Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[golog]

this is just a friendly reminder that Translink is not just transit -- they spend on bridges and highways too

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Unfortunately the debate about growth-serving and growth-building also clouds up our priorities... with the Broadway line emphasizing more of the first (but also parts of the second due to UBC developments) and the Surrey one using primarily the second (first also a factor in some corridors). Bleh.

TOD wouldn't just happen at UBC. There are large areas along Broadway that are overpriced SFH. As the price for detached homes goes up in Vancouver, they become less attractive. There are only so many rich people who want to be crammed into a tiny house in a loud, busy urban environment. Soon, the only option for people looking to sell their multi-million 3 bed 1 bath houses will be to sell to developers. Streets of detached homes will be replaced by low rise condos or row/town homes. And this will probably happen even without rapid transit given enough time.

But the key to Skytrain on Broadway isn't really TOD ON Broadway, but TOD elsewhere. Broadway will densify on its own given enough time, but rapid transit in the corridor can densify other areas.

The thing to keep in mind is that a transit ride is composed of 2 things: a source and a destination. Building thousands of condos around Skytrain stations is great and all, but there is no need for the people in them to take transit if transit doesn't take them where they need to go: WORK.

Skytrain on Broadway will add the second and third largest trip destination areas. By serving more destinations you encourage more growth along the rest of the line.

I don't know about you guys, but I take jobs I can get, and live where I want. There are a lot of homes near Skytrain, but it is usually harder to find a job near it. By service major job centers, you are making Transit the easier choice for a lot more people than if you just simply extended it outward into lower density areas. There are potentially a lot of people who already live near Skytrain, but don't take it because they have to bus at the other end to work.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

TOD wouldn't just happen at UBC. There are large areas along Broadway that are overpriced SFH. As the price for detached homes goes up in Vancouver, they become less attractive. There are only so many rich people who want to be crammed into a tiny house in a loud, busy urban environment. Soon, the only option for people looking to sell their multi-million 3 bed 1 bath houses will be to sell to developers. Streets of detached homes will be replaced by low rise condos or row/town homes. And this will probably happen even without rapid transit given enough time.

But the key to Skytrain on Broadway isn't really TOD ON Broadway, but TOD elsewhere. Broadway will densify on its own given enough time, but rapid transit in the corridor can densify other areas.

The thing to keep in mind is that a transit ride is composed of 2 things: a source and a destination. Building thousands of condos around Skytrain stations is great and all, but there is no need for the people in them to take transit if transit doesn't take them where they need to go: WORK.

Skytrain on Broadway will add the second and third largest trip destination areas. By serving more destinations you encourage more growth along the rest of the line.

I don't know about you guys, but I take jobs I can get, and live where I want. There are a lot of homes near Skytrain, but it is usually harder to find a job near it. By service major job centers, you are making Transit the easier choice for a lot more people than if you just simply extended it outward into lower density areas. There are potentially a lot of people who already live near Skytrain, but don't take it because they have to bus at the other end to work.

Well you say it will add trip destination but one thing can be said that your not really increasing the amount of people being able to go there since the route is still the same everywhere else. Just cause you add a destination doesnt mean more people south of the fraser are now gonna take the same long bus trip they normally have to out to the skytrain just to go there.

Also SoF route will eventually grow to serve way more then the broadway line will. While broadway corridor is growing it not even close to the growth SoF

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Well you say it will add trip destination but one thing can be said that your not really increasing the amount of people being able to go there since the route is still the same everywhere else. Just cause you add a destination doesnt mean more people south of the fraser are now gonna take the same long bus trip they normally have to out to the skytrain just to go there.

Also SoF route will eventually grow to serve way more then the broadway line will. While broadway corridor is growing it not even close to the growth SoF

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Almost 50% of people travelling into downtown do so by transit. Only around 20% travelling into the Broadway Corridor do so by transit. That's a huge difference, and the main difference between them is that transit into downtown is better than into Broadway.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there are people near transit (within a 5 minute bus ride) right now who do not ride transit to the Broadway area. People will avoid the 99 B line because it is crowded and slow. If the 99 Bline wasn't a negative factor, then it would be logical to expect the same 50% transit ridership into a major job center.

