Stephen Rees's blog

Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves

Southwest Area Transport Plan

with 7 comments

Translink bus in Steveston

Translink bus in Steveston

I had a call today from Graeme Wood who writes for the Richmond News. He wanted to talk about Translink’s Southwest Area Transport Plan. He wanted me to predict what sort of changes people in Richmond might want to see in the transport system in the future. I’m afraid I wasn’t very helpful as it does not seem to me to be very important. First of all because the way to plan for a future system is to do some really good data collection on how they travel right now, and why, and then come up with some realistic proposals on how that could change based on what we know about things like population growth, land use plans and technology changes. Just asking people what they might like is a bit pointless. Secondly holding open houses and inviting people to fill in a web based survey form means you only get the opinions of a self selected (i.e. unrepresentative) group.

But it’s worse than that here now – and here is where I went off on a rant which I somehow doubt will appear in his newspaper, but you never know. They might be desperate to fill the space.

Here’s what the Translink web page has to say

In June 2014 the Mayors’ Council developed the Transportation and Transit Plan which identified investment priorities across the Metro Vancouver region. These priorities identified the need for types of services, but not the specific routes or specific areas that would benefit. An Area Transport Plan will establish a blueprint for the unique transit and transportation needs of the Southwest sub-region. Once funding is available, we will have a solid foundation for implementing the priorities that meet the needs of the community now and in the future.

I have added the emphasis: if you think funding is going to be available, and you live in Delta or Richmond, then you might like to wander along to one of their open houses or fill in the survey. Don’t let me stop you, or the thought that it is very unlikely indeed that much is going to change any time soon. Unless the stupid bridge actually gets built, in which case, forget it and buy a car. And if that is not a practical choice for you then you might have to take Jean Chretien’s advice and consider moving.

There is no funding for more and better transit or very much for walking and cycling – which anyway gets decided by the municipality not Translink. And, given the present ineptitude of our provincial government, that is not going to change any time soon. I think the two immediate, pressing needs for transit would be to restore the annual pass for people with disabilities and – having taken handyDART back in house – make a considerable investment in making door to door trips for people who cannot drive or use conventional transit a daily possibility rather than a very rare treat. The way that a society treats its most vulnerable citizens tells you a lot about what sort of society we are and want to be. The way this segment of our population has been treated in this province is a disgrace. And that has been true for at least the last twenty years to my certain knowledge and actually much longer than that. I think that if there are to be more funds available that ought to be the first priority simply as a matter of social justice. Even Hillary Clinton has recognized that transportation is a civil rights issue.

Whatever detail Translink puts on top of its 2014 Plan matters naught, if it cannot get any more funds to match the needs for an increase in its operations and maintenance budget – let alone the very desirable and lengthy list of transit improvements listed in that plan. The Mayors identified very real problems in the present funding model, not the least of which is the decline in revenues from the gas tax and the pressures of population growth. Of course we are in a stare down over the potential for increases in property tax: don’t expect that to end either.

Already Kirk LaPointe has decided that the Broadway Subway is not going to happen.

Our viability and livability depend on better public transit – not in a decade, but today, because we have waited a decade. Trouble is, the line has taken only one teensy step forward and some significant steps back since it was identified as one of several core projects in the Mayors’ Council report on transportation in 2014.

Yup, he got that right. Oddly he also seems to think that streetcars might be the solution as though they could be implemented faster than the subway. Actually any transit solution is going to be very expensive, very unpopular with at least one loud and influential segment of the population  and will take far too long to implement to satisfy the existing users of the 99 B Line. It is about as likely as the Massey Bridge – or the Port Mann – will see LRT running across it in my lifetime: or along the Arbutus Corridor come to that. While the province always likes to say that their new bridges could carry more transit in the future, that is simply the old “jam tomorrow, never jam today” promise.  There has never been a real intention to implement those plans.

People in Richmond or Delta who go to these open houses and outline the sorts of improvements they would like to see in the bus routes of their area are simply demonstrating the triumph of hope over experience. Good luck with that, folks. Let me know how that works out for you.

