Stephen Rees's blog

Vaughan Palmer in the Vancouver Sun once again misses the main point about the Port Mann Bridge. He now says that the government set the toll based on feedback from its public consultation.

The question asked was

“Please indicate how much you agree with … a potential toll (to reduce congestion and limit growth in traffic on the Port Mann Bridge) of $2.50 each way for private vehicles.”

And 56 percent of those submitting answers agreed to some degree.

This is pretty much what you would expect from this kind of feedback. A very similar answer was received when Translink asked Albion Ferry users if they would be willing to pay a toll on a new bridge that would mean they no longer had to wait in line ups and got them across the river more quickly. And as a reality check the amount to be charged was tested in the regional transportation model against a fairly standard measure of the value of time (half the average regional wage hourly wage rate). Though Translink does its market research much more carefully than the province of BC appears to have done in this case.

The justification inserted into the question is a notable departure from the official stated policy on road tolls – which is that they can only be applied to a new facility and only for as long as needed to pay off the capital debt incurred to build it. There also has to be a toll free alternative – which now looks like being the Alex Fraser bridge as the replacement for the Patullo will also be tolled.

But at least he is still on the case. Perhaps this is one of a planned series of articles and soon we can expect trenchant analysis of the failure of widened freeways to relieve traffic congestion, the impact of new freeway capacity on land use or the shoddy way that the environmental assessment glossed over a number of significant issues. Even better would be a quick and dirty guesstimate of how much new transit service could be put into place for the same sort of expenditure and how much more effective that would be at relieving congestion and stimulating the local economy. While bridge building provides a one time shot in the arm by its construction phase, transit spending lasts much longer as capital is only around 12% of total lifetime costs of say buying and running an enlarged fleet of buses.

The cost benefit analysis of the bridge was of course based on outdated costs. The project now is rather more than double what it was – and yet no-one could seriously suggest that the benefits have increased by anything like as much.

The project has become bloated – and much of the benefit will be siphoned off into profits for the private sector partners. They would not be willing to bid on it if they did not think they were going to make money. So we will end up paying – through taxes, tolls and the lost opportunity to spend the current 1/3 the province is going to put up on more sensible investments, with earlier and bigger paybacks.

But give Mr Palmer credit for keeping the story going becuase it is headlines like this that stick in the mind – hopefully until election time.

Vancouver Sun

(As predicted here by Ken Hardie)

TransLink officials won’t allow advertisements promoting atheism to appear on Metro Vancouver’s public transit system.

The BC Humanist Association had wanted to display a message saying “You can be good without God” on various TransLink buses and facilities.

“TransLink has reviewed this material and determined that it does not meet the criteria set out in its Advertising Policy…,” TransLink said in a news release Friday.

“No advertisement will be accepted which promotes or opposes a specific theology or religious ethic, point of view, policy or action.”

Actually the only reason I decided to reproduce the story here is the Sun’s extraordinary choice of illustration. I suppose someone was told to go dig in the files for a picture of a bus and they came up with this one. Nice.

ex Translink trolley buses

This story started popping up in my inbox – from several sources. First take a look at Now Public which has a big slab of stuff from The Australian. Then go to the horse’s mouth and read what they an “operational briefing” which of course is written in much more positive language than the Australian uses – and which you can expect to see sampled in the Asper family media outlets that dominate our local newscape in the next day or so. And certainly not the take used by the Sydney Morning Herald

I am not pinning my hopes on the outcome that the present package falls apart – though that does seem to be a distinct possibility. It would only defer the decision. It does not point to a region that takes a deep breath, thinks clearly about what is needed post peak oil, now the sea levels are rising fast kind of world, and realises that widening a freeway and  building a ten lane bridge is not “sustainable” in any terms. Becuase the current discussion is just about money. And there is far more at stake here than the $3.3bn price tag.

That’s the Sun’s editorial view of the Port Mann bridge project. It pretty much reflects the attitude espoused by its commentator Vaughan Palmer yesterday. And it is quite wrong.

The product is a freeway expansion  from the Vancouver boundary to eastern edge of Langley that now is to include a 10 lane new bridge across the Fraser, which may or may not one day accommodate light rail. There is, of course, no plan to actually build the light rail line that would be needed on each side but there is a promise of Rapid Bus to Langley. I imagine that would terminate at Braid SkyTrain. The bridge is also supposed to include two lanes (one each way) for local traffic between Surrey and Coquitlam which at least recognises that much of the traffic on the bridge now is short distance.