If you add the number of jobs in the Broadway area and UBC just the number of jobs would outnumber travelling residents out of Guildford or Newton. The number of jobs alone in the Metro core is over 200,000 with a good portion along Broadway.

Building the Broadway line could get ridership into all of the Metro Core up to 50% of all trips literally overnight. By building the Broadway line, you are opening up 2 of the most concentrated job locations to everyone within 5 miles of a Skytrain station to an easy, fast transit ride.

So let me be clear. What I am saying is that not only will the Broadway line get more riders in total than any line SOF, but it will also convert more drivers to transit than a SOF line, and encourage more office and commercial construction in the core.

You also bring up another key difference. In Vancouver, we are talking about the Broadway Corridor. It's a narrow strip of land the length of Broadway, but it is only several blocks wide. SoF we are talking about an area about the size of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam and more. In Vancouver, we know where we need it and what it will do. In Surrey we all can't even agree on what our goals for transit are or what route it should take.

Transit will come to Surrey, and Surrey will benefit. But the city is so spread out and plans are so scattershot that building rapid transit today won't do much for years. We need to get our plans in order. Growth is happening all over Surrey, and the metro region. So building Rapid transit to Newton isn't going to do much for residents in Fleetwood, Cloverdale or Guildford. If transit is built to Guildford what does it do for residents in Newton, South Surrey or Cloverdale? What does any of it do for the residents in North Delta (and the condos around Scott Road)?

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Almost 50% of people travelling into downtown do so by transit. Only around 20% travelling into the Broadway Corridor do so by transit. That's a huge difference, and the main difference between them is that transit into downtown is better than into Broadway.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there are people near transit (within a 5 minute bus ride) right now who do not ride transit to the Broadway area. People will avoid the 99 B line because it is crowded and slow. If the 99 Bline wasn't a negative factor, then it would be logical to expect the same 50% transit ridership into a major job center.

If you add the number of jobs in the Broadway area and UBC just the number of jobs would outnumber travelling residents out of Guildford or Newton. The number of jobs alone in the Metro core is over 200,000 with a good portion along Broadway.

Building the Broadway line could get ridership into all of the Metro Core up to 50% of all trips literally overnight. By building the Broadway line, you are opening up 2 of the most concentrated job locations to everyone within 5 miles of a Skytrain station to an easy, fast transit ride.

So let me be clear. What I am saying is that not only will the Broadway line get more riders in total than any line SOF, but it will also convert more drivers to transit than a SOF line, and encourage more office and commercial construction in the core.

You also bring up another key difference. In Vancouver, we are talking about the Broadway Corridor. It's a narrow strip of land the length of Broadway, but it is only several blocks wide. SoF we are talking about an area about the size of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam and more. In Vancouver, we know where we need it and what it will do. In Surrey we all can't even agree on what our goals for transit are or what route it should take.

Transit will come to Surrey, and Surrey will benefit. But the city is so spread out and plans are so scattershot that building rapid transit today won't do much for years. We need to get our plans in order. Growth is happening all over Surrey, and the metro region. So building Rapid transit to Newton isn't going to do much for residents in Fleetwood, Cloverdale or Guildford. If transit is built to Guildford what does it do for residents in Newton, South Surrey or Cloverdale? What does any of it do for the residents in North Delta (and the condos around Scott Road)?

Well one good friend who lives in Newton and works at UBC might consider taking the skytrain from Scott road instead of driving twice a day because driving is twice as fast and 10 times more convenient. Thats how much of a difference it would make.

[squeezied]

BCPhil makes a good point about getting skytrain to service destinations. For the large part, skytrain mostly serves the sources. Other than downtown, skytrain doesnt service many key destinations, namely central broadway and ubc. Once these areas are serviced with skytrain, transit ridership throughout the whole region will spike up. I think it's pretty clear, transit on Broadway is a choking point or a limiting factor, it's just not physically possible to add more ridership. Add more capacity and ridership jumps up to reach a new equilibrium.

Now you could also say the same thing about adding skytrain to Surrey instead, say to Newton. Ridership along the Newton corridor would jump up. So that's great right, you increase ridership on skytrain right? Well not so fast, that added ridership will exacerbate the current conditions along the Broadway corridor as a significant portion of the Newton source is destined along the Broadway corridor(remember the Broadway corridor contains the 2nd and 3rd highest transit destination). And since the Broadway corridor is already at capacity, what will result is lost ridership elsewhere including Newton. You'll just see choice riders switching back to cars.