Written by Stephen Rees

April 13, 2016 at 4:06 pm

Lax Kw’alaams Hereditary Chiefs Question Trudeau on Eviction Notice

leave a comment »

Lelu Island

The following items arrived in my inbox today from Greg Knox of skeenawild.org

Instead of trying to convert the pdf documents into text that is then pasted into the blog engine, I am posting them as pdf files which you can either download or read in many browsers.

The issue is the proposed construction of an LNG terminal on Lelu Island near Prince Rupert: I got the map from fisherynation.com

Lelu Island letter to Prime Minister Trudeau

Port Authority (1)

Port Authority letter (2)

Written by Stephen Rees

April 11, 2016 at 4:31 pm

Posted in Environment

Tagged with

Compass Hacked

leave a comment »

ct_compass_ticket

When I did a search of this blog for “fare evasion” I found 44 blog posts. I have not tried to read any of them but I do know that one theme I went back to more than once was that the faregates would not eliminate fare evasion, they would just change the way that it was done.

CTV now have a report on how the single ride ticket can be reprogrammed with a cell phone to allow more than one ride. They do not tell you how to reproduce this hack for yourself, but apparently it has been known for some time and has demonstrated on other Cubic systems such as New York. And apparently it is possible for Translink and the Transit Police to determine if a ticket has been hacked. Get caught with one and you face a charge of fraud rather than fare evasion.

I did not know about this hack when I was writing those posts, and I am not promoting its use now. What I did know was that every fare collection system has been a target of hackers: no transit system gets 100% compliance and the case Kevin Falcon tried to make was fatally flawed from the start. The only surprising thing about this story is that the ability to hack tickets had not been identified publicly earlier. Translink’s representative says they knew about it last year. Cubic could not be reached for comment – I suspect because they probably knew much earlier and kept quiet.

Postscript: once this blog post appeared on line,  Jon Woodward, the CTV reporter who produced the original story, did read my older blog posts and tweeted about one I wrote in 2008 about London’s Oyster card being hacked.

And in the interests of completeness Jeff Nagel of Black Press has been talking to Translink who say that the amount that this fraud is costing them is  actually not very much. They even say

“There is a solution, it’s just a matter of measuring the costs versus the benefits,” Bryan said.  “Obviously there is an ability to manipulate this. For us it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of what kind of impact it is having. Right now, it’s very minimal in terms of cost.”

Which, of course, was exactly the same position that Translink adopted when they originally examined faregates before Kevin Falcon imposed  them ignoring the cost-benefit analysis.

Written by Stephen Rees

April 10, 2016 at 5:47 pm

Posted in Fare evasion

Tagged with , ,

Enough with provincial misinformation

with 3 comments

Transportation Minister Todd Stone did a presentation recently to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. The government then put out the following Fact Sheet

Fact-Sheet-Massey-Replacement-Myths-Mar-2016

I must admit that when I read it I became almost incoherent with rage. I think Myth #3 is the one that really did it for me. But then I have written more often about induced traffic more than any other topic I think. Seems that way to me. But fortunately I have found a fresh voice on these issues.

I am not going to take credit for the following letter to the editor which has been submitted by N. Herman of Richmond. He has generously allowed me to publish it here in case the mainstream media decide to ignore it.

No one disagrees that the Massey Tunnel is a traffic bottleneck. In many respects however, choosing the right solution can be a “life or death” proposition.

To replace the Massey Tunnel with a bridge has been a questionable proposition recently, and in fact (not a “myth”), it contradicts the same provincial governments own previous, public decision to add another tunnel. And make no mistake, the bridge is huge, in fact (not a “myth”), it will be the biggest bridge of its kind in North America. Think you are going to enjoy a quiet summer BBQ in the backyard ? How about a quiet night’s sleep? Aside from diesel particulate and other pollution blown down on your property, the din of bridge traffic noise, elevated above the river, may be heard miles into Richmond and Delta, and it will be relentless, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Stability of the bridge? It will be built in an area that is proven to have the highest risk of liquefaction during an earthquake. Think the “Fast Ferries” were a disaster? This liquefaction risk alone could turn $3.5 billion into worthless rubble in minutes. Has the provincial government completed its soil analysis ? Of course not, but its already spending your hard earned taxpayer money installing pilings.