Freeway expansions induce traffic. There is not a city anywhere that has managed to cure traffic congestion by building more freeway. Gordon Price long ago issued a challenge to freeway supporters to name one – just one – city where this has worked. The silence has been deafening.

There is a short period of adjustment as drivers assess the new opportunities available to them but very quickly more – and longer – trips are being made and congestion returns. There seems to be an equilibrium level of traffic delay. Road user charges are the only method that shifts this equilibrium point, which is why toll roads that work out their pricing properly can provide higher levels of service for a price. The bridge of course will be tolled – but only until the the $3.3 bn is paid off. And in order to satisfy that private sector partners it will be necessary to set prices in a way that maiximises revenue. That means the amount of traffic control will be less than it might be if other policy concerns were in play. And, of course, there will be no tolls on the rest of the widened freeway.

The road networks that connect to this new freeway will see a great deal more traffic. Municipalities will either have to come up with traffic management  plans to deal with this – or just decide which roads will see the longest line ups. You cannot solve congestion by road building but you can decide where to put the storage capacity. Many people who currently support this project will, soon after it opens, begin to wonder where all this new traffic on their street came from.

The reason this is a bad project is that it widens both the freeway and the bridge at the same time. Instead of the current bottle neck, we will have a bigger bottle – with a proportionately similar neck. If reducing traffic congestion was the real objective then just adding more bridge lanes but leaving the approaches alone would move the congestion off the freeway. And from a road safety point of view that might not be a bad thing – as freeways are supposed to keep moving and vehicles coming up rapidly to stationary traffic are a real hazard. But the plan is to make sure that there is going to be a lot more driving – because Mr Falcon and Mr Campbell are really determined that their friends the property developers will do well out of changing land use along the freeway. Lots of new development – all of it car oriented – is going to occur to take advantage of the new accessibility the freeway expansion creates. This by the way is in addition to the traffic induced onto the freeway by existing car owners.

Mr Falcon’s argument that development occurs anyway is beside the point. It is the type of development that must be of concern. Because if you do not have transit you cannot expect transit oriented development. And that has always been what this region needed, but only saw to a very limited extent in the few places favoured with transit investment. And hardly any of that (except Whalley) was south of the Fraser. Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is a definition of madness.

There are alternatives but they have never been seriously considered. Translink could be running buses across the bridge now between Surrey Central, Guidlford and Coquitlam. All they need is a short queue jumper to get onto the bridge. Just like the one being built now on the Highway #99 hard shoulder in Richmond. Indeed just such a bus service was in Translink’s plans but Falcon had it killed. A region wide tolling strategy would also work to both reduce traffic and provide funding for more transit. Not popular of course but the places that have adopted such strategies show that they can work if managed properly.

The plan also promises transit expansion – but only after the freeway has been built, which is too late for it to do any good. The great pressing need in this region now – and for at least the last ten years – is more transit service – especially south of the Fraser – and much better transit servcie everywhere. And transit that actually meets the needs of users would be a welcome novelty too. That means lots of surface transit with priority over cars for the use of the available road space. Because the same length of road lane accommodates either three car drivers or 40 (or more) bus passengers.

And absolutely none of this is new or ground breaking . We have known of the simple math of transit versus freeways for decades. And anyone who is aware of what it happening to this planet knows that the real problem in North America is our houses and our cars.They are the reason our per capita greenhouse gas emissions are some of the highest in the world. And they are also the reason that we have been so ineffective in doing anything about them.

It does not surprise me that a newspaper that thinks “the Liberal government has demonstrated in the past that it is capable of sound financial management” is also in favour of the new  Port Mann bridge. I would have thought that the premise was easily debunked. It is, after all, not hard to run a surplus when oil and gas (and other resource) revenues are high and you have cut spending on essential services to the bone and then some. But a whole range of programs and projects are now showing how thin their claim is to “acumen”.  But running a government is also a lot more than financial bottom line – or it should be.  To take one example, the province is not concerned that many schools are still at risk of collapse in the event of an earthquake in an area which is seismically active and overdue for a big quake. That may seem to the BC Liberals to make financial sense – but it will not bring much cheer to parents after the shake occurs.

The BC Liberals have also been telling us how smart they have been with the Olympics – and claim they will only cost taxpayers $600m. Does anyone now believe that? Is that evidence of “acumen”?

