Crime and the Evergreen Line: No new Transit Police

Evergreen Line construction. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

Today's Vancouver Sun and Tri-City News each have stories about an interesting report, prepared for the Transit police, about the possible impact of new Evergreen Line SkyTrain stations on crime rates around the station. In short, the study predicts no increase in crime rates.
That's fine as far as it goes, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the report. However, neither the stories nor the report itself tell the whole story.
First point: Even though the Evergreen Line will add six new stations to Metro's rapid-transit system, and even though an additional 70,000 riders will use the system once the line opens in the summer of 2016, the Transit Police force will not add a single new officer to its force in response to the opening of the new line.
Chief Officer Neil Dubord confirmed this fact with me in a telephone conversation I had with him earlier today. Instead, the force will realign its services to establish what Dubord calls "hubs of safety," at "high-visibility points" at which Transit Police, Transit security personnel, and SkyTrain attendants can cluster, and from which they can quickly respond to reports of problems.
For the Evergreen Line, the "hub of safety" will be at the Lougheed Station. "It's almost like a hub and spoke [system]," Dubord told me.
Fair enough, and I'm sure these hubs will be staffed with high-quality professionals. But I hope this doesn't mean that Coquitlam RCMP will be forced to respond to incidents that have heretofore been handled on existing lines by Transit Police. If Coquitlam Mounties are, indeed, called into action in such circumstances, it will undoubtedly increase the City of Coquitlam's costs and will thereby represent a downloading of costs onto municipal taxpayers.
Second point: Note that the report talks about crime rates, with an emphasis on rates. Given that populations are already increasing rapidly around planned Evergreen Line stations, and that the populations will continue to increase once those stations are open for business, we will undoubtedly see an increase in the real number of actual crimes committed in and around those stations if the rate stays the same--which it is predicted to do.
Moreover, experience with other rapid-transit systems suggest there will be a high number of quasi-criminal or near-criminal disturbances in and around Evergreen Line stations.
Bottom line: the number of real crimes will increase because of population growth around Evergreen Line stations, 70,000 new riders a day will use the Evergreen Line, but authorities are adding no new Transit Police officers to the system.

Never Evergreen for Skytrain line?

Evergreen Line construction tour. (Photo by Terry O'Neill)

What's in a name? Well, when it comes to the name of the Evergreen Line, there's a lot. A lot of importance, that is. It's a name that Coquitlam has embraced, that has inspired our residents and that even a few property developers have borrowed to describe their condominiums.
However, I learned several months ago that Translink might abandon the Evergreen name in favour of something else, but I didn't discuss it in public because the decision was not final and I didn't want to do or say something that might hurt the chances for the Evergreen name to remain.
However, now that the Tri-Cities Now has broken the story about the possible change, the coast is clear to delve into the issue.
The problem began when the Evergreen Line changed from being a spur off the Millennium Line to a continuous service with the Millennium. Under the old model, eastbound travellers from Vancouver to Coquitlam would have had to disembark at Lougheed Station and board a distinct and separate line from Lougheed into Port Moody and Coquitlam. Having a separate name--Evergreen--made ultimate good sense under that model.
But at least three years ago, the model changed to one that would see the Millennium and Evergreen lines merged into one continuous whole. Folks travelling, for example, from Broadway-Commercial to Coquitlam's Lincoln Station would enjoy one continuous, uninterrupted ride. And that's good, of course! (But not so good for commuters used to travelling with no transfers from, for example, Broadway-Commercial to Braid in New Westminster; they'll have to disembark at Lougheed and get on a new eastbound train to get to Braid.).
When, about two years ago, I confirmed the new configuration, I said in public that it would provide a great service to Coquitlam residents but that it would also create a naming problem for Translink. This is because it would be very confusing for commuters riding eastbound on the Millennium Line to, once they had passed Lougheed station, suddenly find themselves on the Evergreen Line. The new, merged and continuous line would have to have one new, merged and continuous name, I told Translink. (This discussion took place in an open council meeting called to provide council input into the name of the Coquitlam stations -- input that Translink took to heart, by the way.)
Given that both the Millennium and Evergreen names were quite firmly established, I suggested a compromise: turn "Evergreen" into an adjective to describe the "Millennium," and name the entire Vancouver-Coquitlam line the Evergreen-Millennium.
The Now story suggests that Translink thinks the name is too long. And there would undoubtedly be extra costs involved in changing all the existing Millennium Line signs to make them read "Evergreen-Millennium," but I think it's the best option we have. Otherwise, I fear that we'll be stuck with the "Millennium Line" along the full length of the Vancouver-Burnaby-Port Moody-Coquitlam service.
You can let the Translink board know what you think by clicking here. And you can contact the the provincial government's Evergreen office by clicking here.
AUGUST 25 UPDATE: The Vancouver Sun is reporting that the Evergreen Line will keep its name after all! Read the full story by clicking here.

