Why is the tram project still on the agenda?

The Steveston tram route public consultation process, being concluded on Oct. 22, failed to ask the taxpayers of Richmond and particularly, the residents of Steveston the question “Do you support a tram line running through Steveston from the Gulf of Georgia Cannery to the London Princess area east of No. 2 Road?”

Of the only routing options offered, each has significant and undesirable consequences. The plan involves a 35-ton, 50-foot-long, nine-foot-wide, Interurban Tram No. 1220:

• It will be operated on rails in the roadway on most parts of the route, powered from overhead lines supported by poles 25 feet high, every 100 feet along the way, creating a ground level hazard and having a very intrusive and negative visual impact.
• There will be noise from the rails, brakes and loud whistle, destroying the peace and tranquility of the area.
• The tram will share roadways occupied by other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, rollerbladers, joggers, families and baby carriages/strollers and the handicapped with walkers or scooters, creating a high risk of serious accidents.
• Curb parking will be eliminated along most parts of Bayview Street.
• The start-up costs will be more than $7.2 million, while the ongoing annual costs are unknown at this time.

In light of the above and when improvements in community services and facilities in Steveston are essential for the growing population, it makes one wonder why our mayor and councillors still have the tram project on their agenda. There are other more acceptable and less costly alternatives available, if really needed at this time.

Where is the pressure coming from, to what end and for whose gain?

There is still time to let council know how you feel about the wisdom and justification of the tram project.

We do not need a RAVaged skyline

Re: “Not in our front yard,” The Richmond Review, page 1, Oct. 9-10.

I write to thank councillors Bill McNulty and Harold Steves for their stand for RAV to be at ground level in Richmond.

We need RAV. We do not need or want a RAVaged Richmond skyline.

Shop owners and home owners have every reason to protest the negative visual and economic impacts an elevated RAV would have.

Any doubters, please take an hour to visit Lougheed Highway in Burnaby, and imagine the same on No. 3 Road. Richmond is different to Vancouver. Richmond is flat because it is built on soil in a river estuary. Should a serious earthquake hit Richmond (as is predicted), the resulting soil liquefaction will cause building structures to sink. There would be enormous damage to any elevated system.

Then, what about safety? An at-grade system is far more visible for public safety and therefore easier to police. It will deter the criminal element that has become associated with some SkyTrain stations.

Richmond had rapid transit to Vancouver for many years in the form of the tram. A modern at-grade rapid transit system would fit far better with that part of our community heritage.

Making the at-grade

The letter “Council needs to look at bigger picture” (Oct. 14), which chastises several councillors for wanting RAV at-grade on No. 3 Road, reeks of the hype of the SkyTrain lobby.

Let’s focus on the so-called poll, whether RAV should be at grade or elevated, as RAVCo’s paid-for polling asked questions whose answers would favour an elevated SkyTrain solution.

Was there ever a polling question like this:

Both at-grade, elevated, and subway transit systems can offer comparable transit service, providing each had the same number of stations; which would you prefer:

a) At-grade light rail, costing $20 million to $25 million a kilometre to build.

b) Elevated, SkyTrain or LRT, costing $80 million a kilometre, or more, to build.

c) Subway, SkyTrain or LRT, costing $150 million per kilometre or more to build.

When the one sees the stark reality of the costs, taxpayer’s opt for at-grade light rail! This is why RAVCo and the SkyTrain lobby have never ask the real questions of the taxpayer.

Bureaucracy vs. cats

Re: “Society in catfight over SPCA,” Richmond Review, Oct. 16-17.

B.C. SPCA spokesperson Lorie Chortyk made incorrect statements to your reporter. SPCA management has made no attempt whatsoever to build a relationship with our organization—not even a phone call.

In fact, I tried to speak with Michelle Rodgers when she was hired as Richmond shelter manager, but she did not return my call.

We verified last month that our society was on the “master list” of groups that the B.C. SPCA was willing to work with. The Richmond SPCA knew that they could transfer cats to us by simply dropping them off at our vet, and that they didn’t even need to call to ask if we would accept them—and that is what they did for awhile. Yet, in spite of that simple arrangement, they chose to kill many animals rather than transfer them to our sanctuary for lifetime care.

Ms. Chortyk now claims that they have created an application form that registered animal welfare groups must submit for approval. The B.C. SPCA bureaucracy continues to make it more and more difficult for caring groups and individuals to save the lives of animals.

After 20 years of this, the public should cry out “enough!”

Veteran lobby

I will attend the Richmond city council meeting on Oct. 25 to urge the city to allow veterans with British Columbia veteran’s licence plates to park free of charge on city streets during the month of November.

I would be pleased if veterans could attend the meeting and telephone me at 604-278-2252.

Food court finds

I have worked for Safeway for 18 years and currently work in Lansdowne Safeway. With the announcement of our closure, I can’t go without letting the community in on one of our best kept Richmond secrets—the Lansdowne Food Court.

I will miss going to meet the owners on a regular basis.

Where else in Richmond can you get a full dinner for $5 proudly made fresh by the owner that day. They make food that isn’t mass manufactured in a warehouse then deep fried for you. Taco Luis’ burrito special even gets you a drink and change back. He makes his own salsa from scratch every day.

Or the friendly folks at Smart Choice Sandwiches—they make the best egg salad veggie sandwich going, and Curry Express two veggie items and drink for only $4.99 plus they give you a naan with it—wow!

Or Port Seafood—she is making fresh fruit salad that is fresh and made that day. And the Maza Bar, give his parsley salad a try. I paid big bucks in a Greek restaurant for it and he threw it in for free with my meal. The best deals are found in the most unlikely places, and to boot there is plenty of easily accessible parking.

So before I go, stop by any of the above places and mention Brent from Safeway sent you. I’m sure they will have a good laugh and they will probably pile on a extra helping for free for you. That’s great service!

Thanks to the everyone at Lansdowne Mall.

A River Road idea

It is with great interest and concern that I read the comments in the paper regarding the diversion of River Road.

I appreciate that many of us use River Road as an unobstructed and quick east-west route across the city to access main arteries and bridges. Any diversion will have an impact on our arterial routes from the south western part of the city.

The west side of Richmond, bounded by No. 2 Road, has in excess of 60,000 residents or one-third of our current population. Many who live in that area feel that they will be negatively impacted by a diversion of River Road.

The proposed plan for the diversion on River Road is only a plan which has many details yet to be developed. I believe that we must examine alternate creative solutions to rerouting or diverting traffic.

With creative engineering, I suggest that we consider maintaining River Road as it is, with a parkway beside the Olympic oval or with an at-grade underpass.

This could be accomplished as the current plan is to have parking under the building. The plaza outside the oval can be elevated, achieving the same esthetic effect and allowing traffic to flow under it.

With community consultation, I am confident that we can resolve the issues in a manner acceptable to everyone.