You are hereTown Portal Categories / Transportation / PORT EXPANSION
PORT EXPANSION
Ian Robertson had a bit to say about the port recently and you can read what he had to say HERE If you are interested (and you better be) in this issue, follow this blog closely. There was a recent interesting article in Vancouver Sun on CONTAINER TRAFFIC that shows just how important it is for us to remain competitive in this business.
Apparently China will be building 100 container loading berths to deal with the massive trade route to North America that is opening up more quickly than expected. Counter that with the five we have on schedule for the Westcoast of North America and we have a small problem. Mexico sees that and is moving along quicker than we are to secure the Chinese business. The Prince Rupert Port should be on time but the Delta Port expansion is "about a year behind" due to delays in its' environmental assessments.
I think it is shocking that the Port authority has had to put up with NIMBYism to the extent that it is endanger of loosing business to competitors. The spin off tax revenue to our region will more than cover our infrastructure needs and maintenance and improvement to the ecosytems in and around the expansion area.
I think it is time that the "silent majority' starts saying something on this issue. The not so silent minority had THIS TO SAY in the www.delta-optimist on the 8th of April. What say you?
Some people love to refer to Port Expansion and the associated infrastructure build-out as the "Master Plan" as if it has been ill-conceived and is laden with inherently evil characteristics.
I have heard people and local Government officials say that Port Expansion issues are being negotiated in secret and that there is a massive conspiracy at play.
Some have referred to the surrounding issues as "dominoes" implying that each component has been secretly developed to fit in to an overall master plan to deceive the citizens of Delta and British Columbia. Can you give us some credit please? The majority of people that live here understand our plight. Most of us have the cognitive ability to understand and interpret our environment. We do not need a constant run of zealots to remind of us of every idiosyncrasy that for most would seem as obvious as waking up in the morning.
A couple of things are clear. If you are the VPA, you can't expand your operation without first having the transportation infrastructure. That is why the South Perimeter road discussion had to evolve before approval of the Third Berth. When business is good you make arrangements to keep it going...correct?
On the TFN side of things, of course a land deal in the area of the Port would make sense. We may not like it, but at face value it seems like an appropriate business transaction given the complexities of the issue.
In the Jan 31 Delta Optimist Liz Gough takes a poke at Ted Murphy for feeling that resistance to Port expansion and other issues can seem futile. Ted has it right in the sense that people who have semi-logical minds understand that things have to happen regardless of ad nausea references to Margaret Mead quotes.
Gough again suggests that our lifestyles are being "assaulted". Mine?..not so much. I can still very easily appreciate my local environment in a short walk from my house. I am sure most others in South Delta can as well.
I bet Gough has never even been to the Port. I would venture to say that she has a vague idea of what it does but I think that she would completely disagree that it actually contributes to maintaining the" lifestyle" that we have become accustomed to and the one that she constantly refers to. Unless, of course, she only wears, buys , eats and furnishes her home with Tsawwassen or "Canadian" made items. Ya.right!
Would that be a reasonable thing for your family and my family to consider?
No...it is not.
No expansion at our Ports would see an increased trade deficit, lack of business investment, movement of goods to other Ports and a loss of employment, higher interest rates and a myriad of other problems. That is when the "for sale" signs would come up.
We are a nation of traders and always have been. Our plentiful primary resource base is what makes Canada one of the most stable and live-able countries in the world.
When did Gough move to South Delta and what infrastructure was in place then?
Did farmers and early pioneers like or hate the fact that their trade routes would be expanded?
Look...we may hate the fact that changes are happening in our community. I don't want more trucks on our roads and I don't want erosion of our wetlands and I would certainly like to catch a coho in Georgia Straight like I used to not so many years ago.
As unfortunate as it may seem, I have also "resigned" to the fact that I am ineffectual in halting the development of these social and economic building blocks. I know they will be built. My job and yours...now...is too ensure as much as possible that the build-out will be undertaken with due care and attention.
As much as I applaud APE's intent I certainly do not, for a single moment, deny the "government" for doing what is has to do to keep our Nation strong.
Local fights are impressive in intent but unfortunately lame in practice.
Liz...sign up for the Port Committee and see if you can help fine tune an unfortunate local situation in to a live-able compromise on a fundamental need of our society.
Mike Schneider
Should we be proud that Labour problems and lack of capacity have caused One of the Major Chiunese shippers to make Seattle theirFIRST PORT OF CALL?
