SPARROW (Independent): As we see more of our community built to be walkable and serviced by transit, we will see many being given the opportunity to leave the car at home. We are a large community over 300 square kilometres and 75% of our land is in the agricultural land reserve providing opportunities for all our residents to leave their cars at home while preserving the rural aspects of what makes Langley so special is an ambitious goal.

While I very much support and believe we have an opportunity while developing the Langley Township, to think outside the box and incorporate into the design and planning, light rail or other possible transit options and focusing on creating walk able communities, which provide at our doorstep shops and services we would otherwise have to drive to. There is no need to fill large parcels of land with developments that just add to urban sprawl, we need to be thoughtful of what we want the Langley Township we leave our children to look like.

WHITMARSH (Independent): At this moment, the Township of Langley is a car dependent city. Moving forward we can work on having local neighborhoods be more walkable for the local residents. The large municipality with 6 distinct communities makes it challenging to move around the Township without the use of a car. In the future, we could decrease car use by expanding public transit throughout the Township and utilizing ride share programs more extensively. The future expansion of Skytrain along Fraser Hwy creates an opportunity to shape the Willowbrook area into a walkable, vibrant centre. That work has already begun.

WOODWARD (Contract with Langley): We have a lot of work to do in this area, from not approving strip malls next to farmland to more walkable neighbourhoods and mixed-use urban devleopment. We will do it with a new plan for our growth.

COLEMAN (Elevate Langley): Walkscore is a US-based organization. Their assessment of the Township of Langley isn’t as accurate as it could be. The decline in score that is referred to in the question above simply doesn’t make any sense and there is no background data provided to support their conclusion. None.

The Township of Langley should be designing its own standards.  We must remember that 75% of the  land in the Township is in the Agricultural Land Reeserve. (ALR)  An American rating system can not understand the ALR.

Yes, Langley is car-dependent – it was built that way starting years ago and still in the not-too-distant past it was a rural community with a small urban population.

The more recently developed areas of town are less car-dependent than before, but there are still many improvements that can be made as we move forward. This will be top of mind for Elevate Langely,

Every neighbourhood plan and community plan should consider walkability and transit options. It’s important to include safe pedestrian infrastructure for biking and walking, and to have close proximity to schools and recreation, they also have to have a large enough community population to support local businesses.

The Township of Langley is a community of communities each having their own opportunity to improve in their own way. For example, what works in Willoughby isn’t necessarily the best solution for Brookswood.

A policy-driven response may not be the best answer. A strategy with benchmarks seems to be a more appropriate approach for a community of communities like the Township. An Elevate Langley council will improve community engagement and get residents involved in the discussion.

GARDNER (Independent): Solving this issue around navigating our community has become a Catch-22.

By increasing car-dependent design features to alleviate our congestion-related complaints, we only entrench ourselves more deeply in our car dependency and worsening urban landscape.

Car dependency isn’t merely an inconvenience, it is a massive expense and equity concern. The full cost of owning, operating, and maintaining a vehicle for personal use can be over $10,000 per year. When you consider that many households are in the position of maintaining multiple vehicles, this cost adds up quickly. If a two-vehicle household is given a feasible way to take at least one of those vehicles off the road, that extra money left in their pocket can go a long way.

It will take leadership that understands sustainable people-centred planning principles to help guide us into an era where our roads are not choked with personal vehicles going back and forth over short distances or regular commutes between population centres.

All around the world and even within our own country we have examples of superior transit planning. I will advocate for us to lean on proven best practices for transportation planning and liveable landscapes. I will advocate for the use of passenger rail and protected cycling routes, and improvements to our overall networks through smart planning. I will advocate for fare-free and fare-reduction for transit users, to help incentivize the next generation to opt to do away with the high cost of maintaining personal vehicles when not necessary.

I appreciate the opportunity to earn your vote to be a voice on council for Langley’s future.

ELEVATE LANGLEY (Group Response): Walkscore is a US-based organization. Their assessment of the Township of Langley isn’t as accurate as it could be. The decline in score that is referred to in the question above simply doesn’t make any sense and there is no background data provided to support their conclusion. None.

The Township of Langley should be designing its own standards.  We must remember that 75% of the  land in the Township is in the Agricultural Land Reeserve. (ALR)  An American rating system can not understand the ALR.

Yes, Langley is car-dependent – it was built that way starting years ago and still in the not-too-distant past it was a rural community with a small urban population.