Transit is only as strong as its weakest link. And it's quite apparent the weakest link is the Broadway corridor.

I know a friend who lives in north Burnaby with good access to skytrain and studies at UBC but drives nevertheless because of the mess that is the Broadway corridor. That is an example of a potential choice rider who drives instead. Once you build the Evergreen Line (if ever) or an extention of the Surrey Line, you'll see many choice riders switching to cars because of the worsening situtation along Broadway. Granted not everyone commutes along the Broadway corridor but it does represent a significant destination and while a skytrain line out to the suburbs will increase ridership overall , you will lose some choice riders previously mentioned.

Open up capacity along the Broadway corridor by building skytrain and you attract people throughout the region to use transit without aversely losing choice riders to cars. And I think that is very desirable.

[NucksFanInVan]

Not to mention the benefits of networking the existing expo and Canada Lines together... creating a relief valve to access downtown and transfer to Canada Line that doesn't involve a credible half-marathon and at least two sets of escalators.

So lets see:
replaces at-capacity bus routes, freeing up bus capacity for elsewhere
has existing ridership to limit taxpayer exposure
has potential to help shape urban growth
creates networking within the existing rapid transit backbone
introduces a relief valve for accessing downtown rather than further choking the choke points

Why are we even talking about Surrey

[Whalleyboy]

cause surrey needs transit to and the commet all people in newton are going to broadway is stupid. most people in SoF want transit to travel around here not to go to Vancouver. this is why a seperated system of LRT will work better for people in surrey since it allows us to move around her on roads that are already backed up with cars. Sure you can say lets add more bus to surrey but its nott gonna do anything when it backed up in traffic. You know how many times in surrey i've seen to of the same bus end up right in front and behind one and other. To many. Also while broadway has ridership number i bet majority of those people who ride it are people only with u passes and 1 zones where people SoF the momeny they cross the bridge they will be paying 2 to 3 zones. mean while on top of that surrey is already paying more then its share into transit and demanding that its paid its fair share and its time for a rail upgrade since we havent seen anything since 94.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

cause surrey needs transit to and the commet all people in newton are going to broadway is stupid. most people in SoF want transit to travel around here not to go to Vancouver. this is why a seperated system of LRT will work better for people in surrey since it allows us to move around her on roads that are already backed up with cars. Sure you can say lets add more bus to surrey but its nott gonna do anything when it backed up in traffic. You know how many times in surrey i've seen to of the same bus end up right in front and behind one and other. To many. Also while broadway has ridership number i bet majority of those people who ride it are people only with u passes and 1 zones where people SoF the momeny they cross the bridge they will be paying 2 to 3 zones. mean while on top of that surrey is already paying more then its share into transit and demanding that its paid its fair share and its time for a rail upgrade since we havent seen anything since 94.

First of all, nobody said "all people in newton are going to broadway" nor suggested so. Read carefully.

Second, regarding the comment on "same bus end up right in front and behind one and other", the exact same thing can be said about Vancouver and even worse.

Lastly, regarding the ridership on broadway being mostly people with u-passes and 1 zones, you are wrong on that. This has been discussed before. The fact is the broadway corridor is not just for students nor people who live in Vancouver. U-Pass holders only represent 38% of total transit ridership. For those who work in the Broadway corridor, about 50% of people do not live in Vancouver (you can search up the stats on that). Don't underestimate how regionally important the Broadway corridor is. Statistically speaking, a significant portion of the Newton source is destined to Broadway, you can bet on that.

Frankly this converstation is getting quite tiring, but I can't let ignorant comments go like that.

[squeezied]

And one last thing, if you really want better transit in Surrey, you should petition to the City to build transit-friendly development throughout the city, not just in Whalley. I still see sprawling SFH being built and townhouses that are designed around cars. This is why transit is so poor throughout Surrey because much of it is car-oriented.

You can't blame the low ridership on poor service alone. The City has to do it's part as well if it wants better transit. While I do see some evidence of that in the recent years, don't expect significant improvements to happen overnight as it's quite hard to undo decades of car-oriented development.

