The Livable Blog
The Straight - Vancouver's New Peak Oil Publication
Maybe I just don't read The Straight often enough, but their articles on Peak Oil and Livable Region matters are really top notch lately. The interesting thing is, I am finding these articles on one of my favorite websites, "The Oil Drum" obviously thinks likewise.
Peak-oil spike reshapes the suburbs
By Carlito Pablo
Perl said that cities with more suburban sprawl are suffering more in terms of depressed prices than denser areas that are less dependent on cars.
“I think that there is an obvious relationship between the way the land is used and the transportation alternatives that are available,” noted Perl, a panelist in a forum on the future of transportation to be held at the SFU Harbour Centre campus next Thursday (May 22) at 7 p.m.
A new study by Oregon-based economist Joe Cortright suggests that spiralling oil prices in the last five years burst the American housing bubble that swelled partly due to relaxed lending practices and speculation.
Properties located in cities and neighbourhoods that require residents to go on lengthy commutes and don’t provide many transportation alternatives have fallen in value more deeply than those in “more central, compact and accessible places”, Cortright wrote in Driven to the Brink: How the Gas Price Spike Popped the Housing Bubble and Devalued the Suburbs.
This is just the type of evidence that will show that the Gateway Program and road expansion by Gordon Campbell's Liberals makes even less sense from a business perspective as the price of transportation (energy/oil) goes up.
Crown Drops Charges Against Bear Mountain Defenders
"Even if they get their interchange, they are going to wear it around their necks for the rest of their political lives," Blunt said
Crown drops all charges against five Spencer Road protesters
Foes of interchange were arrested during massive February raid
Richard Watts, Times Colonist
Published: Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Protesters arrested for mischief over demonstrations against Langford's Spencer Road interchange have been set free of all charges.
Criminal Justice spokesman Stan Lowe confirmed yesterday that the Crown, after review, decided not to proceed with charges against those arrested during the protest.
Lowe said that decision might change, however, if circumstances become different.
The five, Luke Woodyard, Noah Ross, Ingmar Lee, Nancy Powell and Ben Isitt, were arrested in February after a massive police raid broke up a year-long protest.
People opposed to the interchange had staged a tree-sit and campout to block work crews set to begin clearing ground for the multimillion-dollar traffic project near Spencer Road on the Trans-Canada Highway.
Protesters complained the project encouraged urban sprawl, destroyed diminishing forests and endangered rare caves.
[snip]
Opponents of the project are now talking with bankers asking them to take a second look at Langford's request to borrow money for the project. And the bankers are listening.
"The financing is not a done deal, and the interchange is way behind schedule," Blunt said. She said people in the community are now asking some hard questions of Langford councillors while an election is looming this November.
"Even if they get their interchange, they are going to wear it around their necks for the rest of their political lives," Blunt said.
"We've mobilized thousands," she said. "We have so much support in the community we have really showed people, 'You can fight city hall.'"
Full text:
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=c36c81d7-cc5e-4cc1-9316-19f4113b27d2
See earlier postings on Bear Mountain at:
http://www.livableregion.ca/blog/blogs/index.php?s=bear+mountain&sentence=AND&submit=Search
Gateway P3 Public Meeting - Wed May 21 7:30 - What do Iraqi Reconstruction and Gateway Have in Common?
What do the Gateway Program and Iraqi reconstruction have in common? Show up and find out:
The Vancouver/Burnaby Chapter of the Council of Canadians is hosting a public meeting on privatization, P3s (public private partnerships) and the Gateway Program.
Wed. May 21st at 7:30pm - 1440 W 12th
Please join us to hear more about, and discuss, the GATEWAY PROJECT.
Eric Doherty, researcher and environmental consultant from SPEC (Society Promoting Environmental Conservation) will be discussing the impacts of privatization relating to the Gateway Project and the proposed expansions of the Port Mann bridge and Highway #1.
Roger Emsley from APE ( Against Port Expansion ) will be presenting information on how the port expansion is driving Gateway, why further port expansion is not needed, and the environmental and community impacts for the entire Lower Mainland.
The meeting will take place at the Holy Trinity Church at 1440 W 12th ( 12th and Hemlock ) May 21st, 7:30pm.
To learn more about the Council of Canadians please visit:
www.canadians.org
For more information on SPEC:
www.spec.bc.ca
For more information on APE:
www.againstportexpansion.org
Canadian, BC and Media Politics & Peak Oil
Here's a great article from the Georgia Straight by Charlie Smith about the greenwash politics that goes on between the media, governments, and consultants in the area of carbon credits.
Jeffrey Simpson, Mark Jaccard, Gordon Campbell, and Peak OilBy Charlie Smith
This weekend, the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson wrote yet another column praising Premier Gordon Campbell's carbon tax.
To Simpson, it sometimes seems that B.C.'s premier can do no wrong.
Simpson never demonstrated a great deal of interest in climate change until the past couple of years—most notably, when he hooked up with SFU professor Mark Jaccard and researcher Nic Rivers to coauthor Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge.
The authors advocated a carbon tax, long a favourite of Jaccard, a former chairman of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.
Transit Ridership Increasing As Gas Prices Increase
This article in the NewYorkTimes shows how we will change or are changing as gas & diesel prices increase our travel costs. Now we just need to change the direction our governments are taking us. There is ample evidence that we need more transit and less roads as fuel prices increase week by week. As well, there is no shortage of articles in the media showing how out of touch our governments really are when it comes to allotting the appropriate funds to our transit systems.
