The conundrum that is Gateway
Posted on December 4th, 2007 in environment, politics, rants, surrey, transportation, vancouver |
You may have noticed a few trends throughout my many transportation related posts: I’m a transit man thru and thru, I spend a crazy amount of time coming up with solutions that will never be implemented, and I have a disdain for Kevin Falcon. One you may not have picked up on though is my lack on stance on the Gateway Project. It’s because, unlike some organizations, I see both sides of the story, and I know the world is just not as black and white as some would like as to see it. Polarization and arguments don’t help solve the problem.
Growth, at least at this point in time, is nearly inevitable. Whether that is in population, the service sector, or goods movement. We are living in good times and should be glad this is not the recession of the 80’s. That said, we should capitalize on our healthy economy to make the investments today to ensure this wealth continues for years to come.
Based on the projections, Vancouver is going to grow and become a national Gateway to the Pacific. And, heck, why should we turn down all the new tax sources? Why send the ships down to Seattle or L.A. when we’re the best suited for the job? Let’s embrace this opportunity.
And so, the federal, and provincial, governments, along with business organizations have developed what amounts to a Gateway strategy - implementing strategic upgrading of important transportation corridors to enable this expansion to occur. I’m glad governments are so gung ho to invest in the Lower Mainland.
However, we must take into consideration that there are more stakeholders in the region than just truckers and businessmen from China. There are 2.1 million residents, expected to grow past 3 million by 2030. Our region is one of the best places on Earth to live in, and we don’t want to sacrifice this lifestyle, but improve it for the future.
Does this strategy of a livable, and sustainable, lifestyle conflict with the concept of becoming a national Gateway? Perhaps, at least conceptually, but I think if any place is best suited to find creative solutions to satisfy all parties, then it’s Metro Vancouver. We’ve got an incredible history behind us of using communication and cooperation to move our region forward, and now’s not the time to stop it.
Unfortunately, I feel that a lot of this will fall on deaf ears. I hate to be so critical of another human being, but based on the actions of Mr. Falcon, I have seen nothing that tells me he is willing to make some important changes to the Gateway Program.
In my personal view, these should include:
- Regional bylaws to ensure there is a green buffer zone between all strategic Gateway routes and areas (ports, truck stops, etc.) *
- Implementation of a toll system whereby funds are returned to public coffers, and once the bridge is paid off, funds go directly to TransLink (i.e. The Golden Ears Bridge)
- Work with TransLink to incorporate any tolling system into a region wide travel demand management system, ensuring equity to residents around the region *
- Ensuring that, based on the new Regional Growth Strategy currently in development by Metro Vancouver, that said board has the powers it requests - this may include overseeing and tracking development goals for all municipalities, reserving key transportation corridors for future use, preserving and enhancing the Green Zone, development of an Industrial Land Reserve, etc.
- Prohibiting parking on any Gateway route *
- Participating in the development of guidelines and goals for efficient road movement. Headed by TransLink with all stakeholders as part of a goods movement strategy. *
- Discouraging the single occupancy vehicle by promising extensive funding for more transit expansion, in partnership with TransLink’s regional plans, and by implementing a proposed provincial wide carbon tax *
- Changing from HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to HOT (high occupancy tolled) lanes. This new definition puts real time variable tolls on the lanes, allowing single occupancy vehicles to purchase access onto the lane, based on the current number of vehicles on the lane. This number of vehicles/hour for optimal lane efficiency would be defined in the proposed studies above. The HOT definition would also be expanded so that carpools, transit vehicles, motorcycles, hybrid vehicles, and smaller than normal vehicles (i.e. smart cars) could drive in the lane for free.
- Plan for the future designation of a second lane of Hwy 1 to become either HOT, or for goods movement only.
- Limiting SOV access to the North and South Fraser Perimeter Roads. This could be anything from defining them as goods movement vehicles only, or installing them as HOT laned routes. As a HOT route, SOV users could buy their way on if necessary, while restricting a huge increase of SOVs that would congest the routes.
- Ensuring the North and South Fraser Perimeter Roads are built in way so as not to prevent public access to the Fraser River waterfront, and without any major disruption of the environment surrounding the routes.
- Ensuring that all new facilities in the Gateway Program provide safe and secure cycling routes. Planning of said routes should include intense dialogue with the stakeholders, including the very proactive and vocal cycling groups in existence.
- Pursue Public-Private Partnerships. However, they must not be detrimental in any way to the public land, public amenities, and the public’s interest. Furthermore, once the contracts are up, the P3 facilities must return into the full control of local and provincial authorities.
- Work with stakeholders to shift goods movement travel to afterhours when the least amount of people are travelling.
- Either update the Gateway Program to be an encompassing transportation plan for the whole Lower Mainland (means including large transit, walking, and cycling components), in coordination with regional plans, or develop a parallel plan with regional authorities in which promises are made to provide substantial provincial funding for transit, walking, and cycling improvements.
It may shock you, but a number of these proposals are also supported by the Gateway Council, the group which has been pushing for this whole Gateway strategic infrastructure upgrade for over a decade. All the suggestions with a star behind them are supported by the Gateway Council.
This approach of mine is all about the devil in the details. It’s understanding and approving the concept, but tweaking the plan and policies that implement to ensure a better overall life for the public.
