David Pereira was listening to Kevin Falcon on the Bill Good Show last Friday. He tried to go online to the document the Transportation Minister referenced when talking about the ambitious plans that had been in the works for some time.
Having discovered that the link on the Minister’s site was dead, he made a request to his office for it, and they’ve now placed it online. You can find it here.
The document was produced in 2003/04, but since the Minister considers it relevant today, it’s worth a look. You won’t be surprised to find an extensive list of highway projects for the whole province, including, of course, Gateway:
These documents are as important for what they omit as what they include, As with a report from the Vancouver Economic Development Commission on Gateway, I did a quick search, wondering how many times certain words or phrases came up – such as “climate change.”
The answer: zero.
Or the impact on “agricultural lands” of expanding highways.
Zero.
On the possible impact of “peak oil.”
Zero.
“Cyclist,” “pedestrian.”
Once – in connection with maintenance on a highway underpass.
“Greenhouse gas emissions.”
Twice – in connection with RAV, the Canada Line.
As I mentioned with respect to port strategies: how can an organization charged with strategic thinking have no viewpoint on the issues which will determine the fundamental livability, viability and even the existence of parts of this region through which their roads will run?
Remember: through the new TransLink structure, the Province – that is, the Ministry of Transportation – will be fundamentally determining the strategic direction of this region. According to Ministry’s backgrounder, the Province develops a long-term 30-year vision for the transportation system between Pemberton and Hope with which all TransLink plans must be consistent.
So at the moment we have a Premier who is aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 per cent below current levels by 2020. And a Ministry of Transportation who, according to Vaughan Palmer’s September 11th column, forecasts that the Port Mann/Highway 1 widening will produce less than a one-per-cent increase in carbon dioxide emissions (as well as “effectively no change” in congestion on the free bridges – Alex Fraser and Pattullo – impacted by Gateway.)
As Stephen Rees says on his blog: “I cannot imagine anyone believing that it is possible to double the size of the region’s major traffic artery and not generate one trip!” – which is essentially what these models, these reports, these strategies – whether sincere or disingenous – require.
The document may be named “Opening Up BC” but the thinking behind it is closed.
Price Tags 
I wouldn’t expect cycling or pedestrian to actor prominently in that report – because those would not be determining factors for the construction of those roads. Remember that bikes and hitchhiking are banned from freeways for safety reasons.
But that doesn’t mean that cycling or pedestrians won’t be acommodated in the plans.
The Border Infrastucture Plan has added cantilevered sidewalks to the west side of the Queensborough Bridge.
Even the Port Mann Twinning project documents posted to the EAO website show a cycling route – marked in green on this plan:
Click to access 1189028699536_a472fd1478e9414c83aed4d70a214df5.pdf
LikeLike
Good post.
A chuckle so far on page 2 of the document– a picture of an old BC Rail engine with the foretelling caption “Cheakamus Canyon”!
LikeLike
Is it just me or does Gateway strike anyone else as a horrible idea from the 50’s brought back to life today, ignoring all modern realities and everything we’ve learned in the past half century?
$4 billion could go a long way to improving the public transit options in the region and really doing something revolutionary and in sync with today’s realities. Instead we get more concrete, more cars, more congestion, and more climate change.
LikeLike