Some cities are seeing spectacular gains. The Charlotte Area Transit System, which has a new light rail line, reported that it logged more than two million trips in February, up more than 34 percent from February 2007.
Caltrain, the commuter rail line that serves the San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Clara Valley, set a record for average weekday ridership in February of 36,993, a 9.3 increase from 2007, according to its most recent public calculation.
The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, which operates a commuter rail system from Miami to Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, posted a rise of more than 20 percent in rider numbers this March and April as monthly ridership climbed to 350,000.
“Nobody believed that people would actually give up their cars to ride public transportation,” said Joseph J. Giulietti, executive director of the authority. “But in the last year, and last several months in particular, we have seen exactly that.”
Rising Fuel Prices Are A Driving Force For Change - Away From Autos
But people are cutting back in a million little ways, and even in the Los Angeles area they're cutting back on driving. Interest in cycling is growing, gasoline consumption is down and bus and light-rail ridership is up.
After declining at the end of 2007, L.A. rail and bus ridership started rising in January. From January to March, average weekday boardings were up 16% on the Red Line rail system, 13% on the Blue Line and 17% on the Gold Line, which set a record for highest average weekday boardings in March with 22,231. Bus ridership grew 8% from January to March.
The explanation is in the math. It costs $1.25 to take the train from the North Hollywood Metro station to the stop at Wilshire Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, while driving a car would cost $6.05, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. (The agency uses the AAA formula, which sets the cost of driving at 56.2 cents a mile when gasoline and vehicle wear and tear are taken into account.)
And from the Falls Church News-Press.
The Peak Oil Crisis: Transiting to Transit
With crude oil now above $120 a barrel and threatening to go higher, it is clear that our preferred and convenient means of going places, our car, the airplane and the rental car soon are going to be parked because they will be too expensive to operate.
Like it or not, most of us are going to be riding some form of mass transit or multiple passenger vehicle – trains, buses, trolleys, car pools, van pools etc.- while waiting for our cars to be replaced with electric or higher mileage vehicles. As there are currently about 220 million cars and light trucks registered in the U.S. and 700 million or so elsewhere, the replacement process is going to be lengthy one.One day soon, it will simply be too expensive for electricians, plumbers and a myriad of other household service providers to drive 50 or 60 miles in large, inefficient vehicles to perform some relatively minor maintenance task. The very nature of such services will have to change, be localized, and planned so that travel is minimized. Someday, your electrician may arrive on a city bus pulling his tools and parts behind.
South Delta Poll
SOUTH DELTA POLL/APRIL 08
This telephone poll, concerning public opinion about the proposed Port Expansion/Terminal 2 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road projects, was conducted by a small group of volunteers in late April. A total of 180 individual households were contacted in Ladner and Tsawwassen, (98 and 82 respectively), and were chosen randomly from the South Delta phone book. The results of the poll are as follows:
1. Level of Awareness of the projects:
None - 0%
Not Very - 22%
Don't know - 8%
Quite - 53%
Very - 16%
2. How well informed:
Not - 2%
Not Very - 33%
Don't Know - 7%
Well Enough - 42%
Very Well - 22%
3. In Favour Of/Opposed To The Projects:
In Favour - 16% (7% strongly)
Neutral - 19%
Opposed - 61% (54 % strongly)
Don't Know - 4%
4. Concerned About Possible Impacts:
No - 10.5% Yes - 89.5%
5. Areas of possible Concern:
a) Environment:
No concern - 4%
Neutral - 5%
Concerned - 91% (79% Extremely)
b) Wild Life Habitat:
No Concern - 5%
Neutral - 7%
Concerned - 88% (76% Extremely)
c) Land Removal From ALR:
No Concern - 11%
Neutral - 5%
Concerned - 84% (67% Extremely)
d) Air Quality/Health:
No Concern - 6%
Neutral - 7%
Concerned - 87% (79% Extremely)
e) Burns Bog:
No Concern - 10%
Neutral - 5%
Concerned - 85% (73% Extremely)
f) Traffic Congestion:
No Concern - 7%
Neutral - 4%
Concerned - 89% (82% Extremely)
g) Residential Property Expropriation:
No Concern - 14%
Neutral - 14%
Concerned - 72% (59% Extremely)
h) Property Values:
No Concern - 11%
Neutral - 12%
Concerned - 77% (62% Extremely)
i) Quality of Life:
No Concern - 8%
Neutral - 8%
Concerned - 84% (72% Extremely)
6. Opportunities for Public Expression of Concerns:
Not enough - 39%
Neutral - 22%
Don't Know - 10%
Enough - 28%
7. Rating Levels of Government For Public Forums: (3 Parts)
a) Federal:
Don't Know - 9%
Not Good - 74%
Neutral - 12%
Good - 5%
b) Provincial:
Don't Know - 10%
Not Good - 64%
Neutral - 19%
Good - 7%
c) Municipal:
Don't Know - 10%
Not Good - 47%
Neutral - 19%
Good - 24%
8. Level Of Trust In Governmental Environmental Review Process:
No Trust - 37%
Little Trust - 39%
Neutral - 11%
Don't Know - 4%
Some Trust - 6%
Great Trust - 3%
Additional Information:
Regular Tunnel Commuters - 47%
Home Owners - 87%
For additional information, please contact: Perry Long
Phone: 604-940-8969
Email: perry(at)dccnet.com
Delta Council - Stop Gateway Monday May 12 7pm
Important Meeting!