I think this notion is something the NDP really has to work on, so that they don’t alienate potential supporters. They’ve done it to South of the Fraser residents by opposing Gateway, and to First Nations communities and their allies with the Tsawwassen Treaty. Sure, they may keep their backers in Vancouver (Gateway), or farmers and land-use planners (Tsawwassen), but they are just responding to big issues with simple answers. Which is just making things more polarized than actually bringing stakeholders together and working collaboratively to improve the situation.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Responses
(Apologies for the long post, but I got carried away.) While I respect your opinions and am a little bit surprised by them, I think you miss a few things. I look at it from the environmental standpoint. Your individual points are quite valid, but even if the project addresses all of them, there would still be major problems.
First, the Federal Gateway is different from the Provincial Gateway Project although each seems to rely on the other. The Federal Gateway is all about trade with Asia, but the Provincial Gateway Project is about moving people and (ostensibly) goods throughout the lower mainland.
Neither of these Gateways address the environment on any more than a superficial level. Perhaps, as you say, both of these Gateways can be tweaked so that environmental issues are addressed directly and admirably, but I am not so sure this is possible.
Let’s start with the Federal Gateway. It is predicated on the fact that both the supply and demand for Asian goods (specifically China) will continue to increase at the same rate as they have been. This is questionable. China’s economy is one of the dirtiest in the world. If we are to seriously address climate change, we will have to encourage China to change one way or the other (preferably, we should lead by example). Second, if we still wanted to pursue increased trade with China, a more environmentally benign location for port expansion is in Prince Rupert. They already have a smaller port and a good rail connection (most long haul goods go by rail anyway). A port there would provide a much needed boost to their economy. It’s location makes it one day each way closer by boat to Asia, and one day each way closer to the east coast.
Now, the Provincial Gateway. Ostensibly, one of the goals of the Provincial Gateway is meant to help transport goods from the expanded port. As mentioned above, I think the fact that the port should be expanded is questionable, but even if you do believe it should the goods should travel by rail, not road.
The other reason for Gateway is movement of people. This is currently a genuine problem in Metro Vancouver and there are no easy solutions, but I think the focus on roads first and then (maybe) transit is backwards, especially since the environment is turning into the number one concern of lower mainland residents. We should be focussing on getting world class transit throughout Metro Vancouver (we have the density in many places), and then looking to expand our highways if it is still necessary. Your suggestion of tolling is a good idea, but it amounts to a regressive tax unless cheap, viable alternatives are available
@ Andrew. No worries, I love comments! I understand your point of view, and I do not think we are that far apart in our thoughts.
I think it’s quite clear from examining the Provincial Gateway that it is primarily about goods movement, but is masked as a way to reduce public traffic congestion for general use. Anyone who takes a look at the plan can see it’s exactly what the business and industry lobbyists have been asking for for years. Just by the fact that the government isn’t designating either Fraser Perimeter Roads as goods movement use only is a very evident clue that they are trying to push the plan as one to reduce overall congestion. Stupid decision, as I outline above, because SOVs will simply fill these key goods movement corridors right up, then we’ll be back where we are today.
Definitely, the future of China, and Asia overall, needs to be taken into account. However, as the USA empire falls, and China, and India, rebalance the world’s powers, whether or not they initiate efforts to curb climate change, Asia will still continue to be the world’s manufacturers for a long time coming. Maybe 50 years down the line, this may shift to either South America or Africa, as they will be the last areas on Earth with a poor population. Yes, climate change changes everything, even the goods China makes for the world, but I do not see the shift as being as dramatic as some have suggested, and surely growth will continue, at least to some degree.
AFAIK, a recent port or rail expansion occured in Prince Rupert. I compltely agree that more traffic should be diverted there, perhaps the goods that are destined for Eastern Canada, while the goods for the USA should come to Vancouver.
I also agree that more should be done to upgrade our rail system to be a greater alternative to trucking. However, you must also agree that trucking is an integral part to goods movement, especially at a very local level. The goods from the ports have to be organized and transported to the rail yards in some fashion, and I believe that these upgraded highways, done properly, will facilitate simpler and faster connections by road, which in turn means an improved economy for a long time coming.
The impacts to the environment are huge, and this must be of primary concern. However, can measures be taken, in terms of routing, to reduce or practically eliminate this impact? Of course it can. If the Gateway Program will facilitate a greatly improved economy to this region, then surely paying hundreds of millions more to reduce the impact to the environment is worth it in the long run.
My final point has to do with your final paragraph. Here, is a simple question of the egg and the chicken. What should we do first? Transit or roads? While both are completely viable options, I think we should, at this time, pursue roads first, for three reasons.
1) If highway expansion is done now, and the roads congest again, the onus will be on the government that their plan went wrong and millions must be spent to get people out of their cars.
2) By doing roads first, and putting on congestion charges, the money raised from these tolls can pay for vastly improved transit. The problem with the current policy for tolling though needs to be rethinked, as it should be implemented, I believe, evenly throughout the region. In addition, the tolling from the Port Mann needs to go back into improving transit in your area, not paying back a private corporation for it’s capital investment on the bridge.
3) People like their cars. It’s very difficult to get them to switch, even with a vastly improved transit system. Finding the capital funds for the Evergreen Line is hard enough - just imagine trying to get the money to build a number of rapid transit lines in Metro Vancouver.
I think congestion pricing is not only a very powerful market-controlling tool, but will raise the funds needed to build this better transit system. Let’s give them better roads, but at the same time price them, then put those funds into better transit. The alternatives aren’t nearly as nice: 1) huge transit investment by government (they don’t have the money), or 2) road pricing on current road network (it would be dead on arrival).