Quote:
Originally Posted by SFUVancouver
I have family and close friends in municipalities south of the Fraser in Surrey and the Township of Langley. One thing I've remarked upon is that there is a mistaken belief, somewhat echoed in your comment, that the population of South of the Fraser municipalities are either now larger than those North of the Fraser or that the majority of the recent population growth in Metro Vancouver has occurred South of the Fraser. True: proportionately, Surrey is growing faster than the large north of Fraser Municipalities of Vancouver and Burnaby. However, this is confusing proportionality with absolute numbers. I went through Stats Canada's 2006 and 2011 population stats and grouped the region into the following: North Shore Municipalities, Burrard Peninsula, "River Cities", and South of the Fraser.
North Shore municipalities (Bowen Island, Lions Bay, North Van (City), North Van (District), and West Van)
2011 combined census population - 180,022
2006 combined census population - 174,548
Population growth 2006-2011 - 5,474
Burrard Peninsula (Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, New West, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Anmore, Belcarra, and Electoral District A; mostly UBC)
2011 combined census population - 1,124,240
2006 combined census population - 1,047,664
Population growth 2006-2011 - 76,576
River Cities (Richmond, Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows)
2011 combined census population - 284,261
2006 combined census population - 259,033
Population growth 2006-2011 - 25,228
South of the Fraser (Tswwassen First Nation, Langley, Surrey, White Rock, Langley City, Township of Langley)
2011 combined census population - 717,431
2006 combined census population - 628,460
Population growth 2006-2011 - 88,971
Were one to combine the North Shore, Burrard Peninsula, and River Cities into the "North of the Fraser" block it would look like this:
2011 combined census population - 1,588,523
2006 combined census population - 1,481,245
Population growth 2006-2011 - 107,278
My point with all of this is that I think Mayor Watts succeeded in instilling a lot of pride to live South of the Fraser and The Province newspaper had a good run ceaselessly comparing her against Mayor Robertson: the defacto North of the Fraser representative. I think that the story of tremendous recent growth South of the Fraser underscores the need for more public transit and improvement and upgrades to the road and highway network. I do think it is disingenuous to say that all the investment has gone North of the Fraser. Surrey and the South of the Fraser municipalities needed a Mayor Watts and I sincerely hope that someone of comparable vision is elected and can articulate for continued investment and an accelerated region-wide transit investment strategy.
|
Good points. Wanted to break down my response into a few parts so I put lines to break it up.
Yah population numbers are a bit deceiving and you can slice them any way you want. When people talk North of Fraser and South of Fraser, and by people I mean most politicians (and when I reference the terms) or in the news it is typically political lines that are drawn.
Because of that I don't think you can actually include the North Shore. And Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge are far out there to the point I'm not sure if they would be included North of Fraser in the general discussion that typically happens or they would be their own section since they technically have the Pitt River between them and Coquitlam and with the GEB are kind of in the middle.
Also if it is simply where people commute from then I'd argue for South of Fraser you probably should include Abbotsford in there but really we can't because they are outside of Metro Vancouver. So typically the lines drawn when using the two terms are:
South of Fraser = Surrey + Delta + Langleys
North of Fraser = Vancouver + Burnaby + New Westminster + Coquitlam
Richmond I think it depends on the discussion. They kind of fly both ways and really they are middle of River because they are between the North arm and South arm. They also have the Airport so things like Canada Line just make sense and were a direct "North of Fraser" benefit but they will also benefit from a new Massey Tunnel so they benefit from SoF improvement. So I'd kind of put them together politically in the argument.
I know Delta sees them as a partner city and a lot of trade, commerce, and workers go back and fourth between the two so there is more of a connection than with other "North of Fraser" cities in that regard.
Based on those lines then the numbers do turn out with SoF having > growth overall. But again like you showed you can slice the population numbers differently and show the opposite.
Really then the argument is a political one not a realistic one. I agree with your main point that you can slice the populations in a way that shows the opposite, that NoF gained more people and it is probably as valid as slicing it the way I mentioned depending on the context of the argument.
But the discussion is around Mayor Watts' and what she accomplished. And ultimatley what she accomplished was Political Change. Unfortunately politics and reality rarely go hand-in-hand.
So we can't really look at it from a realistic standpoint but more on a political standpoint.
What Surrey Mayor's in the past said for decades was
"Surrey is the fastest growing city in the region yet has had less investment per capita than almost every other city in the region including Coquitlam which has 1/5th the population of Surrey."
But as true as that may or may not be, it just sounds like a cry baby who doesn't get to play with their toys in the sand box with everyone else. And that's largely why Surrey gained the reputation it did in the past (outside of crime) and why nearly everything was sent the direction of NoF. And in fairness, 20 years ago Surrey was an after-thought and really didn't have a big population so not all of the crying was really warranted.
What Mayor Watts did was change her "crying" from "Surrey this and Surrey that" to "South of Fraser this and South of Fraser that." which suddenly brought other Mayors into the equation like Mayor Jackson of Delta, Fassbender (at the time) of Langley and so fourth. It also brought the Province more into the discussion as it went from 1 city crying foul to visually half the regional district crying foul.
The truth is though that she really was still saying "Surrey" when she was articulating "SoF." It becomes politics then. When you replace SoF with Surrey, then the numbers make sense. Surrey's growth from 2006 -> 2011 = 15.64% growth rate for a city over 400,000. Compare that to other big cities in the region like Vancouver with a population of 600,000 yet had a growth rate of 4.2% in the same time. Or Burnaby with 220,000 and a growth rate of 9%. So she sort of had a point.
And remember a lot of this happened before the Evergreen started construction or even went to tender so when you look back at her arguments even though technically Coquitlam would lump into North of Fraser, she was often including them in the "South of Fraser" equation when discussing lack of transit and infrastructure regionally. For the Evergreen arguments "North of Fraser" really meant Vancouver + Burnaby + Richmond because they were arguing SkyTrain.
Thus why the realistic boundaries don't really apply when politics enter into things.
Finally, just think of the city numbers even from a realistic standpoint and how that can be perceived regardless of the ACTUAL numbers:
South of Fraser = 5 cities/towns
North of Fraser = 9 cities/towns
If you include all the "NoF" cities you put down in your population numbers then it actually because:
North of Fraser = 17 cities/towns
When you look at:
17 cities = 107,278 growth
5 cities = 88,971 growth
Difference = 18,307 but the bigger had
12 more cities added to it
it just further emphasizes Mayor Watts' point politically even if the number of cities doesn't _really_ matter as in reality you have to take into account the geographical size. Surrey may be just 1 city but size wise it = almost all of North of Fraser combined.
So in conclusion, I think that's why she was a very successful politician at the end of the day because she argued politics very very well even if it didn't and doesn't align fully with reality.
That said:
Nobody can argue though that Surrey isn't the fastest growing city in the region.
I do think though that with the new B-Line, I don't think you can make as strong an argument as to Surrey being hugely neglected from a transit standpoint. In 10 years time if there still isn't any action on rapid transit expansion out here and the numbers look like:
Surrey 2021 = 615,000 people
Vancouver 2021 = 655,000 people
Surrey SkyTrain Station Count = 4
Vancouver SkyTrain Station Count = 25
.. then expect more of the same political arguments to start happening again. I hope some gap starts to happen at least from a realistic standpoint. I also don't think it is realistic to SkyTrain all over Surrey because as I pointed out, size wise it is massive. LRT may actually be a good solution to connect town centers together. But it at least has to get off the talking board and onto the construction board within the next 10 years.