Monday May 12th at 7pm
Delta Municipal Hall - 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent, Ladner, BC
WE CAN STOP GATEWAY -- the South Fraser Perimeter Road is the key.
Delta municipal council will be discussing both Delta Port expansion and the South Fraser Perimeter Road at the council meeting this Monday! Council staff have prepared reports regarding the environmental impact of the port expansion and the environmental assessment being done before the South Fraser Perimeter road can be built.
The building of Terminal Two at Delta Port would have massive environmental implications including impact on whale migratory routes, the largest bird estuary in the region and drastic increases in pollution and green house gas emissions. The Council report recommendations suggest that port expansion be delayed for five years to study the impact of the smaller scale expansion that has already taken place.
The South Fraser Perimeter Road if built will have very serious impacts on Burns Bog, the "lungs of the lower mainland" and the largest carbon sink in the region. The Burns Bog Conservation Society has come out against the building of this major highway designed to serve increased truck traffic generated from the expansion of delta port. The Gateway programs own studies show this highway could lead to increased cancer rates and other illnesses in the region. The council report suggests that council staff be involved in the environmental review process. Lets make sure they know we want them to raise serious concerns at these meetings!
Council will be discussing the reports from staff and then making decision based on their recommendations. We need to be there to make sure they know folks in Delta and throughout the lower mainland are concerned about these decisions.
The meeting starts at 7pm (the important items are close to the end of the agenda so folks could show up closer to 7:45 or 8pm if they want to get out there on their own).
A group of us will be leaving on the bus from Burrard Skytrain in Vancouver at 5:45 to go out to the meeting. We will be meeting up with friends from the Burns Bog Conservation Society and other concerned citizens.
Gateway is far from a done deal ... its a dumb deal and here is a chance from us to do something about it!
--
Ben West | Healthy Communities Campaigner
Wilderness Committee | Canada's largest membership-based wilderness preservation organization
w: 604-683-8220 | www.wildernesscommittee.org
Entrenching Consumption
A new video from Ryan Longoz shows just how BC's gateway project will reinforce many of our regions bad habits.
From Ryan: "It's about the problems of consumer culture and how our love of convenience fosters car-oriented living spaces."
It is highly informative and very well done.
Poll: Metro Vancouver Residents Choose Transit Before Freeways by 2 to 1
The Livable Region Coalition and the David Suzuki Foundation have just released the results of a Metro Vancouver poll that shows 60% of residents support expanding transit before expanding Highway 1 and twinning the Port Mann Bridge. Conducted by Synovate in early April with a sample size of 500, the poll also shows that 69% of Metro residents support re-directing money from the provincial roads budget to transit. The 2008 provincial budget has $826 million allocated to road building and only $63 million allocated to transit. See the questions and the results HERE.
This is quite excellent news that clears the air around the perceived support for freeway expansion- goes to show you that talk radio call-in shows are not an accurate measure of public opinion. Pundits take note.
More to share on this topic later, for now though please celebrate the good news and spread the word!
David Suzuki Foundation & Livable Region Coalition
News release
New poll shows majority of Metro Vancouver residents want better public transit, not expanded highways
May 7, 2008
VANCOUVER -- A new poll shows 69 per cent of Metro Vancouver residents support redirecting money away from road expansion projects toward a better public transit system.
The Synovate poll, conducted for the David Suzuki Foundation and the Livable Region Coalition, also showed 60 per cent of Metro Vancouver residents would choose rapid transit to Coquitlam, expanded bus and rapid transit service in Surrey and rapid transit out to UBC instead of twinning the Port Mann Bridge and widening Highway 1.
"The poll clearly shows there is a real need and a desire for better public transit across the Lower Mainland," said Ian Bruce, a climate change specialist with the David Suzuki Foundation. "Investing in public transit will help make our transit system faster, more convenient and more direct. Widening highways and bridges simply puts more cars on the road, and makes the current traffic congestion problems worse."
The poll comes at a time when drivers in the Lower Mainland are seeking relief from painful prices at the gas pumps. It also comes during a push by the provincial government to cut B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions 33 per cent by 2020.
But, in direct contrast with its new plan to go green, the province still wants to twin the Port Mann Bridge and widen Highway 1.Transportation is already the biggest source of B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions.
Experience from around the world has shown that building more highways can actually lead to longer commutes, more sprawl and more time spent in cars, and eventually worsens traffic congestion instead of relieving it. Conversely, cities that have given priority to transit have reduced congestion and fewer emissions as a result.
"Now is the time for the Premier to rethink the Gateway project," said David Fields, coordinator, Livable Region Coalition. "Metro Vancouver residents support a transit-first approach by two to one. It is time to build a transportation system that can meet the challenges of climate change and achieve healthy communities."
- 30 -
The telephone poll contacted a random sample of 500 Metro Vancouver
residents between between April 9 and April 15, 2008. A random sample of
this size has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 per cent 19 times
out of 20. The poll was conducted by Synovate.Complete poll results can be found online at:
http://www.cleanairradio.ca/Reports/TransitFirstPoll.pdf
Smog and premature death
A New York Times article reports on a recent American Academy of Science study showing that short-term exposure to smog leads to premature deaths.
A valuable and probably persuasive argument to use in opposition to highway expansion in general and to the Highway 1 Port Mann bridge expansion in particular.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Short-term exposure to smog, or ozone, is clearly linked to premature deaths that should be taken into account when measuring the health benefits of reducing air pollution, a National Academy of Sciences report concluded Tuesday.
