Quote:
Originally Posted by logicbomb
@ nickinacan
They will eventually build up their CBD, but a LRT down these corridor will bleed money every year until they establish a CBD and entertainment district. We’re talking 30-40 years down the line here (The City even forecasts for most growth to occur by 2050). What may hinder most development over the next 2 decades is the fact that Surrey still has a lot of available land for residential and commercial development in the outer periphery which brings me to Issue #2.
Most growth has occurred in large part due to sprawl out in Cloverdale, South Surrey, Clayton Heights, Grandview Heights, and East Newton. Surrey is still sprawling and will continue sprawl despite the rhetoric they are preaching.
|
I don't disagree but I have yet to find a city anywhere that doesn't have to deal with sprawl. Sprawl happens because people want it. People aren't moving out to Abbotsford for example and commuting 1 1/2 hours each way every day because they hate living in the city. They are doing it because density drives up prices and ultimately we are a culture of living in homes.
We're not Hong Kong or Tokyo where people are born on the 40th floor of a highrise amongst 50 highrises in a few blocks. People born and raised in New York City have a different perspective too. As do people in London. Your average residence in London proper is tiny compared to what we get here or what is available.
So you either stop constructing all together and wait about 8 generations for people to change their attitudes, or you keep sprawling. If I were a city I would side with sprawling because it means being elected and getting more $$$.
Don't get me wrong I don't advocate sprawl even in Surrey, which has toned it down though in recent years with some smarter developments, but we're just living in an illusion if we think not building transit will discourage sprawl.
Case and point, the region is a good 10-15 years behind other cities infrastructure wise and sprawl is still happening. They just expanded the Port Mann Bridge which was chalk blocked for more than 5 years nearly 7 days a week and did the fact you could barely get over the bridge in less than a million hours stop people from moving to Langley or Abbotsford?
Nope.
So at some stage the region is just going to swallow its high horse and accept the fact that sprawl will happen no matter what. We shouldn't just completely cave in, but we can't put up a giant wall and say "STOP SPRAWL AND THEN WE GIVE YOU CANDY" all the time.
Quote:
|
This municipality was vocally supportive of the PMB expansion, currently supporting the GMT replacement, and continue to bitch for a six-lane Patullo replacement. Now they want to complain about the lack of a lack of public transportation funding when they basically encouraged the development of auto centric communities out in the periphery?
|
The reason they were is because they were/are needed not because of sprawl. The truth is like I said above, they 1) are/were needed and 2) not building them won't stop sprawl. It hasn't and won't. That's what people just don't get.
You have 2 crappy bridges over to the North Shore that are a gong show almost every single day and a Sea Bus that can be a pain in the butt yet people keep moving to the North Shore don't they?
Happens everywhere. People are driven by house prices it's that simple. Surrey has maintained low prices because it has so much land and inventory turning through that prices remain reasonable. Almost everyone I know would gladly drive 30 minutes more each direction to work every day to save $150-300,000 on a house which they can do.
That drives sprawl. Not transit or lack of transit or bridges. Transit and bridges simply make our lives easier and encourage, outside of the sprawl, more smart development which slows sprawl. Ultimately though it won't get rid of it.
Take Surrey for example. Eventually it _will_ run out of space like Vancouver and many other cities NoF have. It will then have to start densifying even quicker than it is now (aka more low rises and high rises outside the core). By then there will be a lot more jobs here, we may very well have that central business district, and the Langleys, Maple Ridge, Abbotsfords will become more a suburb of Surrey itself. What then happens? Now that less people are traveling "all the way" to Vancouver and only to Surrey, sprawl will then start spreading through Abbotsford out to Chilliwack. And let's face it we have enough land between here and Hope even with the ALR to accommodate probably 20 million people so the sprawl cycle won't end in our life times or our children's lifetimes.
So I for one kind of disregard sprawl because I don't think it is really related to anything transit related directly. Can transit help mold it, reduce it, or push it around? Sure it can. But it doesn't kill, stop, or get rid of it. You had sprawl when Vancouver was an infant in the early 1900s. People built way out near Boundary Road area with masses of space between then and 'downtown.' That was sprawl back then because the land was cheaper. There is no sprawl in Vancouver because they are out of space, not because it has awesome transit.
Quote:
|
As it stands right now, it is far to say that most commuters head NoF. Keep the 96 B-Line as it is (since we have it). Extend the Skytrain out to Fleetwood (168th ST) as there is some semblance of density down that corridor.
|
I have to agree. If Translink was left to implement everything I think that is exactly what you'd see. B-line stay in place and Expo extension. The only way that will change is if Surrey magically gets money and decides to build the LRT in place of the B-Line on their own which positives or negatives, I wouldn't actually care either way. I do think the rest is a bit overkill at this stage.
Quote:
|
Difference was the 99B was already going through a dense corridor, and it was a sure bet it would attract riders destined to UBC.
|
True, but if that was a dense corridor already and it has taken 10+ years to get to the stage where they are now absolutely in need of RRT, then there is no hope for basically everywhere else in the region. And let's face it, with those requirements, Evergreen shouldn't be built right now. I mean Surrey Central alone (Just Whalley) has nearly the same population of all of Coquitlam and is more dense...