SFU City Program lecture

Wendy Sarkissian talked about the new book she and four others have written. You can download of the first four chapters of “Kitchen Table Sustainability” for free or order a copy, if any of this grabs your attention. I must admit I found it a bit difficult to grasp the subject and the death of the battery on my notebook did not help. I am working from scribbled notes and hope that I can do her presentation justice.  The presentation was video recorded so will be on the SFU City program web page eventually.

All of us, she says, feel a bit overwhelmed because we are facing a huge problem – climate change  (and that is just one aspect of sustainability) – and very little seems to be getting done about dealing with it. As individuals we may have made what changes we can but obviously individual actions are not nearly enough. So how do we start to get people organised into action? This is known as “community engagement” – the idea being that if enough people all start getting together and doing something we can get a political shift. And the most recent positive sign of such change is the election of Barack Obama. One observer at the inauguration remarked “What impressed me was the suddenness of it” . Dr Sarkissian hopes that something similar can happen and sustainability will enter “normative value space”.

She cited Peter Newman’s Resilient Cities and the Western Australia Sustainability Strategy (2003) and Chet Bowers and David Orr who think we need to “rewrite metaphorical templates”. She said that we need to deal with “denial and collusion” and to do that we will need new stories to shift our thinking about how to change our world. It need no longer be taken for granted that environmental degradation, poverty and social injustice are inevitable. Arne Naess, who developed the idea of  “Deep Ecology” said,  “I hope we can have a conversation that we might not be the pinnacle of evolution”

The book is designed to provide a set of tools and support for community members: it has a model summed up by the acronym “Eating”

• Education – so that we can have an informed  conversation. This may be thought elitist but no discussion is possible if there is no understanding of what research has now revealed to be happening
• Trust – which is easily lost – but is needed to heal the expectation of betrayal
• Inclusion – we are all members of the community, including children and we should not adopt “risk management” strategies that exclude those who cannot accept the basic principles
• Nourishment – first we need to heal ourselves and our own relationship to the planet
• Governance – unfortunately this is one of the least regarded but most important components. Currently the bureaucrat’s response is “Your input will be taken on board” but that means almost nothing happens. Jack Kornfield wrote a book called “After the Ecstasy, the Laundry“ and “there’s a lot of laundry that is not being done” ( i.e.  there’s a lot of reports being written but being ignored).

“We are just the community: we must help ordinary people get a grip on the problem. Only we can do it. We cannot leave this to the experts or the mandarins.”

Q&A

Q -  Can you provide an example where the kitchen table made a difference?

A – Aurora in Melbourne was the last big greenfield development project. At the initial team development workshop a group of “cynical middle aged men” all experts in their fields solemnly built a figure to represent non human nature so that it could have a seat at the table. Community artists can have considerable impact. In Redfern the community eventually decided it would rather build something than argue

Q – The Club of Rome tackled population growth but we now seem to think that if we all adopt third world consumption patterns the world can accommodate a lot more of us because we would live at greater densities

A – It is not true that we do not tackle population issues in the book. Population control has to be part of the solution and the Club of Rome is increasingly being seen to have been right. Since we must transform our relationship with the rest of the world then you must think about population policy

Q – “Deprofessionalizing conversations” – how do we keep them going?

A – The Kitchen table is a symbol of a place where it is okay not to know all the answers. She noted that in Australia there is no professional training for planners in community engagement as there is in Canada.

Q – Two working example of this process: Be The Change Alliance and Pachamama Alliance

A – It is imperative to include all comers. The present processes of community involvement is “drab and insipid”. The “who on earth cares” initiative in Australia is another good example

CBC

This is very bad news. Canada does very little in terms of trying to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Now we know that what they are doing is not having much effect.

My eye was caught by the section on the transit tax credit

The report also looked at the public transit tax credit, which was introduced in the 2006 budget and is expected to have cost the government $635 million by the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year. In 2007, Environment Canada predicted the tax credit would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 220,000 tonnes, but a year later, it later lowered its estimate by 84 per cent, to 35,000 tonnes.

“Given the lowered figure, the tax credit will have a negligible impact on Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions,” Vaughan’s report said.

So first of all the government over predicted what this measure could do. That is, I am afraid, not unusual. Hype and spin are the main concerns when launching new programs – when the government wants to be seen to be doing something. And being conservatives, they have never seen  a tax cut they didn’t like.