We should also be clear that the real purpose of the bridge is to allow massive ocean going freighters to ship carbon based fuels on the Fraser River, which they cannot get access to now because of the tunnel. And contrary to Minister Stone, it is not a “myth” that the Port of Metro Vancouver repeatedly petitioned the provincial government to raise the bridge for this purpose. And what of those fuels? First we have LNG. Not a “myth” as claimed by Minister Stone, did you know that placing an LNG plant so close to a populated area is actually illegal in the United States due to EPA safety rules? If any LNG is spilled on the Fraser, the explosion radius can be measured in miles. If the USA has made it illegal, and it is against international industry regulations, why is the provincial government putting your life and the lives of your loved ones at risk?

And what about coal? Well as it turns out, it’s not even Canadian coal. The coal will be shipped from Wyoming in the United States. Again ask yourself “why” when Seattle and Portland both have good ports. Again, the answer is simple. Coal dust is carcinogenic: coal trans-shipment is banned in both those states. It’s not a “myth” that Premier Clark and Transportation Minister Stone seem to think its “a-ok” to put your life at risk doing something that is so dangerous, that it’s illegal in the USA. It currently appears that the Port further intents to pave over 2,500 acres of the Gilmore Farm right beside Steveston Highway in Richmond. So much for healthy local food.

[moderator: the location and size of the Gilmore Farm is the subject of some questions on another forum where Harold Steves clarifies: “The Gilmore Farm in East Richmond was bought by the port for port expansion. It is about 218 acres not 2,500. The Gilmore Estates is 324 acres south of Steveston Highway and has nothing to do with the port. Port Metro Vancouver wants 2,500 acres for port expansion and the Gilmore Farm is part of it.” ]

Then we have an expanded “jet fuel” tanker farm near the #6 Road entertainment complex, serviced by barges. So let’s ask ourselves what pervasive reason exists to use barges instead of just pumping the fuel from the Cherry Point refinery in Washington State? Again, it is a task of looking behind the real “myth” perpetrated by the provincial government. The moment fuel enters a pipe at the refinery, it must be paid for. When shipped by barges, it is not paid for until off-loaded. This allows the Airport consortium to therefore play the commodities market on fuel, which can amount to millions of dollars of profit a year. With no on-site personnel, and no dedicated fire station, how long do you think it will take for a disaster such as a massive firestorm to occur while they profit from playing the markets? Again, call your Liberal MLA and ask them why they think that’s ”a-ok” for the government to put our lives at risk.

The fact, not a “myth” is that Premier Clark, Transportation Minister Stone and the Port of Metro Vancouver have all flown to Ottawa to advocate for a project that according to a recent FOI request has zero documentation for a business case. Perhaps it was “triple deleted” or “verbal only”? Whatever happened to the provincial government’s pledge of honest disclosure and transparency? If a bridge is such a good idea, where is the report? Where is the independent environmental review”, and why should that even be an issue to them, if the idea is so good? The Mayors Council is demanding that the provincial government “come clean”, and stop this cynical illusion of public consultation that ridicules the publics intelligence with publicity stunts like the ” Debunking the Myths ” presentation that Minister Todd Stone tried to sell last week. Two pre- vetted “questions” were asked at the end of his presentation, and then he disappears faster than a magician.

People are “fed-up” of the government playing fast and loose with the truth. As the Transit Tax referendum results demonstrated, people are “done” with wasted tax dollars spent on pet projects to feed a political ego. The public is also “done” with false statements made regarding a bridge proposal with purported “massive public support” when investigative reporter Vaughn Palmer discovers that of 1,000 “consultations” only 140 were in support. This is as troubling as the Richmond Chamber of Commerce claiming “a majority of Richmond businesses support the bridge option” when they do not represent all businesses in Richmond, and another investigation reveals that in fact (not “myth”) over 80% of their members never even voted on the survey. Does every Mayor in the province realize that their own city’s budget for infrastructure has been slashed by 1/3 by the provincial government in order to build this one bridge? If not, they should be writing the Premier.

It is time to revisit the previous transit plan that Minister Kevin Falcon had developed that built a solid business case for an additional tunnel, and admit that a bridge has never been the best solution to relieve Massey tunnel traffic congestion. An expanded tunnel would economically, and with minimal environmental impact, allow for better traffic movement and an expanded rapid transit corridor.

