Bill Good Show
I will be on CKNW's Bill Good Show Monday morning, from 9 to 10, as part of a four-person panel talking about the provincial government's Gateway Project. Paul Landry of the BC Trucking Association and I will be representing the pro-Gateway side, while Donna Passmore of the FV Conservation Committee and Eric Doherty of the Livable Region Coalition will be speaking in opposition.Ms. Passmore is already forwarding e-mails around pointing out that I'm a (GASP! Wait for it!) BC Liberal (the horror!) and therefore should be disqualified from speaking on Gateway. Sigh. I guess elected officials shouldn't have the opportunity to express their residents' strong support for twinning the Port Mann and the other Gateway projects?
Anyway, the Bill Good Show is promoting the slot as "More highways versus more public transit... we'll hear from both sides in the debate over the Gateway Project." For me, there is no "versus"--we need both. In fact, you can't have one without the other. We need to find a balance. Right now, we are starving for both road and transit options--Gateway will help us with both.
Feel free to post your thoughts on Gateway in the comments, or e-mail me at jbateman@tol.bc.ca.
posted by Jordan Bateman @ 7:15 AM
8 Comments:
That GASP must be your lungs as you try to suck in some clean air from the liberal strategy of more roads equals less pollution and less traffic.
Dream on you throwbacks from the 60's, this is the 20th century, get with it, cars and pavement are the problem not the solution.
Jordan,
I don't have a problem with anyone putting forth a point of view, regardless of political stripe or partizanship. Unfortunately, in Canada the party-whip tends to drown out real opinions of the constiuency. And a partizan's comments are often just that partizan.
But I think it is great that you've put up a blog - a very bold move, opening the doors to everyone this way! I am glad to be a conttributor.
For me, your comment of residents' strong support has dubious foundings:
For example, based solely on the comments published by Gateway about Sea to Sky improvements, I was a supporter. However, after I learned what damage was being done, I quickly decided that the ends do not justify the means.
I believe that the strong support you are seeing is founded on people who have not be truthfully advised about the impacts to community and environment. I believe that were more people aware about the threat that the SFPR is to the Bog, that strong support would get soft.
Everyone wants a solution to their commute woes, so even of a few birds get displaced, so be it I'll get to work sooner. It is human nature.
If people realized that it is an entire unique ecosystem being destroyed, and that in two years, three years, maybe even five years, not only will they be back where they started, but all those beautiful homes they've bought in the valley are now cloaked in smog choking their children to death - they might reserve judgment, if not take a stand in opposition.
Finally, Here here to Bill Good- great to put it out there for all - but, I think Pro-Road and Pro-Transit are both minimalizing the positions (of both parties) and the issue. Vancouver has a complex problem, with the large diversity rarely seen in an urban area. This debate is much deeper then roads or busses - its about peoples needs not being met by any plan we've seen so far.
Jordan,
I don't have a problem with anyone putting forth a point of view, regardless of political stripe or partizanship. Unfortunately, in Canada the party-whip tends to drown out real opinions of the constiuency. And a partizan's comments are often just that partizan.
But I think it is great that you've put up a blog - a very bold move, opening the doors to everyone this way! I am glad to be a contributor.
For me, your comment of residents' strong support has dubious foundings:
For example, based solely on the comments published by Gateway about Sea to Sky improvements, I was a supporter. However, after I learned what damage was being done and moreover that an alternative solution that was safer eliminated that damage, I quickly decided that the ends do not justify the means.
I believe that the strong support you are seeing is founded on people who have not been truthfully advised about the impacts to community and environment. I believe that were more people aware about the threat that the SFPR is to the Bog, that strong support would get soft.
Everyone wants a solution to their commute woes, so even of a few birds get displaced, so be it I'll get to work sooner. It is human nature.
If people realized that it is an entire unique ecosystem being destroyed, and that in two years, three years, maybe even five years, not only will they be back where they started, but all those beautiful homes they've bought in the valley are now cloaked in smog choking their children to death - they might reserve judgment, if not take a stand in opposition. Add to to that some common sense alternative solutions, that, all executed in a coordinated manner would both solve their problem and save the community and environment that have been dismissed and falsly accounted by Gateway - they'de probably get to a state of outrage!
Finally, Here here to Bill Good- great to put it out there for all - but, I think Pro-Road and Pro-Transit are both minimalizing the positions (of both parties) and the issue. Vancouver has a complex problem, with the large diversity rarely seen in an urban area. This debate is much deeper then roads or busses - its about peoples needs not being met by any plan we've seen so far.