Quote:
|
I may be stating the obvious here, but I have heard rumors that Translink only implemented the 96 B Line to appease the concerns Surrey councilors and stakeholders had over the long-term outlook of any rapid transit development in the region. The fact that Translink decided to finally implement the route some months after it was revealed that Surrey was seriously considering this LRT network (IIRC, even suggesting a construction date) does raise suspicion. It was pretty much a last minute project that excluded the South Surrey segment (then 399 back in 2010), and allowed for Translink to scale back service on the 320 and 321. This was by far the most economical route to implement, ignoring the Fraser Highway corridor which was and still is in dire need of rapid transit. This is where I blame Translink for poor planning.
|
You're probably spot on with that. I said it when Surrey first announced their LRT concept that it was a lot more sabre rattling in order to force Translink to act. I do know Translink had been talking about a 96-B for quite a while even during that period of time, but I do think the LRT stuff forced their hand. If their track record is any indication, Translink when they have to figure out how to pay for something, can drag "talking and studying" out for a few decades.
That said I would tend to agree with you on the poor planning. I think both stretches have different needs and different populations patterns driving them. I also do think BRT is fine for Newton -> Guildford right now and the numbers are increasing. Haven't seen official numbers but just with my eyes the ridership is going up even with the 96-B's faults aka low stop count. Just today I was leaving from getting a hair cut in Newton around 6pm and a B-Line drove by me into Newton Exchange and was at least 75% full. Is it super full all the time? No.
99-B has more ridership because there is more along the line. I don't dispute the fact that most of Surrey is still commuter focused and we are still a suburb of Vancouver. So demand is typically when rush hour is and could be that way for a number of more years in the future.
I still think Fraser Highway is the main corridor and regionally it just should go UBC line from VCC Clark then at the same time or right after, KGB to Langley Expo Line Extension. Everything else will start to fall into place after that.
If they built the KGB to Langley Expo extension I absolutely guarantee you'd see the high rise development permits double or triple in Surrey Central within a year of them announcing the start of major planning like you saw in Brentwood or even Coquitlam Center. If we want density and smarter growth, it just has to happen.
BRT is fine for the other stretch though right now imo.
Quote:
|
Fair point about the lack of large major campuses in Vancouver, but this just exemplifies how vital a linkage is between Surrey and areas North of the Fraser. Most university students will still need to commute to BCIT, UBC and SFU.
|
Absolutely agree with you there. And on the flip side, the other direction too. SFU announced earlier this year that in 5 to 8 years, SFU Surrey will have as many students at its campus as the main SFU Burnaby campus. And as much as I snided you for the minor University remark, SFU as a whole has 35,000 students right now so that would mean a good 15,000 or so attending SFU Surrey. Not everyone will live here either and I'm sure you'll have (and currently do have) students traveling the other direction from New West/Burnaby/Vancouver to Surrey today.
That just increases as Surrey Memorial builds out and becomes a second major university hospital.
Quote:
|
Regarding the transit culture, or lack of…there is a negative connotation attached to public transportation, and this is especially problematic when you have a booming population of youth like we do in Surrey. Surrey has scoffed at the idea of educating youth about the benefits of public transportation network at its sustainability/environmental festivals, but it may need to make a more proactive and unique approach at getting High School students on board before they become to reliant on their vehicles. Vancouver in conjunction with Translink did a darn good job educating and interacting with residents and youth in preparation of the implementation of the 98 B-Line back in late 2000.
|
I don't entirely disagree. But I also think plenty of younger Surrey citizens do actually ride transit. Most of the people I went to high school with more than a decade ago, actually rode buses everywhere because of student fares and because it was simply easier. Not to mention you can't actually drive until you're 16, and when you turn 16, not many can afford to actually buy a car or afford the gas.
What I think is the actual problem with transit not just in Surrey but regionally is when you "graduate" from the school life and suddenly have to pay 300% more than you did before. While people can throw out a million infographics trying to display the notion that even though they pay more in transit, they ultimately pay less because of the cost of owning a car etc. etc., but it all comes down to perception rather than reality.
Unfortunately human beings in general decide based on perception not reality. I used to pay $1.75 to go anywhere I want whenever I want, but now I have to pay upwards of $3.75 now? That's when they see the $2 increase and go "What? Why do I have to pay more now to get nothing additional???"
That's part why I've always advocated getting rid of the damned U-Passes and Concession rates. I have no issue with people over 65 paying reduced price. They earned their keep and worked their whole lives not to mention are a heck of a lot closer to dying than I am, so ok fine. But students and teenagers? No!
Welcome to the real world. But I guess I'm an insensitive ass that way. *shrug*
That said there have been studies that show it can encourage things more. I just think in Surrey it is a bit different because part the education, part the simple design of the city and size of it, and also part because if you need to go anywhere else in Metro Vancouver, Translink put this giant ZONE line that means you always pay $1 or more, more than everyone else to go to the same places.
