Ottawa ups Gateway contribution
Here is some outstanding news for Gateway supporters: the federal government had added $360 million to its contribution to the province-led project. That brings Ottawa's total contribution to $800 million.The Burnaby News Leader has the story:
Ottawa is pledging to spend $360 million more on six Gateway-related projects in the Lower Mainland, most of it for Fraser River perimeter roads to speed the flow of trucks and other traffic.
A full quarter billion of Friday’s announcement will go towards the billion-dollar 40-kilometre South Fraser Perimeter Road to run from Deltaport to Highway 1, pushing the federal government’s earlier $102-million contribution up to $365 million.
Another $65 million will go to the four-lane extension of United Boulevard as part of the $400-million North Fraser Perimeter Road, as well as a new four-lane rail overpass, a four-lane bridge across the Brunette River and an interchange at Brunette Ave.
“It’s not a bridge here or a road there,” said International Trade Minister David Emerson, who made the announcement Friday at Fraser Surrey Docks. “It’s an overall system for trade.”
He said Ottawa will deliver a total of $800 million that it has earmarked for its Asia-Pacific Gateway Corridor Initiative to B.C. projects.
The provincial and federal infrastructure spending aims to exploit rising trade with China, which is projected to triple container port shipments through Vancouver over the next 15 years.
Premier Gordon Campbell and B.C. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon hailed the announcement.
“What it means is full steam ahead,” said Falcon, who has until now criticized Ottawa for providing too little, too slowly. “This is a huge commitment to British Columbia. I think we’ve seen a significant shift."
(clip)
Ottawa is also to add another $25 million for rail overpasses to help deal with growing congestion as more trains go to and from local ports.
Absent from the federal pledges was any money for the contentious twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and widening of Highway 1 that critics say will fuel sprawl and drive up air emissions.
Campbell cut off a question about the discrepancy aimed at Emerson, saying the province hasn’t asked Ottawa to put money toward the Highway 1/Port Mann project.
“That is our objective,” the premier said. “And in fact it’s going to be supported by a private-public partnership and supported by tolls.”
Emerson said he’s not worried about opposition from critics of port expansion. “I’ve never seen a project yet that didn’t have proponents and opponents,” Emerson said. “I’m not concerned about that.”
He was also pressed by reporters on how the road expansions will help reduce greenhouse gas reductions. “A more efficient transportation system has less bottlenecks, it has less idling,” Emerson responded. “This is going to be good for the environment.”
The work planned will make the Lower Mainland both “more livable” and able to support jobs for the long haul, Emerson said.
“Maybe you don’t want any more growth in Canada or British Columbia,” Emerson said. “Have that debate. But don’t disguise that debate as an environmental debate, because it’s a different one.”
If anyone was questioning the government's commitment to Gateway, Friday's announcement should lay their doubts to rest.
10 Comments:
“But don’t disguise that debate as an environmental debate,..”
This is probably the most bizarre statement from Emerson. The gateway project will include:
- an increase of container ships which each contribute more than pollution than 2,000 diesel trucks (including particulate matter which has NO safe level).
- the loss of a wildlife management area three times the size of Stanley park
permanent damage to the hydrology of Burn's Bog
- the loss of 1,000 acres of farmland
- an increase of 31% in on-road green house gas emissions
- l the serious health concerns associated with increased traffic
And it is not an environmental debate?????
This is Orwellian double-speak at its worst.
What is the alternative for those container ships? 2-3 days longer at sea, belching out pollution, to get to San Francisco.
Not to mention Canada losing the economic benefit of this trade.
By the way, today's David Suzuki green tip in the Sun: don't let your car idle for more than ten seconds. It's better enviornmentally to turn it off and start it up again. The folks queueing up on the six-mile wait for the Port Mann will be glad to know Mr. Suzuki has come around to opposing poitnless vehicle idling.
Thank you for finally responding to comments on your blog.
"What is the alterative for those container ships?"
There are several. Here are a couple that come to mind:
- Concentrating on developing our local economy. Supporting local value-added manufacturing and job creation. The idea that we must rely on foreign exports to maintain economic activity is a myth.
- Requiring more stringent environmental control on ships (including things like electrical grid connections while in port) like many U.S. ports are starting to do. We are behind on these regulations.
"The folks queueing up on the six-mile wait for the Port Mann ... opposing poitnless [sic] vehicle idling."
Again, all the evidence suggests that shortly after highway expansion we will simply have two more lanes of vehicles idling. And more pollution.
Also from my experience crossing the Port Mann there is really only short periods where vehicles are actually completely stopped and idling. Most of the time vehicles are simply moving slowly (sometimes moving very slowly). And vehicles can actually use less fuel running at certain low speeds than they do at full highway speeds and produce less pollution.
Another point to remember is that as more people switch to hybrid vehicles we will end up with less pollution while idling.
So, Jordan, do you want to meet for coffee sometime?
SPEC had some interesting comments on this:
Media Briefing Note
RE: Asia Pacific Gateway Announcement May 11/07
1. Concerning lack of federal funding for the expansion of Highway 1 and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.
Premier Gordon Campbell was reported as saying: “That is our objective, [H1/PM2] And in fact it’s going to be supported by a private-public partnership and supported by tolls.”
David Emerson has stated publicly that the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge is “not essential” to the Asia Pacific trade agenda. You can hear his remarks here:
http://www.cleanairradio.ca/carcasts/Hwy_Question_Emerson.mp3
Mr. Emerson's remarks were made during the last federal election at a Vancouver-Kingsway riding all candidates meeting. The question posed was “What is your position on the expansion of highway 1 and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge?”