[NucksFanInVan]

I live in south Burnaby. Geographically, I'm closer to Surrey than Central Broadway. I'm just a regular working person, not a student, don't have a u-pass, and work in Burnaby.

Number of times I've had to go places in the past ~12 mos:
Central Broadway: 6-8 times
UBC: twice
Surrey: zero

Car-based transportation have a significant economic and functional advantage when one considers short highly-distributed local trips among low-density development centres. It makes no sense to build high-capacity Skytrain extensions in Surrey to serve people who want to make local trips. Rapid transit needs to serve both regional and local transit needs to make economic sense.

I'm not saying Surrey will never get there - but first we need better buses and development planning. Build ROWs into development, create some B-Lines, upgrade to rapid bus in the ROWs then eventually LRT can infill.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by squeezied

And one last thing, if you really want better transit in Surrey, you should petition to the City to build transit-friendly development throughout the city, not just in Whalley. I still see sprawling SFH being built and townhouses that are designed around cars. This is why transit is so poor throughout Surrey because much of it is car-oriented.

You can't blame the low ridership on poor service alone. The City has to do it's part as well if it wants better transit. While I do see some evidence of that in the recent years, don't expect significant improvements to happen overnight as it's quite hard to undo decades of car-oriented development.

Which is what PoMo and Coquitlam have been earnestly doing and how's that worked out for them? People here still argue that Broadway should come before Evergreen. /counterargument

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by squeezied

And one last thing, if you really want better transit in Surrey, you should petition to the City to build transit-friendly development throughout the city, not just in Whalley. I still see sprawling SFH being built and townhouses that are designed around cars. This is why transit is so poor throughout Surrey because much of it is car-oriented.

You can't blame the low ridership on poor service alone. The City has to do it's part as well if it wants better transit. While I do see some evidence of that in the recent years, don't expect significant improvements to happen overnight as it's quite hard to undo decades of car-oriented development.

Yeah, the City's expanded and built Transit friendly neighbourhoods, - you can more or less blame Translink for not giving these neighbourhoods the services it deserves. They wait until the neighbourhood is complete, then perhaps put a community route through it (Clayton). However, because transit sucked at the time of moving in, it was nearly impossible to get anywhere without driving, and now you have major parking issues, traffic issues, mainly because the expected transit service was not provided initially.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Which is what PoMo and Coquitlam have been earnestly doing and how's that worked out for them? People here still argue that Broadway should come before Evergreen. /counterargument

To be fair, Broadway has been well established long before the TODs you see in PoMo and Coquitlam.

One more setback about having TODs in PoMo, Coquitlam or Surrey is that they're at the ends of the region. While TODs are a great incentive to build rapid transit, it isn't very financially viable since it's so far away and usually surrounded by low density developments. What you have seen and will see is improved bus service to the TODs compared to those of just sprawling areas. While it may not seem like much it is still sufficient for it's area especially when there are other routes in the region that are over-capacity. When you have TODs in a sea of sprawling neighbourhoods, don't expect high-capacity service when current buses are nowhere near full.

People need to understand translink needs to optimize it's resources (money and buses). Unfortunately not all areas of our region can have equal service, and that goes for every other metropolitian region in the world. Central areas always have better transit because that is where people need to go.

If you've made the choice to live in far-flung area of our region, you've indirectly accepted the fact that transit isn't going to be great. There are areas across the region that are affordable with good access to transit, you just have to make compromises.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

Yeah, the City's expanded and built Transit friendly neighbourhoods, - you can more or less blame Translink for not giving these neighbourhoods the services it deserves. They wait until the neighbourhood is complete, then perhaps put a community route through it (Clayton). However, because transit sucked at the time of moving in, it was nearly impossible to get anywhere without driving, and now you have major parking issues, traffic issues, mainly because the expected transit service was not provided initially.

Like my previous post, what do you expect when you have an area like Clayton that is so far from everything? I also want to add that as dense as Clayton is, I'd say it's more dense sprawl than transit friendly neighbourhood. Take a look here and look at the aereal pic of Las Vegas: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/09/the-perils-of-average-density.html . Density doesn't always equal transit-friendliness, especially if that density is far from everything.

