Archive for the ‘Transportation’ Category
Once the transaction between the City and CP was completed, work to remove the track and formation proceeded – and faster than expected. Since the Arbutus right of way was always one of my regular walking routes I have been documenting the process on Flickr. Looking at my latest effort there made me think that perhaps the blog reaches a different audience, and this might be a place to start a conversation about what the Greenway is going to look like. My impression is that there cannot be a standard end to end treatment, though some elements will need to be continuous. The integration of the Greenway into the neighbourhood is going to be critical to its success.
Between King Edward and 16th Avenues there is now a wide smooth pathway, awaiting blacktop. Very much more comfortable to use than the old railway and informal path. Nothing has yet been done with the crossings, nor the transverse pedestrian paths.
Grading south of King Edward Avenue W
The new greenway path is at least 7m wide in this section, with considerable amounts of land on each side.
Apparently someone wants the crossbucks preserved in place. I am not so sure that is a Good Idea: road signs should inform or warn of real present situations not outdated ones.
You can search Orders in Council but I couldn’t find one using that number.
Very little has been done to the right of way between 16th and Broadway. Inevitably parking is spreading like a plague across the available space behind the car maintenance businesses at the intersection of Arbutus and 12th Avenue.
Abandoned ties that are not much use for landscaping as they would have been treated with creosote: the contractors seem to have been remiss in not removing these
This section has Quilchena Park to the right and Maple Crescent to the left. I am baffled why this park isn’t green on Google Maps.
Informal access to Quilchena Park
The designers of the greenway will need to consider how to integrate it into the adjacent properties. A railway needs to have a barrier to limit trespass, but a bike a pedestrian way needs something else. Cyclists need to be deterred from using it as a racetrack, and pedestrians need to have reasons – and opportunities – to linger. There has to be more than the occasional bench, drinking fountain and securable bike parking – though all three are essentials. A Greenway is not a sewer to pull traffic through like a stroad, but a place in its own right. A destination as a much a passageway.
At this particular point, it looks like stairs may be required. Fortunately alternate flat access is not far away.
I think it’s daft that the railway crossing signs have been left in place
Even dafter is removing the City’s own signage before the work is even started, let alone completed!
This pathway and its connections to the local road network need better definition and surface(s).
The amount of land available along the route varies considerably, but most bas been left to vegetate, mostly shrubs, scrub and the invasive, prolific himalayan blackberry. These sites must not be neglected but deliberately adapted to improve both their community utility and landscape value.
As matters progress I imagine that I will return to this topic. So for now I have given it its own category
It has been a very long time in gestation, with at least one false start, but today was the first day of operation of Mobi, Vancouver’s bike share system. Ever since I used Velib (seen above), the system in Paris, I have been waiting for one to start here. I have also used systems in New York and Denver.
This is the station on Bute at Robson: two parking meters have been suspended until the end of the year to accommodate the station. Presumably, this is to allow for some assessment of need and the potential exists for the station to moved and the meters restored.
Because we are in BC every bike rider has to have a helmet – and you can see how they are currently padlocked to the bike. In other places where helmets are mandatory, bike shares have been unsuccessful. Vancouver hopes this time it will be different. Of course our brain dead provincial government could not conceive of the possibility that its helmet law is based on falsehoods, and refuses to reconsider it in the light of current knowledge and, yes, data.
The current offer is for an unlimited number of rides for a year – and there is a discounted price for early adopters that ends at the end of July. It is not an offer that I feel inclined to accept. Nor does my partner. As I mentioned I have tried other systems, and none of them required a significant upfront investment from the user. Usually a credit card was necessary as a deposit in case of an unreturned bike, but the ride itself was cheap or even free. There were significant sponsorships on all of the bike share systems that I have seen. Barclays Bank had their name all over the bikes in London: even so everyone calls them Boris Bikes. Here the city has made the up front investment – and I do understand that experience elsewhere has shown that bike shares that actually work reliably do not come cheap. Whatever the model was in Rome, for instance, that didn’t work.