The findings contradict arguments made by some White House officials that the connection between smog and premature death has not been shown sufficiently, and that the number of saved lives should not be calculated in determining clean air benefits.
The report by a panel of the Academy's National Research Council says government agencies ''should give little or no weight'' to such arguments.
''The committee has concluded from its review of health-based evidence that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths,'' the 13-member panel said.
It added that ''studies have yielded strong evidence that short-term exposure to ozone can exacerbate lung conditions, causing illness and hospitalization and can potentially lead to death.''
The White House Office of Management and Budget, which in its review of air quality regulations has raised questions about the certainty of the pollution and mortality link, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
''The report is a rebuke of the Bush administration which has consistently tried to downplay the connection between smog and premature death,'' said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based advocacy organization.
Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, said the Academy's findings ''refutes the White House skepticism and denial'' of a proven link between acute ozone exposure and premature deaths. Such arguments have been used to diminish the health benefits of reducing air pollution, she said.
The Academy panel examined short-term exposure -- up to 24 hours -- to high levels of ozone, but said more studies also were needed on long-term chronic exposure where the risk of premature death ''may be larger than those observed in acute effects studies alone.''
Ground-level ozone is formed from nitrogen oxide and organic compounds created by burning fossil fuels and is demonstrated often by the yellow haze or smog that lingers in the air. Ozone exposure is a leading cause of respiratory illnesses and especially affects the elderly, those with respiratory problems and children.
While premature death from ozone exposure is greater among individuals with lung and heart disease, the report said such deaths are not restricted to people who are at a high risk of death within a few days.
The scientists said they could not determine, based on a review of health studies, whether there is a threshold below which no fatalities can be assured from ozone exposure. If there is such a point, it is below the ozone levels allowed for public health.
Environmentalists and health advocates have argued that a string of health studies and surveys show that exposure to smoggy air not only aggravates respiratory problems, but causes thousands of deaths a year.
But in a number of instances the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews regulations, have been at odds over the certainty of a link between smog levels and deaths.
Patton said the OMB in a number of air pollution regulations has sought to minimize the relationship of pollution and premature deaths, resulting in a lower calculation of health benefits from pollution reductions.
''This has been used by industry to try to attack health standards by minimizing the societal benefits,'' said Patton.
One such case involves the EPA's decision last month to toughen the ozone health standard, reducing the allowable concentration in the air.
When the cost-benefit analysis was being prepared in connection with the rulemaking, the OMB argued there is ''considerable uncertainty'' in the association between ozone levels and deaths.
As a result, the EPA issued a wide cost-benefit range from an annual net societal cost of $20 billion to a savings of $23 billion, depending largely on whether one takes into account lives saved from ozone-related premature deaths.
OMB officials also have objected to the EPA quantifying ozone-related mortality benefits in new emissions standards for lawn mowers and other small engines that release large amounts of ozone-forming pollution.
In response, the EPA removed ''all references to quantified ozone benefits'' in the proposed rule, according to an e-mail sent by EPA to the OMB. The small engine regulation is awaiting final action.
Forum pushes light rail revival - Langley Advance
Forum pushes light rail revival
At a Saturday forum, passenger rail advocates argued the cost benefits of reusing the old Interurban line.
Matthew Claxton, Langley Advance
Published: Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Passenger rail in Langley makes sense, a group of rail advocates told local politicians and members of the public on Saturday.
At the six-hour rail forum organized by the Valley Transportation Advisory Committee (VALTAC) in the Township council chambers, the potential costs and benefits of a revived Interurban line were laid out.
Peter Holt, a VALTAC director, told the crowd that a rail line from Scott Road SkyTrain station to Langley's City centre could cost about $700 million, or about $27 million per kilometre.
He compared that to other recent or pending rail lines in the Lower Mainland.
The Canada Line, the Evergreen Line and the UBC Line have been costed at between $105 million to $233 million per kilometre of track, Holt said.
A rebuilt Interurban would be cheaper because it would run at ground level, along or beside already existing track, on an existing right of way.
The Interurban ran for more than 40 years through the Lower Mainland until being scrapped in the 1950s.
It went from Vancouver to Chilliwack, and the tracks are now used largely by heavy freight rail.
Holt's estimates are based on using simple diesel-powered community rail cars.
Eric Doherty of the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation (SPEC) gave a Transit Lab 101 presentation, talking about the many light rail and bus options in use around the world.
His talk about the Zurich, Switzerland railcar system drew several questions and comments from the crowed. Zurich citizens twice defeated efforts to scrap their downtown rail system in referenda.
He also said that oil, and gasoline for cars, is unlikely to get much cheaper.
"Whether or now we're at the peak of [oil] production or close to it, the cheap easy-to-get-to oil is gone," Doherty said.
He talked about a variety of transit solutions, including rail and buses.
However, he noted that the South of the Fraser area is poorly served even for its current density, much less its future density.
Parts of Langley City and Surrey are already denser than large swathes of east Vancouver, Doherty said.
Transportation economist Stephen Rees noted that governments often seem more eager to spend money on roads than on rail lines.
"If you spend money on roads, that's investment," Rees said. "If you spend money on rail, that's subsidy."
He said that transit planning can be reactive, working to catch up to existing populations, or it can be used to shape future growth in the communities it serves.