The more recently developed areas of town are less car-dependent than before, but there are still many improvements that can be made as we move forward. This will be top of mind for Elevate Langely,

Every neighbourhood plan and community plan should consider walkability and transit options. It’s important to include safe pedestrian infrastructure for biking and walking, and to have close proximity to schools and recreation, they also have to have a large enough community population to support local businesses.

The Township of Langley is a community of communities each having their own opportunity to improve in their own way. For example, what works in Willoughby isn’t necessarily the best solution for Brookswood.

A policy-driven response may not be the best answer. A strategy with benchmarks seems to be a more appropriate approach for a community of communities like the Township. An Elevate Langley council will improve community engagement and get residents involved in the discussion.

WARD (Independent): Yes, it is clear that Langley is car dependent, no question about it. Yes I do believe it would be ideal if we were less reliant on vehicular transportation. This answer follows on the heels of questions number 7 and 8. I believe part of the reason that we are car dependent has to do with our history and how Langley has gradually developed over the years. Though Langley has grown substantially in the last 10 years alone, the rest of Langley was laid out over a hundred years ago. Furthermore Langley was primarily rural. Most rural communities have a fundamental dependence on vehicles out of necessity. As we densify we have the opportunity to incorporate new design to make communities more walkable providing that we employ that philosophy before we build. Although I do not believe a complete reversal on car dependence is entirely possible, I do think that we can encourage cycling, walking, and other forms of micromobility and design new areas with these in mind.

ARNASON (Independent): Yes. The geographical circumstances in the Township which have created urban centres of population within a larger rural area has truncated our ability to become less auto dependent given the historic paucity of ridership for mass transit. The negative consequences of auto oriented development include effects on public health, the financial burden of car ownership, social isolation, and failing to meet our climate change objectives. There is also the generalized cost to the public related to sprawl, traffic infrastructure costs, and road paving which continues to subsidize the use of vehicles. Fortunately, our current planning goals and urban design policies have somewhat reduced our reliance on vehicles and redirected our aspirations towards residing in more walkable communities. Some of the strategies that have been utilized elsewhere include: 1) abolishing minimum parking space requirements for new developments 2) Review of land-use planning that hinders compact development 3) Development of transit oriented programmes which could include policies such as waiving setback requirements and bringing buildings closer to the road for development within a specific radius relative to mass transit 4) The development of a robust walkable streets programme to enhance pedestrian safety for all users. If re-elected, I would support a review of our policies across all relevant departments in order to consider a wide variety of similar options to ensure that we are accelerating the reduction in the use of single occupancy vehicles in our community.

CHANG (Independent): I am not surprised to see these walk scores – and that they have declined. I think that areas of Langley – the denser areas – should definitely be less car dependent. The neighbourhood development plan for Brookswood is a good example of a forward-thinking, well-thought-out plan to make Brookswood 200 Street from 40 Avenue south to at 36 Avenue a walkable area.

PRATT (Independent): This was because we built hundreds of homes without the adequate mixes of uses that actually enables people to walk to get their chores done, or transit to work, or bike to the park. Density of homes without a mix of uses and a complete transportation network is the wrong path and will never make a community walkable, sustainable, or livable, despite what our community and neighbourhood plans might say. I would explore ideas such as form-based code, which would enable a greater diversity of compatible uses in different neighbourhoods, and simplify our existing bylaws so that people have more flexibility with what they can do with their properties (within reason). Further, working towards completing our transportation network (76th Avenue, 204th Street, 208th Street, Fraser Highway, and many others) will help make it easier for people to get around, especially if we focus on building in active and public transportation to this network. We can improve our WalkScore. It won’t be easy, but it will be worth it, and it’s absolutely something we should aspire to.

MORAES (Independent): Free transit in city would be nice. Especially on weekends. There are US cities such as Seattle that you can ride for free in the city core.

CONTRACT WITH LANGLEY (Group Response): We have a lot of work to do in this area, from not approving strip malls next to farmland to more walkable neighbourhoods and mixed-use urban devleopment. We will do it with a new plan for our growth.

RESPONDEK (Independent): The Township is a car dependent city because of the long distances that need to be travelled between the Hub/Dense Areas. We need to adopt policies that will allow fast, easy and safe travel between the Hub Areas and make sure that the hub areas have all the services, businesses and facilities required for the local residents of those areas negating the need for them to travel too far or often.

