Skip to main content

Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum at City Hall in Surrey, B.C., on April 12, 2019.

DARRYL DYCK/The Globe and Mail

Vancouver’s regional mayors voted, some grudgingly, to go ahead with a plan to build only the first, seven-kilometre phase of a SkyTrain line from Surrey to Langley, using the $1.63-billion that had previously been committed for more extensive light-rail lines.

But that leaves the future uncertain for many residents and businesses along two main routes in Surrey, the region’s fastest growing city, where there had been plans to have them served by light rail – plans that were upended when Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum was elected last fall on a promise to switch to a Surrey-Langley SkyTrain.

Mayors refused to go along with a staff recommendation to explore transit options for King George Boulevard and 104th Avenue connecting central Surrey to the town centres of Guildford and Newton, which planners said cost more than $3.55-billion that was originally committed to Surrey in the current transit-improvement plan.

Story continues below advertisement

Even Delta Mayor George Harvie, who had supported Mr. McCallum in previous votes to switch from light rail, said he had concerns that starting to plan for additional, expensive transit options in Surrey besides the already costly SkyTrain line would hurt the region over all.

“I have to have assurances that it’s not going to starve out other municipalities that need transit,” Mr. Harvie said.

In the end, he and a majority of mayors agreed to go ahead with asking the federal and provincial governments to put the $1.65-billion they had committed for light rail toward the Surrey SkyTrain, which will cover less than half the route planned to Langley.

The money needed to complete the rest of the line, another $1.79-billion, will have to come when TransLink starts to figure out how to pay for all the projects in the third phase of the mayors’ 10-year plan, they said.

Ultimately, that means there will be only about $400-million left over for TransLink planners to use for any other transit improvements in Surrey aimed at connecting town centres or providing better service to White Rock in the south.

In their report to the mayors, planners had said that money was barely enough to cover rapid buses along the two roads. They had wanted the mayors’ approval to explore the concept and cost of putting light rail or another SkyTrain extension along King George going south from central Surrey.

That kind of impact had prompted the CEO of Surrey’s Board of Trade, Anita Huberman, to make a plea to the mayors before their vote to keep to the original light-rail plan.

Story continues below advertisement

“Seventy-two per cent of Surrey’s population and businesses are along those roads,” Ms. Huberman said. “The decision [to switch to SkyTrain] was made without a business plan.”

A few mayors were opposed to the switch.

District of North Vancouver Mayor Mike Little said a SkyTrain line to Langley would do nothing for Surrey or Langley because all it would do is funnel workers to downtown Vancouver, instead of helping local residents get around their own region.

“It’s 47 kilometres from downtown Vancouver to Langley so it’s encouraging suburban sprawl. It doesn’t seem to be supporting our regional growth strategy,” he said.

However, other mayors said they would support the project because that’s what Surrey residents voted for.

Some worried, however, that the second phase of the line to Langley might never get built, as future mayors’ councils or senior governments lose interest in it.

Story continues below advertisement

The mayor of Langley said she did not think that would happen and urged other mayors not to start backtracking on transit plans.

“I think 100 per cent we’re going to have it out to Langley city,” said Val van den Broek. “I’d hate to see this board become the next Toronto and throw out all this hard work.”

We have a weekly Western Canada newsletter written by our B.C. and Alberta bureau chiefs, providing a comprehensive package of the news you need to know about the region and its place in the issues facing Canada. Sign up today.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies