‘I’m saying don’t build this highway’ near bog
One of the scientific experts on an advisory panel for management of Burns Bog has presented perhaps the strongest argument yet that the controversial proposal for a $1-billion South Fraser Perimeter Road is located in the wrong place.
John Jeglum, a retired Victoria professor and acknowledged global expert on peatland ecology, dropped his bombshell Friday.
He released a position paper that outlines the scientific advisory panel’s grave concerns over Victoria’s intention to build part of the 40-kilometre, four-lane truck freeway along the western and northern borders of Burns Bog, the huge ecological reserve in Delta that’s often described as the “lungs of the Lower Mainland.”
The highway would accommodate increased container truck traffic from an expanded Deltaport.
Jeglum’s highly critical assessment of potential damage to Burns Bog follows an earlier report in which Environment Canada expressed similar concerns.
Just in case Budd Campbell is not clear on my position I would say do not build this highway. Period.
I do not believe that there will be increased container truck traffic - or that there needs to be. I think imports from China will not continue to increase at the rate they have in recent years. I expect the decline in the US economy to be prolonged and severe - and I do not see yet another tax cut doing anything at all to restore confidence. That will affect us too, sooner or later. At the same time US ports are becoming more competitive - our rising dollar will quickly eliminate savings due to shorter sailing times. The new Panama Canal and the opening of the North West Passage will also impact shipping patterns. And Prince Rupert can take more traffic if needs be.
Roberts Bank is as quiet as the grave today. How it can be argued that a port which works on a five day, 8 hour shift pattern needs expansion defeats me.
The environmental argument is very strong indeed. But then it was when the port was last expanded too and the Tswawassen saw their major traditional food source eliminated. If the SFPR goes ahead then BC will have to confess that it has ignored a significant environmental impact for almost no measurable benefit to the province as a whole.
That is a beautiful picture. Were there ever other options for the SFPR identified, or has it been the only choice for them from the get-go?
see http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2007/05/30/south-fraser-perimeter-road/
and the link to “there is another way” - the Hoover/Naas proposal
As with everything that the MoT does, there are always other options there were not examined properly or at all
I think that’s a beautiful picture too. Excellent post as well. As an economy we can’t continue to increase our reliance on China/Asia (or the US) for products, most especially food. For example, I know we have shrimp here, and I know the southern US has a huge shrimp market, and yet every package of shrimp I looked at in the supermarket said it was either from Asia, no source stated, or “Product of Canada” which could mean anything. This country has to become more self-reliant. That includes not selling out to the US (energy privatization, competition for our own energy and water with the US, etc.). What are we willing to give up in order to serve some dreampt-up demand that needn’t be is the question I think needs answering.
Stephen, I think you know very well that I have said repeatedly that the SFPR, and it’s consumption of agricultural land and incursions on Burns Bog is the one element of Gateway that needs to be seriously modified.
I have tried to point out that the Cadmans and Corrigans and other urban critics of Gateway have focussed their opposition on Port Mann - Highway 1, which is almost entirely in an existing ROW and therefore has relatively few obvious environmental problems. The fact that these people have given both the Perimeter Road a pass in their various “unanimous resolutions”, while fulminating endlessly about Port Mann, in my opinion puts the lie to their claim to be responding out of concern for environmental values. That fatuous claims is simply not consistent with the positions they have taken. If any part of this is unclear, please say so.
“relatively few obvious environmental problems” - you cannot be serious!
The major environmental impact - which is being ignored - is that the South of Fraser will continue to develop as car oriented sprawl (as opposed to transit oriented smart growth). The EA did not examine this as induced traffic and change in land use was assumed away. Moreover the alternate was “do nothing” which everyone agrees is not an option. If the same amount was spent on transit expansion South of the Fraser then the same increase in population would be housed differently which changes the land use significantly because it would be denser development.
I am not the expert on the natural environment but the work that was done was inadequate - for example areas suggested for mitigation are already being used for mitigation of earlier projects, one endangered species known to exist now was simply ignored and so on. Moreover, since the traffic forecast is flawed by the assumptions that minimise traffic growth (every other kind of project likes to exaggerate traffic) all the results for air quality, noise, greenhouse gas and so on are too low. Add to that the impacts on Burnaby and East Vancouver - mostly caused by the same underestimated traffic growth - and you have quite a few environmental and other problems.
The opposition to the Gateway goes way beyond “the Cadmans and Corrigans” - and comprises over 500 community groups. (Which I suppose you can easily dismiss as NIMBYs.) And LRC polling shows that more people think that building transit first is a better option than freeway expansion - 70% in fact.
Stephen,
As I mentioned earlier, there is no doubt that it’s a simplifying assumption to use the identical land use, or at least the identical land use for a given time frame, for two scenarios, one with and one without a transportation project. However, as a UofT professor told me no Canadian metro planners have any kind of model that projects land use changes attendant upon highway or other transport investments. So what alternative land use was Gateway supposed to use?
“If the same amount was spent on transit expansion South of the Fraser then the same increase in population would be housed differently which changes the land use significantly because it would be denser development.” The same amount? The Premier’s transit plan is reputed to cost three and half times what Gateway costs. But that’s not really the point here. I want to know how and why you assume that if Surrey’s population grows because there are more buses and Skytrain cars that the look of that growth on the ground will somehow be different that if Surrey grows because PMH1 is built. {Recall Doherty’s condemnation of the WCExpress with its commuter park and ride stations as an instrument of urban sprawl} Will Surrey change it’s OCP depending on which one goes through first? What if both are built simultaneously?
One final point. I have been around BC politics long enough to know that the phrase “500 community groups” really means about 50 individuals, almost all of them residing in either Kits or East Van. Nothing wrong with that, the rich have means of projecting their opinions out of all proportion to their numbers, the not-so-rich should be able to play the game too. But being in neither camp I think I have the right to call BS on both.
Budd
Your U of T professor was misiniformed. Talk to UBC profs next time.
I am sure you recall the wise words of Gordon Price on what development will look like if PM2/Hwy1 proceeds
You have no right to call BS on the extensive list of groups co-ordinated by Donna Passmore South of the Fraser. Most are groups that represent neighbourhoods and existed before the Gateway and will continue afterwards though some, like the port expansion opposition group, are indeed single purpose. Not one is based in Kits or East Van.
Nul pointes as the Eurovision hosts used to say
I think the BC Liberals have badly underestimated the political effect they have created in places like Delta which used to be their strongholds but now look distinctly revolutionary. The anger over the hospital was just the start. The power lines, the treaty, the port and the SFPR have all combined to create a perfect storm of dissent. I never thought of Ladner as a hot bed of opposition before!