The Province needs to listen and learn from the Metro Vancouver governments who are strongly united in their opposition to a bridge for good reason, and learn from them how best to create a transit corridor that will move us forward in a modern and effective way. The only real “myth” right now is the provincial government has been transparent and open. Enough of the Todd Stone flim-flam, and waste of our hard earned tax dollars.

Enough with unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats destroying the world heritage Fraser River with dangerous, life threatening over-industrialization that is illegal in other parts of North America. its time for citizens to take control of this foolishness before living in Richmond or Delta becomes a “life and death” situation.

Postscript : New Westminster Councillor Patrick Johnstone has now published a comprehensive debunking of the Ten Myths “Fact Sheet” on his blog – which in itself is well worth following

Written by Stephen Rees

April 10, 2016 at 11:16 am

Canada (and BC) can grow GDP and cut GHG at the same time

with one comment

I came across this story by clicking on link bait “Something else Donald Trump is wrong about” on Vox. But I decided not to simply retweet that, firstly because we have all seen far too much about that fake tan monster and secondly this is important in both a Canadian and a BC context. (And I thought the people I wanted to reach might be less interested in that attention grabbing headline – “here’s some good new about the planet” seemed better to me!)

The Sarah Palin of BC politics currently occupying the premier’s chair is convinced that LNG is both an economic saviour and a way to reduce GHG emissions. It is, of course, neither.

Our newly elected  Liberal government in Ottawa – elected on promises to reduce GHG and committing in Paris to hold global warming below 1.5℃ – is now wavering. Not only because they allowed the Woodfibre LNG plant to go ahead, despite the very obvious shortcomings of the current (i.e. previous Conservative, Harper driven) EA process. But also because of the re-election of Brad Wall, which was obviously what Catherine McKenna must have been worried about when she started talking about national unity as being more important than the survival of life on earth.

So what Vox did was reprint a table from the World Resources Institute which shows that 21 countries have managed to reduce their GHG since 2000 while at the same time as increasing their GDP.

Decoupling_sparkline_graphic_v2

By the way, the stated reduction in US emissions is has been shown to be wrong, mostly because of the way they have counted methane.

You will notice, of course, that Canada is not among them. BC, of course, had been following a somewhat different track thanks to its adoption of the carbon tax. But that progress has been slowing, as the carbon tax has been stalled, and so much attention is now devoted to exporting fracked gas. Not only is the market for LNG now swamped, so that finding a customer for BC LNG will not be easy despite our generous tax and royalty regimes, but the way that methane leakage from fracking and LNG processing is measured has been updated with better data to show that it has little advantage over coal in reducing GHG.

There is no one answer to how this decoupling has been achieved – but there are some useful pointers in the article you just have to scroll down below that big table. But also there is, in BC, at present, a really good analysis of just how BC can improve its performance. And if you suppose that it might just be possible that none of the proposed LNG plants actually get built, and we elect a government in BC that is actually serious about reducing both CO2 and CH4 emissions – as opposed to just taking credit for past success – then progress does actually seem possible. Although if we try to do both, it’s very unlikely.

At the time of writing, there is still time to make yourself heard as part of the consultation on the BC Climate Leadership Plan. But even so, the table above ought to enough to silence the people who keep talking about growing the economy and saving the environment as though they were at odds with each other.

UPDATE From The Tyee interview with Nancy Oreskes, Harvard climate professor and co-author of Merchants of Doubt

Oreskes said Canada cannot seriously address climate change while also building more giant pipelines to deliver Alberta’s oil sands bitumen or British Columbia’s fracked natural gas to proposed export terminals on both coasts.

“If Trudeau can say we’re going to do all these things,” she said, “that says to me that they have not truly assimilated what is at stake here.”

Trudeau raised eyebrows when he told a Vancouver sustainable business summit last month that “the choice between pipelines and wind turbines is a false one. We need both to reach our [climate] goal.”

B.C. Premier Christy Clark similarly promotes liquefied natural gas as a climate solution: a “bridge fuel” to help China get off dirty coal power.

Oreskes called their positions dangerously “wishful thinking.”