RICHTER (Independent): As discussed in Q#8 and Q#9 above, Langley Township could become less car-dependent IF we promote orderly/directional development instead of the “patchwork” and “free-for-all” development approach currently allowed.

New development areas should be opened sequentially and in a logical progressive order.

Furthermore, the Township should ban amendments to approved Neighbourhood Plans. If a Neighbourhood Plan is approved, it should be followed. Amendments do nothing more than lead to scope-creep and increased unplanned-for density. For example: Willoughby Neighborhood Plans started out at a total of 68,000 residents. Now Willoughby is over 100,000 residents. No wonder there are problems. This excessive density was never planned for.

The Township should not be growing everywhere at once or beyond its approved Neighbourhood Plans because recent past practice has clearly shown us the major downstream problems this causes.

TOWNSLEY (Independent): In order to get people out of their cars, we need to make sure there are safe places for people to walk of bike. Most areas in Langley don’t even have shoulders on the side of the road to walk on. If we make getting out of cars safe and convenient, people will drive less. Most of langley does not have bus service on a regular basis. Planning to include transit and mixed use development to form neighbourhood hubs would provide less need for people to drive to find most amenities.

SUARÉZ RUBIO (Independent): I want to make Langley number ten , but for this, we need to focus our efforts in bringing more competitive markets for taxi service such as Uber or pacific cabs, also more accessible roads to bike riders, rush the sky train, and implement a plan that I have to make langley a more reliable society by bike than by cars. Cars are comfort, but they make us lazy, obese, and with obesity comes deceases.

POITRAS (Independent): It begins with planning around waling, cycling and transit as we gain the density to do so. When we stop planning around auto-oriented communities the WalkScore will improve. I would support planning that allows space and safety for pedestrians and cyclist. Community plans need to consider walkability and transit options both available and planned. Each community in the Township is going to have very different needs around this subject with varying populations and infrastructure in each.

DARNELL (Independent): I would dearly love to live in a Walkable Community. I have not done adequate research on the “WalkScore” but it appears to me that so long as our society, and Langley in particular, depends on motor vehicles instead of a combination of motor vehicles and transit that it will be some time before we can achieve progress here. Brookswood has very little retail and professional services available. Again, without Transit, Transit, Transit this is a long way off. We need to take immediate action by way of a core review of all of the relevant ByLaws and Policies, revise old ones and enact new ones. In the Words of the most popular song of the Day “ITS ABOUT DAMN TIME”. Lets get on with this for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

JOEHL (Independent): The Fraser Valley in general has suffered from urban sprawl because for many decades the real estate prices allowed for it. And as long as the provincial government has a monopoly on most forms of public transit we won’t see it become efficient enough to serve our whole city, so our vehicles are not going anywhere. I don’t believe that being “less car dependent” is the ultimate goal. But as affordability worsens it is a reality that fewer and fewer residents will be able to afford one or two cars per household and commercial development should reflect that. Walkable neighbourhoods have a smaller footprint, both physically and environmentally too, so they should be the end goal. What we can do as a council is set a criteria for desired development outcomes and fast-track the permitting process for applications that meet those criteria.

VAN POPTA (Contract with Langley): We need to get away from urban planning practices from decades gone by. Until that time, we will be car dependent. Amenities are mostly too far and spread out. We have opportunities as we complete Willoughby and start Brookswood/Fernridge to develop more walkable communities that put our services where people are. To build up great mixed use buildings, interface developments with connecting pathways that people will want to walk/bike on and intersperse commercial throughout.

KUNST (Independent): I think the way our neighborhoods have been designed definitely plays a part. Yes, I believe Langley should be less car dependant but the reality is we don’t have the best transit options. Many young families are moving into Langley and with most children involved in many different activities not having a car is really not an option. Not to mention getting to and from work in a reasonable amount of time makes being without a car difficult.

I worked downtown Vancouver for 3 years and loved taking transit as it allowed me to ditch my car. It was fairly straightforward once I got on Skytrain. The problem was getting to Skytrain. We need better transit to more areas of the TOL before we can expect people to ditch their cars. With Skytrain coming to Langley hopefully we will see improved transportation options. I will support policies that improve our transit corridors, active transportation initiatives and developing more walkable communities.

I also think we should have a Walkability/Street Design Task Force and plan to make this a priority. When this is an ongoing conversation with staff, businesses and residents in the TOL we can work together to ensure there is an understanding of pedestrian safety issues, set walkability goals and the policies needed to make the changes in the future.