I don't think so.
As the pieces of the TFN treaty, the Gateway Project and the Delta Third Birth Project come close to actually being put together it comes as no surprise that individuals and groups who are not for the expansion of the Port are working overtime to get there message across to the Public as best they can.
I have said all along that I am not for Port Expansion per se, but I am also not going to believe for a second that an issue such as this , which has National consequence and importance will be stopped in its tracks at this juncture. I am hoping and trusting that all 'deals" will be negotiated in good faith and that the projects are built out appropriately and with due care and attention to our economic and environmental needs.
I think Ted Murphy had a sensible perspective in his Wednesday editorial in the< a href="http://www.delta-optimist.com/issues06/093106/opinion/093106op1.html" >DELTA OPTIMIST.
Like it or not, the Governments we elect have to make decisions that will not always involve us at every stage of process. Some call this a lack of "transparency". I call it governance. To keep everything "transparent" would utterly hamstring the initiatives that Government needs to execute on in order to maintain the quality of life we have come to enjoy in Delta across this country.
In the same newspaper a couple of people who have worked long and hard to stop Port Development use descriptions of government and the process that I am not particularly fond of. Although there may have been meetings that did not involve the public at every stage I refuse to buy in to the notion of the "behind closed doors' conspiracy theory.
For her part, < a href="http://www.delta-optimist.com/issues06/093106/opinion.html"> LIZ GOUGH of APE, describes the process as lacking in transparency and accountability. She says that she has encountered citizens who are "disgusted with the unethical tactics being carried out by our provincial and federal Governments". She says that these same "citizens" have described officials involved in the Deltaport expansion as "corrupt, fascist, illegal, deceitful and liar". Ms, Gough agrees that these are proper descriptions for these officials.
As remarkable as it for someone who is attempting to affect change by using these words to describe members of our own Government and their agencies it is more remarkable to expect APE Gorilla tactics to actually work.
A failure to note that the Port Expansion, the TFN deal and the Gateway Project are mega projects that are needed to serve the greater National good and not our local community interests is further evident in a letter (same edition) from < a href="http://www.delta-optimist.com/issues06/093106/opinion/093106le2.html">PETER DUFFEY.
Mr Duffey notes that the lands in question are crown lands that belong to the people of BC. He does not note that it is the responsibility of the elected governors of this land to act on our behalf to serve public interest.
Mr Duffey finds it "doubtful that the best interests of BC are being served".
Again, these major initiatives are not for Delta the GVRD or BC..they are for our National economy. Mr. Duffey suggests that the only people who will benefit from the completion of this puzzle will be the 290 members of the TFN. I think Mr.Duffey may want to add another 33 odd million to that total.
The "conspiracy of silence' ploy is yet again portrayed in a < a href="http://www.delta-optimist.com/issues06/093106/opinion/093106le3.html"> SUSAN JONES LETTER in which the wizard of oz behind the curtain meddles with public issues to the detriment of Dorothy, the Tin Man et al. ( again same issue if you can believe it!)
It may very well be true that every aspect of the negotiations and the deal making process was not disclosed to the public. My point is so what?
We elect these people and one day we are going to have to put some marginal faith in to their ability to accomplish tasks..
I respect that people want results and that they want explanations for things. I do not appreciate the constant suggestion that our elected officials and their agencies are always bumbling buffoons.
I think most people in Canada share that guarded confidence. If we didn't, it would certainly be a hell of a lot different around here.
There was an interesting editorial in the < a href="http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=4d85da35-3f58-4dac-bbb4-b0ccde27360d">VANCOUVER PROVINCE which outlines some of the problems associated with an antiquated bureaucracy at the Departmant of Oceans and Fisheries.
I am all for accurate assessments of environmental issues, particularly as they relate to our fisheries, but I am not interested in seeing people tripping over themselves and delaying due process.
I agree with Liz Gough that we should all take the opportunity to voice our concerns about Portr Expansion.
I believe they will go ahead thoughtfully and diligently.
Liz says that Canada "touts" itself as being a democracy. Is she suggesting that every public policy decision go to a vote or something?
Even with Port expansion, I will disagree with Liz that Roberts Bank will be destroyed, that farmland will be industrialized and that the expansion will cause the "demise" of our quality of life.
