views on a selection of issues, providing a variety of options to select from. Conducting telephone market research and asking the question ‘would you be in favor of SkyTrain to Langley City down the Fraser Highway” with no other option – WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO BE THEIR ANSWER? Especially, as stated above, they are starved for a transit option of any kind! It is an insult to the intelligence of the region, all designed with a preset answer.

On telephone market research, let’s break down their numbers:

In Surrey a sample size of 595, a margin of error of +/-4%, 85% support and in numbers 505.

In Langley City a sample size of 67, a margin of error of +/-12%, 90% support and in numbers 60.

In Township Langley, sample size of 180, a margin of error of +/-8%, 92% support and in numbers 165.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This phone call research again asked one question with only one option and you get 90%-92 %? In a transportation starved community, how did they not get 100%?

On Open House, filled out survey forms?

Pouring an endless amount of taxpayer dollars towards and into promoting; the website, Digital ads (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google Search network, Google Display Network, G mail ads), Surrey Now Leader banner ads, advertorial, Facebook Posts, Langley Advance Times Banner ads, advertorial, Facebook Posts, SMS NextBus alert ads, eNewsletters, Social Media using Facebook and Twitter (Facebook events were created for each open house), Direct Outreach through corporate, business and community organizations, Mail out postcards to Surrey and Langley businesses and residents, Street teams (staff) distributing postcards at transit hubs, Community Events in Surrey, Information Boards at Surrey City Hall, Langley City Hall and the Township of Langley City Hall and finally transit ads! And you are Surprised at the result?

The level of awareness seems to have been the question of the day!

With the money poured into this one-sided Public Engagement Campaign the results are not at all surprising. Throughout the survey they talk about the plan for the South of Fraser – Surrey is NOT the South of Fraser region, it is a small part of it! Once again asking residents ONE question on ONE option in a region starved for any Transit Option does not constitute a survey of ANY value.

Seriously consider the following –

  • Doug McCallum got elected with only 13.50% of the eligible voters in Surrey!

Promised SkyTrain at a cost of $1.65 Billion, actual cost will be $3 + Billion!

Promised City Police Force @ 10% cost increase– Increase will be substantially greater!


  • The Safe Surrey Coalition has disbanded, Doug McCallum is the lone remaining voice and will cost the residents throughout the region increased TransLink taxation costs PLUS increased Surrey taxation for increased Policing costs. This financial irresponsibility has got to stop! Check out the Per Capita Costs below on all options:


  • Original LRT, Guildford, Surrey Center to Newton Pop. 312,340 @ $1.65 Billion = $5,122. Per capita
  • 11 kms in length 104th Guildford to Surrey Center down King George Blvd to Newton


  • SkyTrain Surrey Center to Fleetwood Population 62,735 @ $1.65 Billion = $25,504. per capita.
    • 7 kms in length down Fraser Highway to Fleetwood


  • SkyTrain Surrey Center to Langley City Population 157,618 @ $3.2 Billion = $20,302. per capita
  • 16 kms in length down Fraser Highway (About $800 million thru a Dead Zone, 25% no population)

The solution for our region follows and the questions regarding this option were not asked? WHY?

  • Scott Rd SkyTrain to Chilliwack, Population 852,846 @ $1.250 Billion = $1,465. per capita
  • 99 kms in length

The Interurban State-of-the-Art Hydrail Passenger Rail proposal makes sense for 1.2 million people! Why wasn’t this option offered in their survey? Cost would be pennies on the dollar and would serve 14 Post Secondary Institutions, 7 First Nations Communities and 16 Cities, towns and municipalities!

Let’s stop insulting the intelligence of the Public. Let’s start by conducting a balanced survey that will MEAN something, save Billions of dollars and provide far better service at a fraction of the cost while we are at it!

It would be laughable IF it wasn’t so serious! TransLink continues to waste an immense number of tax dollars while the regions (1.2 million residents) are losing out on a FREE for use corridor.

For more detail from the South Fraser Community Rail Group – Contact Rick Green – 604 866-5752


Email address

Attachments area


2 Responses to “The Truth about Translink’s Push Poll On SkyTrain Expansion”
  1. Waiheke says:

    Fake news from Zwei.

    Sadly not. The real problem with the SkyTrain Lobby is that they are ignorant. Ignorant of transit, ignorant of railways, ignorant of history and ignorant of much more.

    Strong words, yes, but after being on the market for over 40 years only seven of the proprietary ICTS/ALRT/ALM/ART/Innovia/Movia transit systems have been sold. Having Linear Induction Motors, makes the system proprietary as no other company provides compliant operating stock; no other company can provide “off the shelf” vehicles for the ALRT/ART SkyTrain lines.

    The poll question was classic push poll designed to get media attention and it did.

  2. Haveacow says:

    I would accept more of what Translink says as accurate if they did just 2 things they never seem to actually do.

    1. Openly, and I mean openly and honestly put an Skytrain bid to world-wide tender and inform the general public whom the bidders are. Then publicly put a price to each bid. Once the bidding process is complete, which usually takes a year, put up the scores that each bidder got and the rationales for each score by each of the person’s involved, including their comments, all on line. It should be up to individual if they want to publicly comment to the media publicly.

    For example, The City of Ottawa, O.C. Transpo and the Rideau Transit Group (RTG) did all of that except, the final scores and allowing the people involved to speak publicly about the process around the scoring rationales for the Stage 2 Confederation and especially the Trillium Line expansion. This gave the whole project a black eye, when SNC Lavlin won the Trillium Line expansion contract and no one was legally allowed to explain why a company that, was in danger of losing all federal government contracts for a decade due to coruption charges and trial , won at all.

    2. Translink needs to create a public living legal document (a document that can be added to and modified over time) that permanently outlines its rationale for when rapid transit is to be built, the rationales for choosing the type of rapid transit, its relationships with the other forms of transport, its relationship with the public as well as its stations/stops relationships with the area environment (legal, commercial, functional and environmental). Explain what the stations design putposes are (actually very important) and the station’s/stops connection to the development industry. This document needs to state the goals and objectives for the rapid transit program and a permanent but adaptable process, for the implementation of rapid transit and expansions of existing rapid transit or the adopting of new rapid transit technologies.

    This “How To Guide” of rapid transit may seem obsolete, considering you have it already and fairly extensive system on top of it but it would solve most of the issues you are experiencing right now. It would also at the least, give people who are against the current form of rapid transit, including guys like Zwei, who have real issues with your really poor choice of rapid transit technology, a proper place and platform to point out issues with it and maybe, just maybe improve it.

Leave A Comment