Poll: 73% of British Columbians prefer better transit to Gateway
Poll shows almost three quarters of British Columbians prefer better transit to bridge twinning
Livable Region Coalition Urges Premier to Abandon Bridge Twinning Plan
May 3, 2007
A poll commissioned by the Livable Region Coalition (LRC) shows that 73 per cent of British Columbians would rather spend money on better public transit to fight climate change, than on the province’s controversial Gateway Program.
British Columbians know that better transit, not freeways, helps stop climate change,” said David Fields, campaigner with the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation. “I agree with the Premier that we must work together, but so far he is moving in the wrong direction with Gateway and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.”
The LRC has put forward a proposal to address climate change and traffic congestion South of Fraser with maximized SkyTrain capacity and bus rapid transit that would open the way for future light rail. The proposal would cost between $300 and $500 million and could be completed in two to three years.
“These results confirm what we have heard across Canada, that the public wants investment in public transit as the foremost means to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in our cities, “ said Ian Bruce of the David Suzuki Foundation.
Public feedback from David Suzuki’s recent cross-Canada tour found that building an affordable, sustainable public transit system would be the number one priority for Canadians to fight climate change if they were Prime Minister.
“We have heard from TransLink that in order to meet the Premier’s goal of reducing emissions by 33 per cent by 2020 we must more than double transit ridership. To do this, we must make large investments in transit now,” said Deming Smith, policy manager with Better Environmentally Sound Transportation (BEST). “Bridge twinning and freeway expansion will make conditions worse by inducing more traffic and starving funds from critically needed transit upgrades.”
The poll was conducted by Strategic Communications and fielded from March 15 to 27 with a sample size of 600 people. The margin of error is +/- 4% 19 times out of 20.
I was discussing something similiar to this with my wife tonight and I’m curious: What is the average loss accrued per bus on routes south of the Fraser? It seems to me that in order for suburbanites to get “better transit” those of us who’ve made the choice to live in the denser downtown areas will in effect be subsidizing (in all likelihood through higher fares) the woeful planning decisions they’ve made in Surrey, etc.
As far as I’m concerned, the residents of Surrey and Delta, etc have made the beds they now lie in. They apparently lack the sense to implore denser development from their planners and then wail and complain about lousy service.
I have no sympathy for a population that seemingly enjoys having to drive several miles to a mall, or to school or to work but fails to connect the dots as to why their transit service sucks.
Hint: it’s because the backwards brained citizens and their elected representatives of Surrey, Delta, Langley et al *just don’t have a clue* about what responsible city planning implies.
In an moderately related vein:
Perhaps the greatest example of rampant stupidity I have ever witnessed on the part of “planners” would be a specific feature of the Tilbury Industrial Park. I had taken the bus to my new workplace and, trudging alongside the road on a grassy lawn (because there’s no sidewalks) noticed a huge skating rink/bar. It’s important to note that there is absolutely no large residential area anywhere near Tilbury Industrial Park (it’s a classic “pod”) – which is why there are no sidewalks – meaning that some blockhead thought that putting a drinking establishment in this area ONLY ACCESSIBLE BY DRIVING was a “good idea”.
Doh!
The next time someone from Delta bitches and whines about drunk driving, their first phone call should be to the “planning” moron that thought this was a suitable place for SUV owners and truck fans to get loaded.
How I pray daily for gas prices to explode through the roof – if only to hear them screaming like babies in Delta.
Cranky McCrank
May 6, 2007 at 3:30 am
I would like to be able to answer your question “What is the average loss accrued per bus on routes south of the Fraser?” but honestly I have no idea. That is because when I worked for Translink this kind of information could not be found. The fare system gives access to an entire network, so you cannot simply count the number of passengers and then multiply it by the average fare. On the whole the system used to cover about 50% of its operating costs from fares.
The amount people pay varies depending on the distance they travel to the extent that they cross zone boundaries. In theory someone could work in Tsawassen and live in Langley and only pay for one zone. Though their commute time would be horrendous.
Many people chose to live in the suburbs because house prices are cheaper there. CHMC rules control how much they can spend on buying a home. No one controls how much they spend on transportation. If CHMC allowed for “location efficient mortgages” as in some US cities, there would not be such a compelling financial reason for buying way out. A simple way for the feds to live up to their green rhetoric.
But in the meantime we have to do what we can to urbanize the ‘burbs. Surrey is becoming the biggest – and is the fastest growing – city in the region. Building freeways is the most certain way I know of to ensure that the present problems get worse.
See Frances Bula in yesterday’s Sun for an interesting comparison between the direction we are taking and that for Seattle and Portland.
Stephen Rees
May 6, 2007 at 10:08 am
I understand the facts outlined in your 3rd paragraph. As I’ve considered, many families are simply priced out of the market for homes inside Greater Vancouver proper, but as is readily evident, many don’t mind spending the equivalent difference on their vehicles over time.
Consider that many families in these regions own at least two cars, at least one of which is new and tends to get pathetic gas mileage. They drive alone to work in many instances. Now factor in the cost of insurance, fill ups, basic repairs etc for both vehicles. I’d suggest that the “hidden costs” (ie: the ones they don’t think about before they actually buy the damned vehicle) of vehicle ownership would make up a significant difference of the price differential between home ownership closer to their workplace.
I can’t prove that of course, but my experience is that people being as they are, they will tend to take the short term “cheap” over the long term “expensive” . So a $30,000 car to take them to work and the mall couldn’t (at least in their minds) compare to the difference between a 400,000 dollar home and a 700,000 dollar one – when it most certainly does.
You’re certainly right when mentioning that government can and should be doing much much more. Location Efficiency would be a fine first step. The galling and truely aggravating thing to me is to hear certain political parties command that the ruling ones “look into” lowering gas prices. This is so obviously “playing to the crowd” it makes me ill.
To play to crowd that commands government intervention in the marketplace is laughable – how come Surry “newspaper” editorials aren’t asking the government to build more houses for the homeless with the same zeal I wonder?
Oh right – homeless people are idiots who didn’t bother to think ahead.
hmmm….
Finally, thanks for posting that link but for some reason I can’t access it through this page. I’ll go directly through the Suns site.
Hey – you’re bookmarked now!
Cranky McCrank
May 6, 2007 at 3:09 pm