The very obvious problem with the approach is that giving transit users tax credits is rewarding them for what they are doing anyway. The probability that some one will say  “Hey, if can have a tax credit for a transit pass I will stop driving” seems to me to be pretty slim. What gets people to use transit is good service. In fact, when commuters who drive are asked why they do not use transit money is not the concern – neither fares or taxes get mentioned. $635m in transit terms nationally is in fact not very much at all. But you could have spent that much more effectively – for example by finding ways to cut the cost of increasing transit service. Of course tax cuts might be one route but the problem is that saving service providers money does not guarantee they will provide more service with the savings. Better program design is needed than just “throwing money” – so broad based tax cuts are as ineffective as open ended grants.

Oddly enough the federal government has in its filing cabinets numerous reports and studies it has paid for. One of them is called the Urban Transportation Showcase Program. It has been running now for several years – and the Showcase projects  in Greater Vancouver will, by now, have collected quite a bit of data on what works and what doesn’t. But then Environment Canada did not fund that. It was Transport. Do you think they talk to each other?

Vancouver Sun

The link above takes you to the news story and the long list of comments. My point is simple. The only critical comment comes from NDP MLA Bruce Ralston. Everyone else they quote is a cheer leader. Nothing from the community, nothing from any of the various groups that oppose Gateway. Nothing from people concerned about traffic in their neighbourhoods. Nothing about any concerns anyone might have about greenhouse gas emissions – or indeed any environmental impacts. And nobody questioning the extremely dubious financial case either.

This is simply lousy journalism. It is not the function of a newspaper in a free society to accept uncritically what a government and its supporters tell it. The people of this region deserve to be fully informed about what this announcement means. And having seven ‘pro’ and one ‘anti’ commentators is nothing like a balanced approach

Vaughan Palmer of the Vancouver Sun is at last persuaded that this is a story worth his attention.

He is concentrating on how a $1.5bn project [June 2008] came to cost $3.3bn. Which has to be paid back by people (and trucks) using the bridge at $3 a pop – or ” in excess of $100 million” a year – or a 30 year pay off roughly – if the costs of toll collection and maintenance have been properly annualised into that $3.3bn.

Now the risk here is that someone will actually build the proposed rapid transit line which the bridge can supposedly carry. What happens then is that people start switching to transit – or indeed the much vaunted rapid bus that will be on the bridge from opening day. Buses (and trains) won’t pay tolls. So how does McQuarie make lots of money then. Or do they go to court to stop activities that might reduce their revenue (as other private sector toll road operators have done)?

It is of course quite hard for anyone to make sense of any of this since there is still no contract – and the devil as always is in the details. The deal will be signed, then we will be committed to the project, and only then will the voters of BC have any idea of the size of the bill we will be stuck with. If they sign before the election (and I suspect there will be a lot of pressure to do so) my prediction is that this story will resurface immediately afterwards – in a very similar fashion to the Olympic Village.

It is a shame that Mr Palmer does not spare any words to cover any of the other issues surrounding this bridge. I can understand that. He only has a certain allocation of column inches, and he decided to stick to the most outstanding feature of yesterday’s announcement. But the project was created in a time when it was expected that growth would continue indefinitely, and that that was a Good Thing. Times have changed. It is now apparent that we face a whole new range of challenges – and that relying on fossil fuels has become an extremely dangerous way to proceed. The very concept of economic growth as a constant is also being questioned all around the world. Most places have long ago recognised that people need alternatives to driving, and are concentrating their investments into those alternatives. Especially ones that allow people to get around without needing to burn a lot of oil.

If we have $3.3bn to spend (and I am far from sure we do – but let’s take that as a starting point for now) we could build electric powered rapid transit that would penetrate every part of the region. Of course, it would need to be on the surface and other modes would have to yield precedence whenever a train was moving. This does give a lot of people conniptions I know, but it is not unusual for cities to adopt this kind of  approach. And it is becoming more widespread. Whatever happens to oil, we would then be able to operate a region wide transit system on whatever power source proved workable – hydro (obviously) but also wind, wave, tidal, geo-thermal, solar – all options that are sustainable and whose environmental impact is far less than any fossil fuel. At the same time we could rebuild our communities to be walkable and transit friendly. This will take time, but is also a sensible recognition that car orientation has not served us well even when gasoline was cheap.