While the crowd was not large, it included several Township councillors for a portion of the day. Steve Ferguson and Charlie Fox both appeared to ask questions of the panelists.
Councillor Kim Richter, who has publicly pondered running for mayor, was also in attendance, along with current mayor Kurt Alberts and mayoral candidate Rick Green.
Green said he may not agree with every detail espoused by the panelists, but he agrees with the overall idea.
The right of way and much of the track exists now, he said.
"We have this staring us right in the face," Green said.
SkyTrain doesn't make sense for Langley in the short term, and Green said he doubted that the $14 billion provincial transit plan recently announced will be able to do enough.
Langley should be proactive rather than reactive on its transit needs, Green said.
Alberts focussed on the need for a fully integrated transit system, not just rail.
There is a high level of interest in the rail link, he said, and he noted that the Township is working to keep rail options open for the future.
The province has pledged to study the Interurban option.
Delta development to be scrutinized at public hearing
A Delta development threatens to unleash sprawl, claimed critics and planning staff at last Friday's Metro Vancouver Board meeting.
“The maintenance of an established urban footprint and the avoidance of urban expansion across a wider area of the Lower Mainland will be necessary if Metro Vancouver is to become a more sustainable region,” the staff report argued.
The development, to expand the Tswwassen Golf and Country Club into former farmland, will create a new urban sub-centre on the periphery of existing development. Delta city staff and a representative of the Delta Farmer’s Institute attempted to portray the development as a green and sustainable project that will use LEED standards.
Director David Hocking of Bowen Island argued that making the development more sustainable through improving efficiency “was a drop in the bucket compared to how our communities are structured.” Director Suzanne Anton questioned why Delta city staff seemed keener to develop density on the urban edge in the green zone rather than working to create a more mixed-use, complete community in the existing urbanized area, something Delta has done nothing so far to correct. Delta staff agreed the density was in the wrong place.
Board members and a presenter also raised the spectre of the broader impact of the decision on farming. In deciding to initiate the removal of the land from the green zone, the Board has signaled more parcels of such land are up for grabs. Presenter Kent Warmington argued that speculators already own much of the ALR in Delta. By approving the removal of land for this development, more farmland would be purchased region-wide and the price of farmland would go up. “Nobody examined the effect on farmland of higher land prices,” argued Warmington. Director Harold Steves pointed out the land that was lost, despite being called unsuitable for agriculture, could be used for greenhouses.
The arguments for the preservation of the green zone boiled down to the protection of an ephemeral, regional “good.” In the end, this objective took second seat to the more shortsighted, parochial interests of municipalities and the need to accommodate such interests to get agreement on a new regional plan to replace the 12-year old Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP). “I am not a believer that the rigidity of the plan should deny municipal autonomy,” stated Metro Vancouver Land Use and Transportation Committee chair Derek Corrigan. “We won’t get a renewal of the LRSP if we are inflexible.” The motion passed with only Directors David Hocking, Hal Weinberg and Harold Steves opposed.
The next step will be a public hearing before the whole board. The date will be within the next month. It is considered an unusual move that may yet result in the Board opposing Delta’s plans of urban expansion should the public strongly oppose it.
Delta development to be scrutinized at public hearing
Frank Luba, The Province
Published: Sunday, April 27, 2008
Metro Vancouver board members took the unusual step of voting Friday to hold a public hearing to help decide the fate of a controversial golf course expansion and housing development in Delta.
Metro was only given the authority to hold a public hearing in provincial legislation in October, although it has held such hearings at the committee level when dealing with electoral districts like in 2003 and 2005.
But the whole board will be convened sometime in the next month to deal with a complicated proposal from prominent B.C. businessman Ron Toigo.
The managing director of Shato Holdings and owner of the Vancouver Giants junior hockey team wants to extend his Tsawwassen Golf and Country layout from its current executive course status, as well as build 437 residential units on a 55.4-hectare site south of Highway 17 and west of 52nd Street.
While the new housing would provide much-needed condo and townhouse alternatives in Delta and be built to high environmental standards, 11.5 hectares of the site would have to be removed from the Agricultural Land Reserve.
Toigo is proposing to give Delta title to 4.37 hectares of prime agricultural property that could be used for industry. That property, and another 57.1 hectares of his property, would be placed under a covenant that would guarantee it be actively used for farming.
Delta resident Kent Warmington spoke against the proposal because he contends other landowners are sitting on agricultural property itching for a chance to develop the land.
"They get harder and harder to turn down," said Warmington.
Some of the board members also feared setting a precedent of allowing agricultural land to be turned into housing.
CAR-FREE VANCOUVER DAY BULLETIN
Forward far and wide, let the joyous news be spread!
(with apologies for inevitable cross-postings)
CAR-FREE VANCOUVER DAY BULLETIN
Callout to ALL citizens, artists, activists, performers, pranksters and funsters
Car-Free Vancouver Day is less than two months away !! Get ready, to change EVERYTHING.
Sunday June 15th (Fathers Day) will see Car-Free Festivals going off all over the city. We expect 100,000 people to flood��the streets to celebrate their neighbourhoods and re-imagine what a more sustainable, ecological, ethical and genuinely cultural city might look like.
Other cities around the world are already doing this, and car-free streets are the way of the future. Let�s start taking back our streets, NOW!
The City is listening, and they are on our side. This is a huge opportunity to show/tell them what we really want: car-free streets, no more highways, and support for authentic urban culture.