An opportunity delayed--or lost?

Strike while the iron is hot. You've all heard this expression and appreciate its worth. In the context of Coquitlam, the hot iron can been seen as the coming of the Evergreen Line, a rapid-transit link that is in the process of transforming our city.
For the most part, City Council has been moving quickly to take advantage of the Evergreen--striking while the iron is hot. Council and staff are doing this by moving ahead with development in the areas around the Evergreen line stations. This has many beneficial effects, not the least of which is to supply of more market housing, which helps moderate price pressure.
Things are moving especially fast in the Burquitlam area, which is seeing an explosion of medium-density construction, and in the core City Centre area, which is seeing major high-density (high-rises!) construction.
So, you'd think that a developer that was planning a medium-density mixed commercial-residential development in the shoulder area of a rapid-transit station, and also within the City's transit-development-friendly "Transit-oriented Development Strategy" (TDS) growth area (see the adjacent map), would be welcomed with open arms by Coquitlam.
But that was not the case on Monday night. The staff report on the proposal by Epix Developments strongly recommended that Council not approve the project because the "City Centre Area Plan Update" has not been completed, and because moving the proposal forward would strain the planning department's resources.
In the end, the majority of Council agreed and voted 4-3 to reject the plan. And that's a shame.
I voted on the losing side to move it forward because I believe the public has the right to have their say on this proposed development, which appears to be a fine fit for the area: it's close to Port Moody's Inlet Centre Station and will be even closer to a Falcon station, should one ever be built. It's on a piece of land that has been empty for decades. It's close to existing townhouses and commercial areas. And it's in the City Centre TDS Area (it is on the left side of the red City Centre TDS in the above map).
The developers have been told they now have to wait a few years--a delay that is sure to cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in carrying costs.
In a way, Epix is a victim of Coquitlam's success in attracting Evergreen-related development. I have no doubt that the planning department is up to its eyeballs in work. But it's still a pity that we couldn't find the time and resources to allow this project to move ahead.
Here's a link to the Tri-City News' story on the issue.

Council's balancing act explained

The more experienced I become in civic politics, the more I come to understand that the job calls for balancing the minuscule and the gigantic, the intimate and the public, and the practical and the visionary. Nowhere is this more apparent than when council must deliberate on a rezoning application, as we often do—particularly when it involves densification in an existing and well-established old neighbourhood.
Exactly such an issue was on our agenda on Monday night, March 26, as council took part in a public hearing on an application from Springbanks Development (Dogwood) Corp. of Surrey to rezone two lots at 730 and 734 Dogwood Street to allow for the construction of a 22-unit stacked townhouse building.
The lots are half a kilometre from the planned Burquitlam station on the Evergreen Line, a project that is already driving up land prices all along its projected route. The City has long anticipated that increased demand for housing near the line, especially affordable housing of the kind facilitated by multi-family developments, would lead to the redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods and the overall densification of the area.
Although the neighbourhood in question is primarily composed of single-family dwellings, its present designation in the Official Community Plan is “Medium Density Apartment” and its present zoning is RT-2 Townhouse Residential. Springbanks’ application asks for a rezoning to RM-2 Three-Storey Medium Density. Significantly, the OCP would allow for RM-3 zoning, which is even denser.
It is also significant that most of my colleagues on council and I campaigned in favour of taking action to further housing affordability, and that one of the most important and direct actions we can take in this regard is to allow for the construction of more multi-family dwellings, from duplexes and townhouses, to condominium complexes and high-rises.
And so we proceeded with the public hearing, at which several residents of the neighbourhood expressed their heartfelt concerns about the adverse effects of densification. None of them was especially specific about just what those impacts would be, but it was clear that all were worried about how the development would unsettle their neighbourhood and change its character for the worse.
The developer, on the other hand, explained that his project fit into what the City is planning for the area, and that the company had, in fact, gone to great lengths to limit the complex’s profile so that it appeared from one side, at least, to be just two-and-a-half storeys high, not three. I’ve reproduced an architect’s sketch, above.
Ultimately then, our votes would hinge on decisions we would make about the minuscule (one neighbour’s concern that the development would block the breeze) and the gigantic (the City’s vision for redevelopment of Burquitlam), the intimate (a young man’s worry that he would lose the neighbourhood in which he grew up) and the public (supporting the process which led to the development of the OCP), and the practical (local residents’ concern about increased traffic) and the visionary (our commitment to providing low-cost housing).
I realized while considering all of the above that we will be faced with scores, if not hundreds, of such applications over the next three years. We’ll consider each one on its merits, weighing the pros and cons, listening intently, asking questions when necessary, and then attempting to make the best decisions possible.
In the case of the application for the Dogwood Street rezoning, council convened following the public hearing and voted unanimously in favour of giving Second and Third Readings to City of Coquitlam Zoning Amendment bylaw No. 4293, 2012, thus bringing the development two steps closer to reality.