The days of the climate change deniers are over. It is very clear that the earlier forecasts of dramatic and disastrous impacts were optimistic. Effects such a loss of the ice caps and the glaciers are visibly faster than the IPCC’s prediction. Pretending that we can build our way out of traffic congestion is foolish. Acting as though the climate is not changing rapidly is criminally negligent – because death rates from severe climate events and the consequences of rising sea levels are apparent now. How on earth Gordon Campbell can keep two mutually exclusive ideas in his head (we must fight climate change and build a ten lane freeway bridge) is beyond my understanding.

What really worries me is that our local media commentators are not yet making this linkage. Becuase if Vaughan Palmer does not start into this area soon – who will?

The Province.

This is the sort of thing that spoils your lunch. I do not normally read the tab but it was provided by Dave’s Fish and Chips in Steveston. By the way this is a place I heartily recommend. The chips are actually crisp on the outside and are cut from potatoes each day, not from frozen or reconstituted from mash like so many “french fries”. They also have Russel Ales from the excellent small brewery in Surrey.

A new wider bridge is actually a whole new project and quite different to the one that was the subject of an Environmental Assessment – that was going to be a second four lane bridge next to the existing one. You can be sure that they will not go back and revisit the EA. Not that it matters since no matter what the impact they are going to build whatever they like anyway. No process – and certainly no public consultation – was ever going to stand in their way.

Of course anywhere else in the world if you conducted an EA in to a project and then by sleight of hand built a much bigger one there would be protests – or even questions in the house – maybe (shock, horror) lawsuits. Not here. We do not believe in such things.

As Eric Doherty points out on the Livable Blog the existing bridge was refurbished only a few years ago so the statement that the current bridge is in need of an upgrade is simply untrue.

“KWH carried out the seismic upgrade and widening for the full length of the bridge and approaches—2,100m total length. Over 3,000 tonnes of structural steel was erected to reinforce the bridge and cantilever the roadway.”

$35m (the cost of the last upgrade) is not chump change and I would expect that sort of work to last much longer than ten years.

Falcon said the design would include dedicated fast-bus lanes, which would enable riders to travel from Langley to Burnaby in 23 minutes.

For the past 20 years there have been no dedicated bus lanes on the Port Mann.

Once again the old saw of repeating  a lie often enough and it becomes accepted as truth. There never have been bus lans in this bridge. Bus service was curtailed when the SkyBridge opened to Scott Road. Just as with the Canada Line, bus services do not compete with SkyTrain so buses from Langley were diverted to the SkyTrain station. Nothing whatever to do with bridge capacity. And the bus that is needed is one from Surrey to Coquitlam – preferably express – and that does not need an exclusive lane on the bridge – just a queue jumper lane on the south side. There is plenty of room to construct that on the hard shoulder – and such lanes are common at other crossings such as the Massey tunnel and the Lions’ Gate bridge.

PREMIER LAUNCHES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PORT MANN BRIDGE

SURREY – The new Port Mann Bridge will be a single, 10-lane span, Premier Gordon Campbell and Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Kevin Falcon announced today as work began on the Port Mann-Highway 1 Project with the first pile for the bridge foundation being driven into the ground.

“The new Port Mann Bridge will be a first-class, state-of-the-art connector to clear traffic congestion on a critical transportation link across the Fraser River,” said Premier Campbell. “The new bridge will give truckers, transit users and commuters a faster, more efficient trip to and from their destinations, significantly cutting travel times and improving the movement of people, goods and services. Construction of this new bridge will also create 8,000 jobs, helping to keep British Columbians working.”

“Right now, congestion on the Port Mann Bridge is approaching 14 hours a day, and it’s harming our economy, our environment and quality of life,” said Falcon. “The Port Mann-Highway 1 Project will help travelers see a time savings of up to 30 per cent due to reduced congestion. This is time better spent at their workplace or with their families.”

The capital cost of the project, including upgrades to 37 km of Highway 1 on either side of the bridge, is approximately $2.46 billion. The total cost, including operating and maintenance, rehabilitation and interest, will be released when the contract is finalized but is expected to be approximately $3.3 billion. Of that, the Province is financing $1.15 billion in the form of a repayable loan, which is being matched by bank financing. The proponent is putting forward their own equity to pay for the remaining $1 billion.

The full cost of the project will be financed through electronic tolls, which will be $3 each way for cars. The government retains control of the rate of the tolls. The project is expected to be complete by 2013.