The home zone does not extend south of 16th on Arbutus, so it doesn’t actually get close enough to me. A bit like Modo, whose nearest car to my front door is in Kerrisdale. So that’s another mobility aid that is out of my reach.
I also know that there has been significant lobbying by the established bike rental operators that Mobi not cut into their business, and the current pricing structure is clearly a real deterrent to use by visitors. Which is a shame, I think, but I can understand how the people who rent out bikes feel.
So I will watch what happens with a sense of detached interest. And will watch for the comments of the readers to see if they like the deal better than we do!
POSTSCRIPT a set of recent tweets
I am going to Chicago tomorrow. Following the advice given on the documents I printed off from the Air Canada booking I made, I went to the Air Canada web site to check in, using my Air Canada booking reference. The documents warn that the flight is a code share with United but nowhere do they inform me of the United flight number or, even more importantly, the booking reference used by United, which is different from the one given me by Air Canada. Both airlines are members of the Star Alliance, but apparently the degree of integration between Alliance members is far from complete, or even adequate. I wait on hold for someone from Customer Care listening to AC tell me all the exciting things I could be doing instead of listening to the adverts.
When I finally get through I am given the United booking code, and the person I am talking to even waits while I use that to log in to United’s check in on line. Once I know that has recognized me, I hang up, and start re-entering the information about my booking that the booking reference ought to have provided and then go through the on line check in process. Now I know that they do like people to use their app and get the boarding pass sent to their cell phones, but since I am not a United frequent flyer I am not really happy with that process. I have used cell phones for such things in the past and frankly the paper document seems to be much more likely to work first time with most gate readers. Though even then I have stood and watched while gate attendants type in my data manually. So I opt to print my boarding pass at home.
No, that won’t be possible. In fact, I get a message to tell me that I am not actually checked in. United says that it doesn’t have my passport number on file. So until a United representative can actually see my passport or I use the self service check in at the airport to scan my passport, I cannot have a boarding pass.
If United actually kept track of who flies on its planes, this might have been avoided. Since I have flown United. In fact my family has a store of United stories. Most recently I flew to New Orleans, via Chicago, on United: that was in May last year. So I would have used my current passport then: and none of my information has changed since. But, once again, because I am not a United Frequent Flyer I get treated like a second class citizen.
I used to think that maybe the treatment I got on United was something to do with how much I paid for the flight. Perhaps there is indeed even more market segmentation that is apparent from their loading preferences. Since my outbound flight on United to New Orleans was so grim, I actually upgraded to “better” seat for the return journey. That seat was actually in the row in front of the emergency exit, and would not recline. I cannot imagine how United could justify charging me the higher price for that seat and no-one has ever even tried to.
There is now a direct Air Canada flight between Vancouver and Chicago – though not at a time which I find acceptable. United, of course, will grimly hang on to its gate slots. There are clearly differences between allies and the extent of their co-operation is limited.
I remember a time when flying was enjoyable. When the journey was a fun part of the trip. When the skies were actually friendly.
POSTSCRIPT After posting this I heard from AirCanada on Twitter – who prefer to keep their conversations with customers private by using Direct Messages. Which I shall respect. But I will note that this DM thread extended back to last year, and I saw then that I raised exactly the same issue. I thought then that it had something to do with me paying for the flight with AirMiles, who of course handled the booking. I had rather expected that if I booked through Air Canada this time the experience would be different. I was wrong about that. I also think the problem lies with United and not Air Canada. I have never had any contact from United other than speaking to their employees during my travels.
I am currently on holiday in Edinburgh, but this just arrived in my in box. Hopefully it is getting picked up by the mainstream media and creating a stir. I hope so.
Please be advised that the attached open letter was delivered to the Metro Vancouver Mayors’ Council and B.C. Premier Christy Clark this morning on behalf of the David Suzuki Foundation and 31 other stakeholder groups and individuals across the region.