Written by Stephen Rees

April 5, 2016 at 4:58 pm

The Cambie Street Saga’s Final Chapter

with one comment

There is a story today in the Vancouver Observer which brings to an end the sorry tale of the many small businesses that failed due to the cut and cover construction of the Canada Line under Cambie Street.  Some of these merchants will be able to recover a little of the money they lost as compensation is limited to “injury to their leases”. Not nearly enough, and far too late, but mostly due to the intransigence of the constructors. And, of course, the province of BC though they were not named in the suit but they are in my blog post. I did try to document what was happening and some of the outcome. But you might find the Siskinds Law Firm a bit more authoritative on the Canadian law.

To claim compensation, former merchants and landlords affected by the Canada Line construction are urged to contact the Cambie Village Business Association before May 1, 2016, as the deadline for filing with the Court is May 31, 2016.

And, as most people know, winning a legal case is not the same thing as getting justice. My impression is that there are other places who deal with such cases in a more generous fashion, but perhaps that is going to require more historic research, as the world has steadily become less concerned about the people in general as opposed to the very few People Who Matter.

I thought I wrote more about this – as I also thought it would be easy to find better examples. But then maybe I am using the wrong search terms or the wrong search engine.

Written by Stephen Rees

April 4, 2016 at 3:21 pm

Metro Vancouver calls for a Federal Environmental Assessment of the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

leave a comment »

The following is the text of the letter approved by the Metro Vancouver Board today

Planning, Policy and Environment

Tel. 604.432.6350 Fax 604.432‐6296

File: CR‐07‐02‐ENV

The Honourable Catherine McKenna

Minister of Environment and Climate Change
200 Sacré‐Coeur Boulevard
Gatineau, QC K1A 0H3

Dear Minister:

Re: Request for a Federal Environmental Assessment of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (‘Metro Vancouver’), I am writing to advise that at its April 1, 2016 regular meeting, the Board adopted the following resolution:

That the GVRD Board send a letter to the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change requesting that the Minister, pursuant to section 14(2) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, order a federal environmental assessment of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project.

Metro Vancouver is the regional government for the southwest region of British Columbia and is comprised of 21 municipalities, 1 electoral area, and 1 Treaty First Nation. We provide regional planning, regional utilities (including liquid waste, solid waste, and drinking water), and political leadership to a total population base of approximately 2.4 million in the greater Vancouver area.

Given our broad responsibilities in delivering regional services and in protecting the ongoing livability of this region, our Board is requesting a federal environmental assessment of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. We are requesting that a federal environmental assessment be referred to a review panel on which Metro Vancouver and other key stakeholder groups would have an
opportunity to participate.

Federal Environmental Assessment Review Request

Metro Vancouver’s specific concerns with respect to the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project are related to our legislative responsibilities in the areas of regional growth management and planning, air quality and climate change, environment, regional parks, and regional utilities.

The Province of British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s proposal to replace the existing George Massey tunnel with a 10‐lane tolled bridge has the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects. Potential impacts include:

1. Changes to Regional Transportation Patterns which Affect Regional Growth Management.

Although two lanes of the 10‐lane tolled bridge are to be dedicated transit/HOV lanes, the project as a whole represents a major ($3.5 billion) expansion of car‐oriented infrastructure.

If implemented, it will create growth pressures that may impede the realization of Metro 2040: Shaping our Future, the regional growth strategy, which promotes compact, transit oriented development patterns, the efficient use of land, and an efficient transportation network.

The potential impacts of this project on surrounding agricultural land, which the regional growth strategy strives to protect, and the potential to shift traffic congestion to adjacent communities, are of particular concern.

Transportation decisions and future land use are inextricably linked and have direct and far reaching effects on the environment. These decisions will influence, if not determine, whether human settlement patterns are compact or sprawling. A project of this magnitude requires an understanding of its impacts on future growth in the region to determine its potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change

Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking action on climate change. Metro 2040: Shaping our Future, the regional growth strategy, encourages land use and transportation infrastructure that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality. It contains strategies to help Metro Vancouver and member municipalities prepare for, and mitigate risks from, climate change. In addition, municipal official community plans include provincially mandated greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Project Definition Report for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project anticipates lower idling‐related greenhouse gas emissions, but contains no information related to the potential greenhouse gas emissions that will result from the project as a whole, which may be significant. The Project Definition Report omits any mention of climate change.