The new bridge will replace the existing 45-year-old bridge and provide badly needed capacity to meet current and future traffic demand, including a new RapidBus service that will allow commuters to travel all the way from Langley to Burnaby SkyTrain in 23 minutes. Once the new bridge is complete, the old bridge will be removed, saving at least $180 million in maintenance, rehabilitation and seismic upgrades that would have been required. The Port Mann-Highway 1 Project will provide for the first bus service across the Port Mann Bridge in over 20 years. In addition to RapidBus service, the new bridge will be built to accommodate potential light rapid transit at a future date, and it will expand networks for cyclists and pedestrians.

The project also includes widening Highway 1, upgrading interchanges, and improving access and safety from McGill Street in Vancouver to 216th Street in Langley, a distance of approximately 37 km. One lane of highway will be added in each direction west of the new bridge, and two lanes in each direction east of the bridge, one of which will be an HOV lane.

On Jan. 28, 2009, the government reached an agreement-in-principle with Connect BC Development Group for a public-private partnership (P-3) on this project. The Connect BC Development Group team includes the Macquarie Group, Transtoll Inc., Peter Kiewit Sons Co. and Flatiron Constructors Canada Limited. Financial close is expected in early March, at which time the final terms and conditions will be finalized. The Province will provide one-third of the financing, and Connect BC will fund two-thirds.

And now the response from the Wilderness Committee

$3.3 Billion Freeway Bridge a “Super-Sized Mistake”

Surrey, BC — “Premier Campbell’s announcement about replacing the Port Mann Bridge with a $3.3 Billion super bridge is a super-sized mistake,” said Wilderness Committee Healthy Communities Campaigner Ben West.

“Adding more freeway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to deal with obesity, it just doesn’t work. If this project is allowed to proceed, it will put taxpayers on the hook for a project that will actually make traffic congestion even worse within a short period of time, and in the process also increase pollution, suburban sprawl and global warming emissions,” said West.

Premier Gordon Campbell and BC Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon held a press conference today at the Port Mann Bridge to un-veil their plans for a new “super bridge”, and the demolition of the existing Port Mann Bridge. They have claimed this massive freeway expansion project will create jobs, reduce congestion and reduce carbon emissions from idling cars stuck in traffic.

“The Port Mann freeway expansion plan would create far fewer jobs than transit investment which is the only way to really deal with congestion. If they were serious about doing something about reducing pollution, slowing global warming and creating jobs, investing in improved public transit is the way to go,” said transportation planner and Livable Region Coalition Spokesperson Eric Doherty.

“They could add a ‘queue jumper’ lane and have buses running across the Port Mann within 6 months. They could also buy about 400 buses, and pay all the operating expenses, including drivers’ salaries and fuel, for 30 years for less money than this freeway expansion will cost,” said Doherty.

The BC Treasury Board estimates that about 3 times as many jobs can be created by investing in public transit than by investing in highway construction. A poll released by the Livable Region Coalition last May shows that two thirds of Lower Mainland residents would support funding for highway expansions being re-directed to public transit in light of concerns about global warming. A report by the Livable Region Coalition shows that carbon emissions would increase by about 30% as the result of the Gateway project.

“The Premier is just dead wrong about this strategy. We are encouraging BC residents to contact the Premier and their MLA to tell them how strongly they feel about re-directing funds to much needed public transit improvements,” said West.

The Vancouver Courier does its best to seem concerned about the impact of an expanded employee parking lot at the new operating centre – except it fails to make clear what exactly they are objecting to.

The operating centre is located on the site of a former lumber mill on the north bank of the north arm. The land is zoned industrial – because that it what it has been since European settlement started. Of course that was waterside industry because it needed the river – that is still how log booms are moved from the forest to the mills. In those days much of the product would have moved out in barges too. These days barges are still mainly used for woodchips, and a steady shuttle service of pulp and packaged lumber to and from Vancouver Island.

There are not many places you can put a transit  operating centre (other places use words like garage or depot).  Most people want more bus service but no-one wants to live next to the place where buses are stored overnight and maintained. There is, of course, a lot of traffic, and buses start leaving in the early hours of the morning, before many people are awake, in order to get the early shift workers to their place of employment on time. It is the same thing in reverse late at night.