[golog]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Which is what PoMo and Coquitlam have been earnestly doing and how's that worked out for them? People here still argue that Broadway should come before Evergreen. /counterargument

What kind of argument is that? Should the Port Mann Bridge be cancelled to twin the Burrard St bridge or build another one between downtown Vancouver and North Vancouver?

Of course you want to invest where the demand is highest, and the rate of return is greatest -- for any given system you choose to build, it would allow you to complete it faster.

Cars are the optimal solution in Surrey for now, you can't fight that and it's not necessarily a bad thing. What's important is that planning is done for the future, to allow a smooth progression from extensive growth to intensive development, along with transit/pedestrian competitive layouts when and where it makes sense

When transit becomes profitable, or even just loses less money, service in Surrey will automatically increase. Until then, you ought to propose alternative options with equivalent costs to give context -- like give every resident $5000 cash plus an annual payment for whatever the operating losses would be or build an LRT line with a ridership of 20,000 pphd. Honestly, the best bet right now would probably be the minicabs they have in some countries that are vans and stop to pick up other passengers like a hybrid between HandyDart and a regular cab.

But it's never been about transit in Surrey, this is all hollow politics. Watts and council doesn't want to rock the boat with developers, or with tax payers. Nor are they forced to at this time. There's still demand for cheaper housing and the road system still has enough slack to make it worthwhile to commuters. Translink is nothing but a boogeyman that can be used to rally the base in a cathartic sense of victimhood. The day Surrey city council stops trumpeting lowest taxes and fastest growing just might be the day they get serious about spending the money to foster pedestrian traffic by subdividing blocks.

Imagine if Gregor Robertson cried out weekly, with supporting columnists, that Translink should build a pedestrian bridge between Kits and the West End. That Vancouver has been waiting 100 years for it (never mind Translink was formed in the mid 90s where the province took over hospitals in exchange for cities taking over transportation, or that the demand is scarcely there today let alone 100 years ago), and it's unfair Surrey has all these new bridges built or planned and Vancouver has had nothing but the Lions Gate bridge refurbishment since the 1970s.

You want some kind of rail transit, I get it. I think we all get it.
Throwing out bombs like "deserves", "needs", or "have been waiting for since 1985" should leave you feeling embarrassed.

Translink's budget is online and you can comb through that to bring up a feasible alternative if you want, but the truth of it is that it's very hard to pay for anything these days. Look at Seattle's LRT, that's what happens when you ignore costs and aren't humble enough to accept what's affordable today.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

cause surrey needs transit to and the commet all people in newton are going to broadway is stupid. most people in SoF want transit to travel around here not to go to Vancouver. this is why a seperated system of LRT will work better for people in surrey since it allows us to move around her on roads that are already backed up with cars. Sure you can say lets add more bus to surrey but its nott gonna do anything when it backed up in traffic. You know how many times in surrey i've seen to of the same bus end up right in front and behind one and other. To many.

You haven't been around town much if you think traffic in Surrey is bad. I live here and I drive around Surrey because there IS NO TRAFFIC. It gets congested for about an hour around peak times, but it is just congestion. Unless there is a major accident, I have never seen gridlock.

Buses group together for 2 reasons. Usually it is because the first bus is very busy. It is making stops at all the stops, picking up everyone waiting, while the second bus doesn't have to stop at any stops. This results in them being bunched up near the end of the usually very long routes. Sometimes it is due to WCMBC adding unscheduled buses to peak times, usually doubling up an existing bus. This allows Translink to manage demand without committing to doing it every day, just as staffing allows. And sometimes it is just because a driver is behind. They have a tight schedule, and need to take breaks, so if one of their routes gets slowed down by heavy passenger volume, they'll be behind the rest of the day, and sometimes it just keeps getting worse until the bus is basically as slow as the scheduled bus behind them.

If it was because of traffic, they wouldn't be behind each other. They would be separated by car volume. If one bus was slow because of traffic, the bus behind would be too, no? So if the buses were separated in schedule by 15 minutes, and heavy traffic kept them from being on time, the buses would actually be separated by 15 minutes worth of collected car traffic.

