On Thursday night, Karen and I attended City Making in Paradise, a panel session at Simon Fraser University's Harbour Centre, which featured an introduction of the book of the same name by former British Columbia premier Mike Harcourt and former GVRD planner Ken Cameron. Subtitled "Nine Decisions That Saved Greater Vancouver's Livability", the book, due in September, lays out the case that Vancouver and surrounding area since 1948 could have gone in many directions but instead chose a relatively enlightened one. Stephen Rees has the definitive notes, and I took a few my photos of Harcourt, Cameron, and the other panelists.
Only about 1% of vehicles currently sold in Canada are hybrids. The best estimates I have seen predict that the Gateway project will increase automotive emissions by 31%. Hybrids under best conditions can reduce emissions by half. So if, 1% of the increase is from vehicles that reduce emission by half that means that the increase will be 30.85% instead of 31%.
How will a 30.85% increase instead of 31% help us meet Premier Campbell's target of a 33% reduction?
How do we explain to parents of an asthmatic child that their asthma attacks will be 30.85% worse instead of 31% worse?
Hybrid vehicles are a small part of the solution, but if we really care about people in our region we need better solutions.
Except the fact is that BC reduced emissions during a period when we were NOT building highways but instead making limited investments in public transit. Why would we want to reverse this trend and invest money in highways instead of transit? Especially when the the reduction we have seen is only one tenth of the Province's own modest emissions targets? And when even the Province admits that the Gateway project will increase GHG emissions?
Now, they are trying to argue that the increased use of hybrids means we should support the Gateway program.
In a recent column in the Surrey Leader BC Trucking Association president Paul Landry said:
“...there are people who think you can reverse that logic and apply it to roads – “If you don’t build it, they’ll stay away.” Unfortunately, if you follow their logic you’ll not only end up without a Field of Dreams,...”
Of course this is just one man's opinion and he offers NO evidence to support that position.
In fact, the evidence suggest otherwise. Extensive research has found that traffic can be reduced if you “don't build it” AND give people alternatives.
Here is part of the summary of the report:
“This paper reports on two phases of research, resulting in the examination of over 70 case studies of roadspace reallocation from eleven countries, and the collation of opinions from over 200 transport professionals worldwide. ... significant reductions in overall traffic levels can occur, with people making a far wider range of behavioural responses than has traditionally been assumed.”
A recent comment on this blog claimed that SPEC did not support commuter or transit trains in the Fraser Valley. Of course, this is false. Ironically enough just today SPEC announced an advertising campaign to promote passenger rail in the valley.
I came across the most bizarre quote from another blogger. In response to the statment, "double the Port Mann bridge and you'll get double the traffic within a year or so" he states, "this assertion is utterly false. No responsible expert would state such rubbish."
Why does the Gateway Projet bring out such Orwellian Doublespeak?
In fact the exact opposite is true. Experts almost universally agree with this statement. Here are a few quotes.
Larry Frank, currently the UBC chair of sustainable urban transportation systems:
"Building these highways in the absence of strict growth controls will only result in more congestion and auto dependency.....You cannot build your way out of congestion."
“In our province, we have the ludicrous Gateway project, ...There’ll be more cars, and in about three months, we’ll be jammed up and more cars will be idling than now.”
Other cities in Europe, Asia and North America are increasingly turning to various forms of road and congestion pricing to reduce crippling levels of traffic congestion. Find out how metropolitan areas around the world are using road pricing as an alternative to the traditional approach of simply expanding road networks to meet demand. Audience Q & A to follow.
Presentation by Lee Munnich, one of North America’s leading congestion pricing experts
Mr. Munnich is a senior fellow and director of the State and Local Policy Program at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. He has been a leader in the area of congestion pricing since the 1990s, specializing in political and institutional issues. Munnich chairs the Transportation Research Board's Subcommittee on Pricing Outreach. He played a primary role in developing Minnesota's I-394 MnPASS Express Lanes, a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane project, in 2005.
This event is co-sponsored by Better Environmentally Sound Transportation (BEST) and by the SFU City Program