Some people think that the river banks should be solely for expensive housing – waterfront property always commands a premium. Others think that public access is important – a place for parks and public paths for walking and cycling. And much of the former industrial lands along the water have been redeveloped that way. The whole of the frontage of the former BC Packers plant in Steveston for example – or much of False Creek in Vancouver. There are even people like Terry Slack who think we should do more to restore the river to its natural state in an attempt to protect the ecosystem.

Terry Slack, a retired commercial fisherman and volunteer with the Fraser River Coalition, launched into a crowd-pleasing tirade that strained the boardroom sound system. “This project does nothing for the river. It actually erodes it,” he thundered. “This project respects absolutely nothing!”

He might have pleased the crowd in Marpole, but his views are not at all popular with those who actually make decisions about the river. As long as there is money to be made or freeways that can be built he is ignored – along with the rest of the environmental movement. In BC they used to be influential – now they are regarded as  an annoying fringe group standing in the way of “progress”.

Because this part of Marpole is still largely industrial, the City had no plans to transform the area. The vision that the Marpole waterfront could “be better than False Creek” is not incorporated into any official plan – so not surprisingly the development board allowed the parking lot to proceed.

“Why aren’t more of your staff taking buses?”asked city planner Brent Toderian

Well that’s the interesting question. It actually needs to be addressed not just to the operating centre at Marpole but to all the institutions charged with looking after planning and transportation. For example, City of  Vancouver staff, who get free parking across the street from City Hall.

Translink employees get a free pass – actually two each – one for a family member  (not just a spouse). But many still drive or car pool. I did my very best to commute by transit from Richmond. First to Gateway in Surrey, and later to Metrotown. The simple fact was that this was slow and very inconvenient. And for official business I was expected to use one of the pool cars – since time out of the office being unproductive sitting waiting for a bus was not considered a good use of my time. In fact from Metrotown to my home in Richmond at the end of the day it was quicker to ride my bike. Downhill most of the way, it took 90 minutes. Something the transit system could not achieve then. For years I asked why there was no direct service between Richmond Centre and Metrotown – and one did emerge after I left.

But for operational staff there is a very important constraint. If you are the operator of the first bus in the morning, there is no service to get you to work. Nor is there service for the people who bring in the last buses after they have parked. Indeed outside of the peak periods, which is when all bus service personnel have to travel, the service is scarce. And pay rates for operators may be good, but even so it is not possible to live close to work for many. And staff get moved around between operating centres. Only those with sufficient seniority get to  pick when and where they work.

A better solution would something like  having a few drivers come in early and take out some of the community  shuttles to pick up the rest of the first-shift drivers  which would allow for not building such a large lot. In the days before widespread car ownership that is exactly what happened. Well, I don’t know about here but when I was a bus conductor in Nottingham in the late sixties and had to be on early turns I went and got the “paddy bus” – a circular service through the suburbs to the  depot just to pick up (and drop off) crew. Not available to the public and operated by the maintenance department who had buses to road test. (And actually in those times too we only got a free ride on the bus when in uniform and going to and from shifts.)

The operating times mean that there are only a few hours in the very early morning when no buses run at all. It would not be too difficult to actually schedule a “commuter coach” type service – since it is known where staff live and what times they need to be at work. In fact I advanced just such a service to the airport authority when they were facing a similar shortage of staff parking spaces. The airport starts work before the transit system is up and running, so regular transit does not work for a lot the people who work there. But there are companies who need to bring coaches into Vancouver every day from their garages in places like Delta. Any revenue for what is currently a “dead head” run would be welcome, I would have thought. The idea died when YVR discovered that if they abandoned federal parking standards and used commercial ones, capacity of the exiting  employee lots could be doubled.

As usual, our system suffers because of the absence of “joined up thinking” and a slew of institutional arrangements which separate out responsibilities. There is also the ” we ‘ve always done it this way” argument which seems to win most times. All sorts of creative possibilities – about the journey to work and many other issues – have been around for a long time but very few stand up to the current mind set. Since we mostly own cars and like their convenience – and since many of the most senior people get both a company car and a preferential parking spot – parking at work is a very delicate issue indeed. I speak as one who once suggested that very senior civil servants should not have the privilege of parking on Horse Guards’ Parade. A career limiting suggestion I must confess – but one that was also adopted after I left.

And yes when I go to work – graveyard shifts at weekends in very out of the way places – I drive too.

(Thanks to Rick Green for the idea and some thought on this item)