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Also while broadway has ridership number i bet majority of those people who ride it are people only with u passes and 1 zones where people SoF the momeny they cross the bridge they will be paying 2 to 3 zones. mean while on top of that surrey is already paying more then its share into transit and demanding that its paid its fair share and its time for a rail upgrade since we havent seen anything since 94.

Your reasoning here defeats your argument.

If riders on Broadway are not worth the spending because they are 1 zone, then why are riders in Surrey? In your other post you talk about the importance of providing Rapid transit to improve travel inside Surrey. Both would be 1 zone riders. The difference is that the zone in Surrey is a lot larger and has less riders on its corridors. There are currently 100,000 boardings a day on the Broadway Corridor, and that is only about 20-25% of all trips in the area. Whereas there are about 100,000 residents in all of Newton. The only way you could match ridership on a Newton line was if EVERYONE in Newton worked in Whalley and at least 50% rode the new line there. And that requires a significant bump from the about 10% transit ridership now to 50%, whereas the 100,000 boardings on Broadway will be eclipsed on day 1.

On top of that, if you are valuing Surrey travelers more because they leave Surrey and paying higher fares then you also have to take into consideration where they are going. If Skytrain doesn't deliver them to their destinations, they are unlikely to get on in the first place. By first adding Broadway, you increase the number of jobs served by rapid transit in Vancouver by 20 to 30%, thus increasing potential ridership along the entire line by almost as much.

Look at the travel times from places like Newton. Leaving the Newton exchange, I can get to VGH in 1:10 (not counting the walking). The bus ride on either end of Skytrain ride are almost the same length (17 vs 12). But here are the differences: The 99 is more likely to get stuck in bad traffic, The 99 is more likely to pass you up, The 99 is busier. You can still add far more buses on routes in Surrey; Broadway is traffic saturated and buses cannot be fit into the Schedule anymore. Sending Skytrain down Broadway will have a larger impact on the whole transit network than a token extension of Skytrain in Surrey.

I'm not saying Surrey shouldn't get transit. Surrey needs it to build a sustainable future. But Vancouver needs rapid transit on Broadway about 15 years ago. When completed with the Evergreen line, you can think of this as Vancouver's version of the Bloor-Danforth in Toronto. It cuts across the city, passing through an undeserved part of the Metro Core, crossing 2 other Downtown bound lines providing convenient transfers. I couldn't imagine people getting around Toronto without it, much like I can't imagine how we have gone so long without it in Vancouver.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by NucksFanInVan

Why are we even talking about Surrey

The thread is about Surrey.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Like my previous post, what do you expect when you have an area like Clayton that is so far from everything? I also want to add that as dense as Clayton is, I'd say it's more dense sprawl than transit friendly neighbourhood. Take a look here and look at the aereal pic of Las Vegas: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/09/the-perils-of-average-density.html . Density doesn't always equal transit-friendliness, especially if that density is far from everything.

I'd agree that it is dense sprawl, in essence. However, you obviously have neither been to Clayton nor looked at it on a map. Had you, you'd realize there is an urban, compact street grid in place, something suburbs didn't do twenty years ago.

Again, to give context of its density, there are roughly 7000pp/km2 in Clayton, higher than the average density of the City of Vancouver, which is at 5,000pp/km2.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by golog

Of course you want to invest where the demand is highest, and the rate of return is greatest -- for any given system you choose to build, it would allow you to complete it faster.

Vancouver is not Hong Kong - transit is subsidized and will never make a profit. By the way, I am absolutely in support of underground SkyTrain along Broadway (all the way to UBC is questionable however). So long as we remain a region that works together, we're going to have to make a trade off between serving demand and shaping growth. If the funds are tight, which they are, then our debate shouldn't be who gets the scraps from the table first, it should be figuring out how to bring more food to the table. If we solve funding, everybody wins.

If funding remains in a stalemate, the pressure will be on to change the operating model once again. Surrey is prepared to pay its own way and build a LRT/BRT/whatever-rapid-transit network - it just doesn't want to highjack rates and fees only to see the money go towards yet another subway system for Vancouver.

If you are at all concerned about the future livability and economy of this region, you'd realize that ensuring the suburbs are transformed into walkable, urban, productive communities should be a priority for everyone, including the high and mighty yuppies of Vancouver.