All four Festivals are all deep into their organizing and have great crews working hard, and we would welcome anyone who wants to get involved in any capacity: organizers, volunteers, performers, anything.�Right now we are specifically calling out to all activists, artists, performers, organizations and creative trouble-makers, hoping you will all be coming out and causing a stir.
We encourage you to set up soapboxes, banners, art installations large or tiny, info tables, events, performances, games, gifting stations, interactive displays, parades, theatre pieces, interventions� pretty much whatever fun you can dream up. It�s your party so please do what you like best � we only ask that your activity be respectful (noise and spacewise), and that it be�free: free of charge, free of boring corporate stuff, free of cars.
There is tons of space for you to express yourself at Car Free Vancouver Day, so please get in touch and let us know what you have in mind.�If you're envisioning anything that may require a good chunk of space or a sound system of any sort, please check in with the Fest in question. This is an important courtesy and will help everything run harmoniously.
Car Free Vancouver Day isn't it about frickin� time?!
Check out www.carfreevancouver.org for more.
***************************
Next planning meetings:
Car-Free Commercial Drive
Tuesday, April 29th, 7pm-9pm
1707 Charles Street (through the wooden door around the corner from the Drive)
drivefest@carfreevancouver.org or call Craig at 604.320.6560.�
===
Car-Free Kitsilano
Ongoing multiple-block-party planning -
kitsilano@carfreevancouver.org or call Mel at�(604) 731-0599
====
Car-Free Main Street
Sunday, May 4th at 2:00pm
We will meet at JJ bean (Main and 14th Ave) and then walk up to Heritage Hall together as a group. Any late comers can wait at the front doors of the Heritage Hall to get let in (the doors will be locked).
mainstreet@carfreevancouver.org or�(778) 888-2440
===
Car-Free West End
Monday May 5, 7pm-9pm
Gordon Neighbourhood House,�1019 Broughton St. (@ Nelson)
CarFreeWestEnd@yahoo.ca or call Dave at 604-646-4615�
===
General information about Car Free Vancouver Day:
info@carfreevancouver.org
Bike sharing in Washington DC
An article in yesterday's New York Times on a bike-sharing scheme to start next month in Washington DC. Following on the heels - or it that wheels - of European cities implementing similar programs, this program will make use of advertising to cover costs. Without commercial sponsorship, some European advocates say, it would be impossible to run such a program, estimated at $4500 per bike.
I'm skeptical - do we have to resort to more commodification of our lives - especially to do with biking?? Maybe the membership fee has to be higher. And maybe it should be a co-op type of business. After all, the Cooperative Auto Network doesn't use advertising.
By BERNIE BECKER
Published: April 27, 2008
WASHINGTON — Starting next month, people here will be able to rent a bicycle day and night with the swipe of a membership card.
A new public-private venture called SmartBike DC will make 120 bicycles available at 10 spots in central locations in the city. The automated program, which district officials say is the first of its kind in the nation, will operate in a similar fashion to car-sharing programs like Zipcar.
The district has teamed up with an advertiser, Clear Channel Outdoor, to put the bikes on the streets.
“There’s a lot of stress on our transit systems currently,” said Jim Sebastian, who manages bicycle and pedestrian programs for Washington’s Transportation Department. Offering another option, Mr. Sebastian said, “will help us reduce congestion and pollution,” as well as parking problems.
In the deal, Clear Channel will have exclusive advertising rights in the city’s bus shelters. The company has reached a similar deal with San Francisco. Chicago and Portland, Ore., are also considering proposals from advertisers.
For a $40 annual membership fee, SmartBike users can check out three-speed bicycles for three hours at a time. The program will not provide helmets but does encourage their use.
Similar programs have proved successful in Europe. The Vélib program in Paris and Bicing in Barcelona, Spain, both started around a year ago and already offer thousands of bicycles.
Mr. Sebastian, who started trying to bring bike-sharing to Washington even before its success in Paris and Barcelona, said he believed that the program could grow within a year and hoped that it would eventually offer 1,000 bicycles.
While automated bike-sharing programs are new to the United States, the idea of bike-sharing is hardly novel. Milan, Amsterdam and Portland have all had lower-tech free bike-sharing programs in the past, with Amsterdam’s dating to the 1960s.
But “studies showed that many bikes would get stolen in a day, or within a few weeks,” said Paul DeMaio, a Washington-area bike-sharing consultant. “In Amsterdam, they would often find them in the canals.”
Improved technology allows programs to better protect bicycles. In Washington, SmartBike subscribers who keep bicycles longer than the three-hour maximum will receive demerits and could eventually lose renting privileges. Bicycles gone for more than 48 hours will be deemed lost, with the last user charged a $200 replacement fee.
That technology comes with a price, which is one reason cities and advertisers started joining forces to offer bike-sharing. The European programs would cost cities about $4,500 per bike if sponsors did not step in, Mr. DeMaio said.
Cities realize “they literally have to spend no money on designing, marketing or maintaining” a bike-sharing program, said Martina Schmidt of Clear Channel Outdoor. Washington will keep the revenue generated by the program.
Bike-sharing has become a “public service subsidized by advertising,” said Bernard Parisot, the president and co-chief executive officer of JCDecaux North America, an outdoor advertiser that made a proposal to bring bike-sharing to Chicago.
But, Mr. Parisot added, if users had to pay all of the costs for bike-sharing, “they would probably just take a cab.”
The low cost could be one of the program’s major selling points.
At George Washington University in Foggy Bottom, one of the program’s 10 locations, students were unsure how often they would use SmartBike, but said its price made it worth a try.