The Hon. Christy Clark
Premier of British Columbia
Office of the Premier
Metro Vancouver Mayors’ Council
Cc: Hon. Todd Stone; Hon. Peter Fassbender
Re: A call for leadership to invest in transit and transportation in Metro Vancouver
Dear Premier Clark and Members of the Mayors’ Council,
We the undersigned are a diverse group of organizations from business, labour, health, environment and student associations working together to advocate for investment in Metro Vancouver’s transportation system.
We are writing to urge you to act quickly and take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the recent federal budget to improve transit and transportation in our region. As you know, in its budget, the federal government made a commitment to a $370 million “down payment” toward the 10-year Metro Vancouver Transit and Transportation Plan.The federal government has also shown tremendous leadership by agreeing to pay 50 per cent of all capital transit costs provided agreements can be struck with the province and local mayors.
These commitments have changed the landscape for transit funding in our region, but with this opportunity comes a challenge: we need to be ready with regional and provincial funding, or else these federal dollars, collected from local taxpayers, will go to other cities and provinces that are ready. For the good of our economy and the health and livelihood of citizens, this cannot happen. We are calling on the province and the Mayors’ Council to work together to ensure that we are ready to get Metro Vancouver moving again.
Expansion of transit services — especially when they’re electrified — is crucial for Metro Vancouver to improve air quality and health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote economic development and job growth.
A growing number of studies confirm that congestion costs our region more than $1 billion each year due to lost productivity, increased operating costs and lost business revenue and regional GDP. It has been estimated that investment in transit could save the health care system at least $115 million annually, and likely considerably more if the benefits of increased physical activity were also included as part of the cost-savings analysis.
We ask you show leadership by putting history and political differences aside to work together and ensure we are ready to take full advantage of federal support and start improving transit and transportation. Adding new federal dollars is an essential prerequisite for moving ahead with stalled transit improvements so badly needed for the Metro Vancouver region, and for B.C. as a whole.
Lastly, we wanted to take this opportunity to highlight the importance of using newly available federal funds to implement the full set of regional transportation improvements outlined in the Mayors’ Council Transportation and Transit Plan rather than a few projects here and there. A regional approach to transportation investments will ensure that Metro Vancouver residents and businesses throughout the region will benefit. Local and provincial governments have the power to help us make history in B.C. and Metro Vancouver through implementation of a world-class provincial and regional transportation plan.
Should you require more information, we would be happy to meet with you or your staff.
Thank you for considering this request.
BC Federation of Labour
BC Healthy Living Alliance
BC Teachers’ Federation
British Columbia Golf
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Clean Energy Canada
Connecting Environmental Professionals – Vancouver Chapter
The David Suzuki Foundation
Disability Alliance BC
Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association
Downtown Vancouver Association
Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association
Dr. Lisa J. Jing Mu, Medical Health Officer, Fraser Region
Gordon Price, Director of the SFU City Program
Graduate Student Society at SFU
HandyDART Riders Alliance
Heart and Stroke Foundation
Peter Ladner, Columnist, Business in Vancouver Media Group
Public Health Association of BC
Renewal Funds Company
Transport Action – British Columbia
Vanterre Projects Corp
Victoria Lee MD MPH MBA CCFP FRCPC, Chief Medical Health Officer, Fraser Health Authority
Transportation Minister Todd Stone did a presentation recently to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. The government then put out the following Fact Sheet
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
Metro Vancouver calls for a Federal Environmental Assessment of the Massey Tunnel Replacement Project
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
The Honourable Catherine McKenna
Minister of Environment and Climate Change
200 Sacré‐Coeur Boulevard
Gatineau, QC K1A 0H3
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.
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.
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: ‘email@example.com‘ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: ‘email@example.com‘ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.
Eliza Olson, LLD., B.Ed
Burns Bog Conservation Society
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