Re: “Let’s not get soaked by poorly planned transit,” Letters, The Leader, May 14.
I think that many advocates like the Light Rail Links coalition are misleading people into supporting them, because they are hiding the downsides to at-grade, on-street light rail transit.
Some of those downsides are:
• Light rail is slower transit; it is limited to at-grade speed limits of 50-60 km/h.
• Light rail can be closed off completely by accidents. Disruptions at high-accident intersections in Surrey like King George Boulevard and 88 Avenue will mean that an LRT line will close down several times a week.
• Less speed and reliability means less ridership. Less ridership means less fare revenue.
• Even with both a light rail system across Surrey and transportation demand management to raise the cost of driving, 65 per cent of commutes will still be by car.
• No Surrey light rail options will meet 2041 transportation modal shift goals from the car set by TransLink.
In my view, light rail is simply not an investment that will be worth the cost. Surrey residents should consider supporting SkyTrain expansion instead. SkyTrain has some downsides like its visual profile, but I support SkyTrain because:
• SkyTrain actually generates more monetary transportation benefits than cost, unlike light rail.
• SkyTrain has worked in Vancouver to increase transit mode-share and reduce motor vehicle use.
• SkyTrain’s lower operating costs per hour can mean more frequent off-peak and weekend transit service compared to light rail.
• SkyTrain’s grade-separated right-of-way means consistent 96 per cent on-time reliability.
• SkyTrain is the best catalyst for transit-oriented urban growth and slum revitalization when compared to other cities around the world.
Daryl Dela Cruz
Campaign Director
Better Surrey Rapid Transit