“I’d probably use it more in the summer than winter,” said Dewey Archer, a senior. “But for $40? That’s cheaper than gas.”
Rail for the Valley is "Common Sense"
At first it seemed I was in for a very strange day. In the Province newspaper today is an editorial supporting the revival of the Interurban into the Fraser Valley (below). A day that begins with me and The Province editorial board agreeing on something is a day where I am tempted to go back to bed and start again. Just yesterday these same editors were declaring that the global warming debate is far from over! This time though we agree on reviving the Interurban, a proposal the Province editors call "common sense".
Of course, their opening argument also supports a Transit First approach to transportation in our region while Gateway gets a re-think but I'll work that into a letter now that I have overcome the shock!
Congratulations to VALTAC and everyone who made the Interurban Forum a success! You are all doing excellent work to bring a such wide array of people together to demand that the provincial government "get rail". Falcon can only see pavement and developer dollars and appeals to the BC Libs core- not to the mainstream.
No comparison has been made between Gateway and an alternate solution of the same scale, such as Transit First. All we have is statements from the Minister and his asphalt addicts that the benefits will be huge and the impacts negligible but without providing any evidence. Here is a case in point. Send Gateway back to the 1950's- Revive the Interurban, build us Transit First!
Planning for rail up the Fraser Valley is plain common sense
The Province
Published: Monday, April 28, 2008It's been proven time and again in public transit that, if you build it, they will come. Just ask any of those Greater Vancouver commuters crammed like sardines in SkyTrain cars during the morning or evening rush hour.
This is happening now despite arguments made during the planning of the existing rapid-transit system that not enough folks would use such a service.
Now, we're hearing similar criticisms from those who oppose using the old Inter-Urban route for light-rail service in the Fraser Valley. There's not enough population density, they say.
The folks displaying this attitude clearly have a hard time seeing beyond their noses.
Transit must be planned in a long-term context. And all growth projections for south-of-Fraser communities, from Delta to Chilliwack, agree that this region alone will one day have a population larger than that of the whole of Metro Vancouver today.
Surrey already has the largest number of children enrolled in K-12 schools of any municipality in the province. And its population is expected to surpass that of Vancouver in the next 20 years.
Also, the 18-24 demographic in the Fraser Valley is growing at six times the provincial average.
The most efficient and "green" way to move large numbers of people is via light-rail transit.
Given the population growth in this region, this transit option should be a no-brainer.
So, build it and they will come. Just ask the sardines.
© The Vancouver Province 2008
NDP - Re-direct Highway Expansion $ to Transit Now
The NDP has just released an open letter to Premier Campbell on global warming policy. It strongly implies that it is time to re-direct money from urban highway expansions to transit, so that BC can meet it's GHG reduction committments:
"we are urging you to place a much higher priority on measures to reduce emissions that can be put in place now. For example, your budget has $826 million this year for building roads but only $63 million for expanded transit. More funding for public transit and affordable fares is needed now . . . take the necessary next steps to ensure that our collective fight to stop climate change is successful"
I will be writing a letter of thanks to Carole James and Shane Simpson, and I am sure the road building industry will be writing them to protest. Please consider sending a letter of thanks and encouragement to: carole.james.mla@leg.bc.ca and Shane.Simpson.MLA@leg.bc.ca
The full text is below, and the original signed version is available at
http://bcndpcaucus.ca/files/08-04-25%20James%20and%20Simpson%20to%20Campbell%20re%20climate%20change.pdf
April 25, 2008
Premier Gordon Campbell
West Annex
Parliament Buidlings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4Dear Premier Campbell,
Re: working with British Columbians for effective climate change solutions
We are writing to urge you to immediately establish an all-party committee with specific timelines to work with British Columbians to develop climate change solutions that are fair, comprehensive, and effective. We propose that the all-party committee be charged with consulting British Columbians through the spring and summer, and bringing concrete proposals to the fall sitting of the Legislature.
It’s time to bring the fight against climate change out into the open. By establishing an all-party committee, we can work with British Columbians to build positive solutions that recognize regional differences, the needs of public institutions, and ensure that all polluters pay their fair share. By requiring the committee to report back to the fall session of the Legislature, we will not delay bringing in concrete measures that could decrease emissions.
British Columbians recognize that fighting climate change is the most important task facing our generation. That is why people are so alarmed to see your government’s climate change initiatives unravelling due to unfairness, secrecy, and lack of substantive measures that would achieve the emissions reductions that are needed.
We were pleased to read recent media reports that you have now acknowledged the problem. As you are hearing from people in communities across the province, your fuel tax plan places the entire financial burden on ordinary British Columbians while large oil and gas companies get taxpayer-financed subsidies. People in northern and rural communities will be hit especially hard by the fuel tax. The tax will also add significant costs to hospitals, schools, and municipal governments. This approach creates winners and losers at a time when we need a united effort.
In order to affect real progress on climate change, everyone needs to be involved. An all-party committee would give communities the chance to share their views and concerns. For example, your proposed cap-and-trade system remains vague, and recent statements by your chief climate advisor Mark Jaccard that the cap-and-trade system may not be ready until after the next election are disturbing – letting big polluters off the hook is not only unfair, but will drastically reduce our ability to bring down emissions.