I live in Surrey Central and want to go to New Westminster to watch a movie. I pay 2 zones. I live in Metrotown and want to go to New Westminster to watch a movie. I pay 1 zone. That's part Translink's fault for their stupid zone system instead of going distance based, and part Surrey's fault for taking so long to build stuff to the point not everyone wants to go to Metrotown or Robson Street to do anything.
Quote:
|
What’s concerning is that the whole LRT campaign in Surrey has failed to tackle the misconceptions surrounding security and public transit. When you have members of the Surrey board and trade exaggerating about “recurring crime around stations and on buses” then you know you have a problem….
|
Security is an important topic but I think we live in a society that is scared of too much. You ask any Police Chief what the streets are like and they'll all tell you "they are dangerous and there is lots of crime we need to fight!" You ask any random person the same question and they'll say "It is far more dangerous than it was when I was younger."
Both say that even though statistically we live in the safest period of time on record! Safety has increase and crime has decreased across the board everywhere not just in Metro Vancouver. What has increased is the 24/7 news stations everywhere constantly droning on about every little thing or the Internet where you now know instantly what happens in every other city across the planet.
I'd be far more worried about LRT trains running into cars or running pedestrians over than being mugged on one or even at the SkyTrain. Do I go walk over to KGB and walk with my wife when it is late and dark and she is coming home from being downtown with her friends? Sure that's just not being a stupid person. But I don't feel any less safe around our transit stations or buses than any other time.
I would feel less safe walking down Hastings at Main at midnight than leaving Surrey Central station at midnight to be honest and most of that is simply due to my own ignorance and perceptions about the downtown East Side probably rather than reality.
Quote:
|
When you have a council that openly supports mega road infrastructure projects, and is "developer friendly" and has not done enough to curb urban sprawl, then yeah…they (not the residents) somewhat deserve to be in the predicament they are in.
|
Again don't completely disagree but I still think it is a bit unrelated. Yes both are transportation related, but you have to put yourself in the minds of a Surrey city councilor, or for that matter any city Councilor. They are charged by their citizens by having the best interest for their city and citizens in mind both for making the city livable and enjoyable and for keeping taxes down.
How do you keep taxes down? Through generating revenue. So they look at it with the caveat that "not building a bridge or major roads WON'T stop sprawl" and then they have a choice. Say no to more development even if it is sprawly or not entirely ideal then have those developers simply move to Langley, or say yes and get some more money/tax flow into the city to keep the city growing and moving forward.
Given the above, as a Surrey citizen I can certainly understand why they make the decisions they do.
I will also disagree with your side "(not the citizens)" when it comes to blame. I do actually think not just Surrey council (current and past) but the citizens too have to take some blame. We vote in council afterall!
I just think you're a bit off when you think they can really affect sprawl. Like I said at the start, if a 2 lane bridge that is bumper to bumper 7 days a week, taking 1+ hour to go 10 minutes, for 5-10 years doesn't stop sprawl, I don't know what will.
Oh wait, higher housing prices and that won't happen in Surrey for a long while and ultimately it would just move it.
As an analogy I'll give you the example of prostitutes in Surrey Central. You may be thinking huh what? but stay with me for a second. About 10 years ago maybe 15 now, Surrey Central aka Whalley had a huge issue with prostitutes. You had a lot of crack houses and johns driving up and down dark roads picking them up which attracted drug dealers and undesirables. In a bid to "clean things up" so as to start the ball rolling for densification in Surrey Central, their was a blitz by a previous mayor of Surrey. With the RCMP they start putting up concrete barriers, stepping up Police, and arresting the Johns publically.
Ultimately it lead to a huge clean up of the area which has gotten Surrey Central to where it is today (along with bulldozing crack houses and getting rid of shady businesses where they could). And while there is still clean up to be done in some spots, it is way better than it was a decade ago trust me.
But what happened to the prostitutes? Did they just vanish into thin air along with the drug dealers and Johns? No. They went somewhere else. Many went up King George to Newton, and some as far out as Langley and Abbotsford now. So they didn't REALLY solve the problem, they just moved it somewhere else and out of the spot they really cared about.
Same goes with urban sprawl. You really can't stop it, just move it somewhere else, so I think Surrey ultimately is trying to get the best of both worlds by not moving it out of Surrey entirely so they can still get all the revenue from development coming in, but also trying to discourage that type of development in their core centers.
Quote:
|
For the record, I do think the Fraser Highway corridor should be receiving the most consideration for an RRT expansion at the moment. It’s RRT/LRT down the 104th and KGB corridors I take issue with.
|
Don't disagree. I'd be completely fine with RRT down Fraser to Langley and they simply leaving 96-B for Newton to Guildford. I think the RRT down Fraser would make the largest impact to the face of Surrey Central (and the rest of Surrey) not to mention the perception of transit around here, than simply replacing BRT with LRT which to me is arguably the same (ignoring the fact that RRT is LRT obviously and that we're really talking SkyTrain separated LRT compared to the noisy street LRT that shake the Earth when they go by).
Prev
Linear Mode
