Surrey should prioritize developing Light Rail Transit (LRT) and enhanced Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) connections and other bus services to link parts of the City in a much more effective way and also to connect Surrey to neighbouring municipalities. Based on lifecycle costs, trip lengths and GHG reductions, light rail represents the most appropriate investment opportunity for communities to support overall vehicle trip reductions.
That’s the results of a study that the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association commissioned called, “Leveling the Playing Field: Improving Public Transportation Infrastructure”. Authors David J Hendrickson and Sean Connelly examine the current state of transit in Surrey, build the case for improving transit, and recommend a course of action to improve mobility.
Hendrickson and Connelly found that transit service hours delivered in Surrey are about 70% of the hours delivered in the North of Fraser communities. For every $1.00 that citizens pay to TransLink in Surrey, about $0.95 is returned in service and infrastructure. They also found that the traditional excuse of Surrey being a sprawling mess and can’t support transit is just that, an excuse.
When the ALR and protected areas are removed from land density equations, Surrey’s net density of 25.4 persons per hectare is 23% higher than the regional net density of 20.5 persons per hectare.
When transit service hours were improved in Surrey last decade, there was a jump in transit mode share from 4.4% in 2004 to 6.2% in 2008. I suspect that with the increased hours that are part of the recently approved “Moved Forward” package, transit mode share will jump once again in Surrey. On that note, Hendrickson and Connelly state that TransLink needs to focus on intraregional trips in the South of Fraser as transit is already doing a great job of moving people between Surrey and Vancouver.
One of the interesting things that Hendrickson and Connelly talk about is how the cost of our road infrastructure is not properly accounted for.
Highways and roads cost BC taxpayers billions when traffic congestion, economic and health costs are included in overall project costs. These costs are often not fully evaluated when infrastructure for automobiles are developed.
Hendrickson and Connelly also build the case for light rail as a tool to shape the future of Surrey. If Surrey builds around transit and active modes of transportation like walking and cycling, the land-use pattern will create and happier and healthier community.
One study investigated incremental costs and benefits of high quality transit service in US cities. It indicated that high quality public transit typically required an additional $268 per capita annually in subsidies and $104 per capita in fares, but provided vehicle, parking and road cost savings averaging $1,040 per capita, including reductions in congestion and pollution, increased traffic safety, improved mobility for non-drivers and improved health. In this case, tax increases were cost effective when invested in high quality public transit systems. Because planning practices tend undervalue transit savings and benefits, taxpayers are prone to under-value transit.
Hendrickson and Connelly make the following recommendations for improving transportation in Surrey:
1. Increase the efficiency of existing transportation and public transit infrastructure through the provision of transit priority measures to reduce the amount of additional funding needed for new services.
Actions
-Surrey should create a network of HOV lanes, that are open only to buses and rideshare vehicles.
-Surrey should establish queue-jumper facilities for transit and HOVs at key intersections or highways to increase the value of saving time on the road.
-Surrey should consider developing ways to adjust intersection controls that give priority to buses.
-Surrey should allocate preferred parking spaces or parking fee discounts for rideshare vehicles in City of Surrey owned facilities.
-Surrey’s priorities for LRT and enhanced BRT connections and other bus services should be clearly outlined.
-Surrey should continue to upgrade bus stops with shelters and bus pullouts to enhance comfort, safety and efficiency.
-Surrey should continue to develop bike routes and secure bicycle parking near key transit stops and multi-modal access to maps, schedules and contact numbers.
2. Identify innovative funding sources for transportation improvements while support the objectives of creating a more sustainable Surrey.
Actions
-Surrey should look at policy mechanisms within its jurisdiction to set a regulatory foundation that reshapes the urban form and moves sustainable transportation forward.
-Specifically, these mechanisms include TOD, value-capture, land value taxation and special assessment districts to leverage and diversify revenue streams and better reflect the cost of development.
-Surrey and other SoF municipalities should advocate for funding confirmations from TransLink to implement outstanding actions in the TSoF TP.
-Surrey should consider supporting a Metro Vancouver transportation improvement fee on motor vehicles registered to incentivize motor vehicle fuel efficiency from $65 to $165 per vehicle that is invested in sustainable transportation.
-If additional user fees on motor vehicles are levied, Surrey should ensure TransLink includes hardship concessions for low-income drivers.
-Surrey should reform its property tax legislation by using land valuation taxation or a variation of split-rate taxation to encourage more efficient land use practices.
-Surrey should advocate for using revenue generated from the provincial carbon tax to support public transit rather than remain revenue neutral.
-Surrey should advocate for ICBC to adopt distance-based vehicle insurance options to encourage demand management travel modes.
3. Improve transit and rideshare approaches in Surrey that generate greater ridership and make costs for transit more equitable.
Actions
-Surrey’s City Centre transformation has created different land-use patterns, that are able to shift commuting and transit modes. Surrey should build on this model by identifying other village centres to expand TOD developments.
-Surrey should investigate light rail that develops TOD land-use opportunities in village centres and re-establishes the Interurban Right of Way. For example, locations of existing and planned rapid transit services suggests that there are opportunities for TOD in NW Surrey, Guildford, Newton and Semiahmoo Town Centre, as well as SkyTrain extensions and bus connections.
-Surrey should request improved expenditure data from TransLink on a per municipality basis due to a lack of data availability.
-Surrey should focus on ways to subsidize operational costs of transit. Subsidized operational costs have proven to provide greater value over the long-term and create cities where there is higher quality of life and a sense of place that also improves productivity and caliber of the work force.
-Surrey should continue to demonstrate how investments in transportation might result in improved economic impacts for the City, such as higher property values, improved business performance, and increased productivity and quality work force.
-Surrey should seek funding allocations for rapid transit infrastructure (BRT, LRT and Interurban rail) that link parts of the City in more effective ways and connects Surrey to neighbouring municipalities.
Just months after the City 