While the all-party committee meets, we are urging you to place a much higher priority on measures to reduce emissions that can be put in place now. For example, your budget has $826 million this year for building roads but only $63 million for expanded transit. More funding for public transit and affordable fares is needed now. Tough regulatory changes for landfills, oil and gas flaring, and other sources of emissions can also be put in place right away.
In short, we urge your government to:
- immediately establish an all-party committee to engage British Columbians in a public discussion about climate change and bring specific proposals back to the fall session of the Legislature;
- take immediate measures to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
- bring the battle against climate change out from behind closed doors and into the open, so British Columbians can be united in the most important task facing our generation.It is an important first step that you have acknowledged some of the problems posed by your fuel tax. For the sake of future generations, we urge you to take the necessary next steps to ensure that our collective fight to stop climate change is successful.
Sincerely,
Carole James, Leader
New Democrat Official Opposition
Shane Simpson, MLA, Vancouver-Hastings
Opposition Environment Critic
$225 oil by 2012
Yuck, another post about peak oil.
But Jeff Rubin, Chief Economist for CIBC world markets offers another jarring prediction for the very near future... and the popular media is listening.
$150/bl oil by 2010 and $225/bl oil by 2012, double the cost before Gateway is even finished. The reason, not because of some american govn't or oil company conspiracy, not because the next big one hasn't come on-line yet, but because the demand for oil in developing countries will eclipse the demand in the traditional markets. (north america) Thus as consumers of the stuff, we will have less and less influence on the price and how or where it is consumed.
But Mr Rubin is very clear about the consequences of these prices: fewer people will be driving in America.
While this doesn't bode well for the hope of reducing GHGs, our own economists are now pointing the very real possibility that when it comes to global commodities, we are less and less in control of the resources we need to maintain our 5-planet eco-footprint.
As Mr Rubin suggestions ...US families are going to have to get off the roads to accomodate the millions of families in the developing world who are scrambling to get on the road
We could lament the lack of control of our own resources and start to cry protectionism, or we may want to start investing in infrastructure which reduces our need for the stuff in the first place.
And with fewer people driving in American (and Canada) its certainly is hard to justify the need to double the capacity of highways in regions which could be very well served by world class public transit, and better community planning.
Here's a news article link:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=67771e46-d27c-4872-9224-efda9e086dfe&k=62562
Burns Bog event Sunday in Delta
Come to Delta on Sunday and hear what the experts say about protecting the bog, climate change etc.
cheers, Wilma
Rally for Rail in Langley
The movement for rail in the Valley continues to build steam with a Forum and workshops this Saturday, organized by VALTAC.
Location: LANGLEY TOWNSHIP HALL
Address: 20338 - 65 Avenue Langley, BC
SCHEDULE:
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM: Transit 101 workshop (see www.transitlab.ca)
1:00 PM - 4:00 PM: Public forum and discussion groups
AFTERNOON SPEAKERS:
Stephen Rees - Transportation economist and regional planner
Ben West - Healthy Communities Campaigner, Wilderness Committee
Peter Holt - VALTAC Director, on history of the Interurban and its future
Donald Malcolm Johnston - Delta Light Rail Committee
Eric Doherty - Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, TRANSIT LAB
Congestion Pricing - What Happened To Good Old Fashioned Taxes?
An interesting point of view to consider from the NY Times, summarized on planetizen.com. Is it a good thing to institute congestion charges so those who have enough money to do so can keep driving, but avoid the worst of peak hour congestion? Or would it be better to tax the wealthy to greatly improve transit, and let people decide if they want to take the extra time it takes to drive at rush hour?
Note that the tolls being proposed for the Port Mann are not congestion charges as such, the toll would be the same all day long (unless the private operator decided that they could make more money by jacking up the tolls at peak periods).
What Happened To Good Old Fashioned Taxes?
Posted by: Christian Peralta
23 April 2008 - 6:00am
Congestion pricing is really just a regressive tax thats hurt the poor, argues one New York Assemblyman. If government wants to improve transit and the environment, it should simply tax wealthy Americans more to do it.
"[T]he assault in Albany against the Bloomberg plan was led by...Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, whose father, it is worth noting, was an organizer for an engineers’ union and whose mother worked in the 1948 Progressive Party campaign of Henry Wallace. They reared their son with the principles of the Progressive movement. Thus Mr. Brodsky, 61, in an interview at his Colonial-era home here, said he had long opposed “pricing mechanisms as the preferred way of solving social problems.” The reason: these schemes put the burden for paying the fees on blueblood and blue collar alike, he said.
“I don’t believe public places should be distributed based on an ability to pay,” Mr. Brodsky said, stretching his suede cowboy boots out from his armchair while sipping a glass of tea. “In the end I’m a progressive before I’m an environmentalist.”
However far Mr. Brodsky — or for that matter his entire ’60s generation — may have strayed from younger, idealistic stirrings, combating traffic congestion with fees has for more than a decade seemed to him, well, regressive. The people who would have borne the brunt were working- and middle-class stiffs in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx who for whatever reason feel they need to take a car into the area below 60th Street on workdays."
"“These pricing mechanisms try to modify behavior of people who can’t afford to do what it is we want them to do,” he said."
"There’s a fair argument to be made that we already have pricing mechanisms — subway fares and bridge tolls — that burden rich and poor alike. But opponents like Mr. Brodsky say that if a relatively novel twist like congestion pricing succeeds, governments desperate for money could start charging people for taking a walk in a city park or entering a library."
Source: The New York Times, Apr 22, 2008
Find the full NY Times article at http://www.planetizen.com/node/30875