Currently, 8% of the traffic crossing the Port Mann Bridge is goods movement traffic. 73% of traffic crossing the bridge is comprised of single-occupancy vehicles. The Port Mann Bridge is the only bridge in the region that does not have transit service.
SPEC asks: If the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and expansion of Highway 1 is not essential to the trade agenda and does not have federal support then what exactly is the purpose of the project, in the mind of the Premier?
The LRC proposal for South of Fraser and the Port Mann Corridor includes rapid bus transit along the Fraser Highway and King George Highway connecting South Surrey and Langley with SkyTrain. A Surrey-Coquitlam Bullet would run from Surrey City Hall, with a spur line from Surrey Central, and enter Highway 1at 152nd Street using a bypass lane that would allow it to avoid congestion and cross to Coquitlam Town Centre. This bridge crossing service was to be in place this year but has been stopped due to the push for Gateway. Bringing SkyTrain up to the full number of cars would create capacity on the Sky Bridge equivalent to 16 lanes of freeway. The LRC proposal would mesh with TransLink's South Fraser transit planning now underway and would work with a revitalized Interurban Rail Line that has gained support from Surrey City Council.
http://www.livableregion.ca/pdf/Transport_for_a_Sustainable_Region.pdf
2. Concerning David Emerson's remarks on how freeway expansion will reduce greenhouse gas emissions
When asked by reporters how freeway expansion would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Emerson was reported as saying: “A more efficient transportation system has less bottlenecks, it has less idling,” Emerson responded. “This is going to be good for the environment.”
The above statement is in keeping with public remarks made previously by the Premier. This statement contradicts a provincial government study and a SPEC study that both show increases to greenhouse gas emissions if the Gateway Project is built.
The above statement is also at odds with previous public statements that Mr. Emerson has made on the topic. In the following video Mr. Emerson says: “ The freeway issue is that when you build new freeways, they do attract new traffic and over time that accommodates more traffic and doesn't take traffic off the road.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAD3n0mRnVU
SPEC asks: Given the evidence that the Gateway Program will increase greenhouse gas emissions, does the federal government believe that greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by the proposed freeway and bridge expansions and can they prove it?
1.
- A study done for the Ministry of Transportation by RWDI Inc. and submitted to the Environmental Assessment Office for the South Fraser Perimeter Road found that the Gateway Project as a whole would increase regional on-road emissions by 0.3% or 124 000 tonnes.
http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/html/deploy/epic_document_196_22440.html
- A SPEC report, Cooking the Books, Cooking the Planet, found that the RWDI study low-balled the results by creating a false baseline figure that included Whatcom County in the US but left Whatcom out when calculating Gateway emissions. The RWDI study also used its own formula to calculate fuel consumption instead of actual figures kept by the GVRD. The RWDI study did not take into account landuse impacts nor did it account for emissions from construction. SPEC concluded that the Gateway Program will increase regional on-road greenhouse gas emissions by 31%.
http://www.livableregion.ca/pdf/Cooking_the_Books_Report_Final_05-02-07.pdf
For more information please contact:
David Fields, Campaigner, 604-722-4775
Is that the same SPEC who doctored government emails to bolster their case?
"...same SPEC who doctored..."
That is a pretty serious accusation. I suppose like many of the ponits on this blog there won't be any evidence to support the accusation.
Getting back to the comments David Emerson made - it seems like even member of his own party are taking him to task:
"OTTAWA -- B.C. Conservative MP John Cummins called on Trade Minister David Emerson Monday to slam the brakes on the multibillion-dollar Gateway infrastructure initiative to ensure British Columbians don't become "doormats" to big transportation firms.
Cummins said Ottawa should launch public consultations and bring in world experts to ensure all steps are taken to mitigate the project's negative impact on the environment and quality of life in Delta, Surrey, Langley and other parts of the Lower Mainland.
"It makes no sense to push ahead and spend all of this money on a port that makes the communities adjacent to it little more than doormats on which passing freight wipes its feet and leaves nothing but misery and disruption behind," Cummins (Delta-Richmond East) said in a statement."
source: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=23a0b381-0a9e-4860-9ee8-2b3f7492492a
On SPEC:
http://www.walterschultz.blogspot.com/2007/04/spec-promoting-mistruths.html
Did you actually read the link you referenced?
Schultz takes exception with SPEC not quoting an entire email. Of course, he doesn't quote the entire email himself. And most of the posts on this site reference news articles without quoting the entire article.
SPEC quoted a ministry email that said, “...Therefore, the actual mode share [is] around 10 percent [but] I've worded it in such a way [that it] plays up the 20 percent mode share."
Nobody, including Schultz and Falcon try to claim that this is not what the email says. Nor do they deny the ministry attempt to use misleading wording.
Schultz's only real criticism is that SPEC did not quote part of the email where a consultant claimed that some related report was “honest.” Just because a consultant believes that misleading wording is “honest” (it is not even clear if the consultant was refering to this wording) doesn't change the fact that the wording is misleading. And I don't see how adding this would have changed the substance of the point that SPEC was making.
Also, neither Schultz, yourself nor Falcon have been able to find anything inaccurate in the detailed 23 page report that accompanied the press release.
Check the Peace Arch News story.
I did. Schultz is basicly just repeating what they said. I still don't understand how quoting the whole email would change the substance of the point SPEC was making. It seems to me to be a red herring. Perhaps you can explain?
Post a Comment
<< Home