Wow - can I offer you a mild dose of "COMMON SENSE" - If public transit is "poor quality" or "unavailable" south of the fraser - maybe money should be invested NOW to make it better. Maybe, Mr. Bateman, since you are a Liberal, you could suggest that your government officials actually consult the multitude of independent studies published everywhere from Stockholm to London on how targeted congestion pricing on congested roads reduces congestion up to 25% within 6 months...without expanding a road 1 inch. Perhaps you and other government officials haven't noticed that gas prices have lept to $1.25 per litre (of course - you are probably able to write a large amount of gas expenditures off as work related...), and perhaps you failed to noticed that the REST OF THE WORLD (London, New York, Stockholm, LA, Portland, San Fransisco, Seoul...) has realized that single occupancy vehicle dominance, transport via diesel spewing polluting truck (no matter how FAST you drive these trucks you still have to stop and start them, they still spew toxic particulate into our air (right into all those elementary schools that are withint 1 mile of the proposed SFPR), that these are part of the problem that has brought our planet and species to the brink of climate chaos, and that we need to change FUNDAMENTALLY the way we do trade, travel and everyday business. If you and your Liberal government want to be relics of a by-gone era of endless highway expansion and unbridled consumption of fossil fuels (or ethanol fuels for that matter - do your homework - they're not much better...) then fine, just don't destroy our incredibly precious jewel of a Lower Mainland in the process - pave your own backyard instead...
This post has been removed by the author.
"...road and transit options--Gateway will help us with both..."
That Gateway will somehow help with transit is one of those ideas that keeps getting repeated but there seems to be no evidence to support it.
There have been some vague promises about bus service on the twinned Port Mann bridge in the far distant future but there have been NO specific plans on incorporating transit into the Gateway project.
In fact, transit projects keep getting delayed and reduced due to funding cuts. If the funding that is planned for the Gateway project could be used by transit we might be able to meet the original targets for bus and rail expansion in the lower mainland.
Transit is a much more efficient way to move people in an urban environment. But currently people are choosing to drive single occupancy vehicles because our buses and skytrains are overcrowded. An investment in transit could provide immediate congestion relief.
Kevin Falcon addressed the Delta Chamber of Commerce and spouted the same rhetoric that he is becoming known for. He stated that the SFPR will not impact Burns Bog, yet his environmental application says;
“An estimated 12.78 ha of land supporting the viability of Burns Bog…would be impacted due to the SFPR. About 7 ha of this is Zone 1 land with attributes required to preserve the viability of Burns Bog...” (Main Binder, p. 366, para 3)
Kevin Falcon should know by now if you destroy land that is required to preserve the Bog’s viability, then you are threatening the very life of the Bog! Many fought long and hard to protect and preserve this valuable and timeless property that cost the tax payers millions to purchase.
Minister Falcon also said that the Hoover-Naas proposal would take up the same amount of agricultural land as his South Fraser Perimeter Road proposal, this is a false statement. The Hoover-Naas proposal is a two-lane truck route that stays within the railway right-of-way, while the SFPR would be four lanes running directly through Delta’s best farm land, do the math!
In addition, Mr. Falcon said that the Hoover-Naas only deals with 10% of the traffic, again this is a false statement. Since the Hoover-Naas removes all the heavy trucks and commercial traffic from Highway 17 and each semi truck is the equivalent of a least three car lengths but far less manoeuvrable, this equates to over 30% of the traffic taken off Highway 17. Again, this math isn’t too difficult.
Math might not be a strong point for Kevin Falcon and his Ministry, but they should be able to understand that the Hoover-Naas proposal would be at least $200 million dollars cheaper. In addition, Olaf Naas, who developed the proposal, has extensive experience in road and rail building in and around the Bog lands.
www.thereisanotherway.com
I along with others had the opportunity to sit with Kevin Falcon and Mike Proudfoot from Gateway in May 2006 to discuss alternatives to the proposed South Fraser Perimeter Road, and in that meeting, Mr. Proudfoot was insistent that the costs for a tunnel through the North Delta leg were prohibitive, pegging them at $600 million without a scrap of evidence.
We discussed at length a number of factors, for which he had prepared positive spin answers to dissuade us from our purpose.
Not only did his answers fail to sway us, now we see that we were on the right track.
Today, Minister Falcon and Gateway is already 67 per cent through the “extraordinary” contingency with expropriation costs alone. Clearly, there are some errors in their planning.
Given Falcon’s comments in last Friday’s Leader, “South Fraser Perimeter Road costs now at $1 billion,” that expropriation of 200 homes is costing $400 million, plus the hidden costs of the environmental, heritage and aboriginal mitigation settlements. PLUS the construction costs of the SFPR through this section.
It is safe to say that with our original tunnel proposal, originally put forward by John Cummins MP back in 1998 which is much more environmentally sound and requires no 0$ dollars for property expropriations, and no 0$ dollars for mitigation for a bargain price of approximately $400 million all in this would have been and many believe still would be well invested in building a tunnel under the Delta escarpment. Preserving heritage properties, panoramic views, protecting the foreshore of the Fraser River and saving Burns Bog.
We need the road, no question. There are alternatives, the Hoover-Nass or a variation thereof. Our cousins in Europe have been tunnelling for years. How can they afford it and the 'trade rich' in the west say we can’t?
Once this road is down it’s there forever and the damage will be done. Let’s get it right the first time.
Delta Resident,
The current Gateway plan needs som serious changes. Highway expansion will kill the quality of life in our cities. Twinning the bridge seems like a good idea, but the rest of it is crap.
Post a Comment
<< Home