Through the Province of British Columbia’s environmental assessment review process thus far, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has committed to an evaluation of potential project‐related changes in greenhouse gas emissions, but only in response to the demands of stakeholders. With respect to climate change specifically, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has indicated it will examine how climate change may impact its project, but will not consider the potential contribution of the project to climate change.

The potential for this project to increase greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate change is of concern given the commitments of local, provincial, and federal governments to address climate change impacts. Minimal information is provided on the potential long‐term significant adverse environmental effects related to greenhouse gas emissions and therefore, this project requires a more thorough evaluation on these impacts.

3. Habitat

The Fraser River estuary is the single most important area of aquatic bird and raptor habitat in British Columbia. The intertidal marshes found in the estuary provide critical rearing areas for juvenile salmon. Metro Vancouver has a legislative responsibility to consider the regional and cumulative impacts of projects on the region’s ecology.

In addition, the current George Massey tunnel and the proposed new bridge bisect Metro Vancouver’s Deas Island Regional Park, having a direct impact on habitat for which Metro Vancouver is the public steward.

A federal environmental review would, we hope, involve a more comprehensive and complete look at the Fraser River estuary than the current provincial environmental review entails. The public concerns related to the potential significant adverse environmental effects on the Fraser River and the Park, in our opinion, necessitate a federal environmental review.

Metro Vancouver believes that the concerns raised in this letter highlight the potential for significant adverse environmental effects and, in Metro Vancouver’s view, provide a compelling case for a federal environmental review. Metro Vancouver therefore respectfully requests you use your discretion, pursuant to section 14(2) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, to order a federal environmental assessment of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project. Metro Vancouver requests, as well, that you consider referring the federal environmental assessment to a review panel on which key stakeholder groups, including Metro Vancouver itself, would have an opportunity to participate.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests.

Yours truly,

Greg Moore

Chair, Metro Vancouver Board

cc: The Honourable Mary Polak, BC Minister of Environment

The Honourable Todd Stone, BC Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure

=========================

UPDATE to which should be added

From: Eliza Olson [*******]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 3:23 PM
To:icentre@metrovancouver.org‘ <icentre@metrovancouver.org>
Cc:ec.ministre-minister.ec@canada.ca‘ <ec.ministre-minister.ec@canada.ca>
Subject: Attention: Greg Moore, letter to Hon. Min. McKenna

 

Greg Moore, Chair Metro Vancouver Board,

 

Congratulations on a very insightful letter sent to the Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, requesting a Federal Environmental Assessment of the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project.

 

Under Section 3 Habitat, there is no mention of the potential impact of the replacement of the tunnel on the Fraser Delta Ramsar Site, No. 243, specifically the South Arm Marsh.

 

In 2012, the Fraser Delta Ramsar site was proclaimed.  This is an international designation bestowed upon wetlands of international importance at the request of the originating country. This includes all levels of government within that country.  In the case of the Fraser Delta Ramsar Site, the request began with the Corporation of Delta, then Metro Vancouver, the BC Government and finally the Federal Government.

 

I am bringing this to you attention because it appears that since the great celebration that took place in 2012 that the moral obligations that go with asking and accepting the Ramsar designation of the Fraser River Delta as a “wetland of international importance” appears to be forgotten.

 

Failure to honour our international obligations regarding the Fraser Delta Ramsar Site No. 243, regardless how unintended, can bring dishonour to all levels of government.

 

The following wetland areas included in the Fraser Delta Ramsar Site No. 243, are Alaksen, Burns Bog, Boundary Bay, Serpentine, South Arm Marsh and Sturgeon Bank.

 

I am sure that this was not the intention of your letter. I am bringing this to your attention as a humble servant.

 

Sincerely,

 

Eliza Olson, LLD., B.Ed

President

 

Burns Bog Conservation Society

 

www.burnsbog.org

 

Did you know that an area of peatland the size of a soccer field stores the equivalent of CO2 that your car produces going around the world 3 times? Help us save our peatlands. Give today. www.burnsbog.org

Written by Stephen Rees

April 1, 2016 at 3:30 pm

Posted in Transportation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,586 other followers