I recently read a wonderful book called < a href="http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/marketforvirtuerevised.htm">THE MARKET FOR VIRTUE.
There are some relevant sections in the work that have helped me look at various sides of the Port Expansion issue.
The CEAA and the VPA have invited the Public to < a href="http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/DocHTMLContainer_e.cfm?DocumentID=16085">comment on the prposed Third Berth expansion.
Documents relating to the comprehensive report can be viewed < a href="http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/viewer_e.cfm?cear_id=3734#Documents">HERE
Make sure you get your say.
For interest and information, noted below are highlights of the upcoming agenda for the July 19th GVTA Board of Directors' meeting.
___________________________________________________
from the desk of Christine Baird
Office of the Vice President, Corporate and Public Affairs
TransLink (Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority)
Tel: 604-453-4691 - Fax: 604-453-4642
<>
The Agenda:
Here is a summary of the reports that will be on the agenda for TransLink’s Board of Directors meeting at 9:00 am on Wednesday, July 19th at the District of North Vancouver City Hall (355 West Queens). Staff recommendations are noted and specific actions are subject to debate, amendments and approvals. The full reports are posted on TransLink’s web site: http://www.translink.bc.ca/WhatsNewandBoardMeetings/Board_Reports/default.asp
4.1 Regional Transportation Implications of the Provincial Gateway Program
TransLink staff are recommending a position for the Board of Directors on the provincial gateway program that supports proceeding with the North and South Fraser Perimeter Roads first, then the widening of Highway #1 and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.
The staff report says the province should take steps to ensure that improvements to goods movement are maintained in the long term on both perimeter roads. It also calls on TransLink, the province and the federal government to help New Westminster mitigate the impact of the North Fraser Perimeter Road and the rail lines on the city’s downtown area.
Staff’s recommendation to the Board is to support the Highway #1 and Port Mann improvements as long as tolls and other transport pricing are introduced to fund the project, manage demand and promote efficiency. Specifically, it says priority should be given to goods movement, high occupancy vehicles and transit ahead of single occupant vehicles. TransLink also does not want the Pattullo Bridge promoted as the ‘free alternative’ to a tolled Port Mann, but wants the province to cost share upgrades on the Pattullo and to join in a long term strategy to possibly replace the bridge.
The staff report agrees with the province’s conclusion that the Highway #1 corridor is not the right place for light rail at this time, but calls for a twinned Port Mann and a new Pitt River Bridge to be designed to handle this kind of service in the future. TransLink wants the province to include infrastructure for a high quality express bus service along Highway #1 and to open the route to cyclists.
4.2 Response to GVRD Board Questions on the Provincial Gateway Program
In April, the GVRD Board asked for advice from TransLink on the specific issue of widening Highway #1 and twinning the Port Mann.
The first GVRD issue was whether proceeding with these projects at the same time as other transportation initiatives was the most efficient and cost-effective in terms of achieving regional objectives. TransLink’s response is limited due to the complex range of factors involved. Generally, TransLink estimates the impact on region wide transit use would be less than 1% however it would be greater in the area where the Gateway project is being developed. The Evergreen Line could see a reduction of up to 5 per cent of the westbound traffic while the SkyTrain could see a drop of up to 9 per cent on trips out of Surrey over SkyBridge. Peak hour traffic volume on Highway #1 would increase west of the Port Mann because there would likely be no tolls on this section. TransLink estimates that some traffic, especially in the non-peak direction, would divert from a tolled Port Mann to the Pattullo Bridge, aided by the new South Fraser Perimeter Road.
The GVRD also wanted to know if deferring the Highway #1, Port Mann and Pitt River Bridge improvements and going forward only with the new Golden Ears Bridge and better transit over the Pitt River Bridge would be enough to improve traffic flows for people and goods. TransLink’s staff is not able at this time to suggest an alternative package that would adequately address the need to improve the movement of people and goods in this corridor.
4.3 SkyTrain Vehicle Purchase
TransLink is asking for Board approval to buy 34 new SkyTrain cars from Bombardier at a value of $147 million, $34.5 million less than the cost that the Board approved in principle last December. This purchase is the first of a three phase program that could see up to 72 more SkyTrain cars added over the next six years to handle increased ridership, including passengers coming off of the new Evergreen Light Rail Line from Coquitlam to Lougheed. Currently, SkyTrain passengers have to wait for up to three trains to board at the Broadway and Stadium stations in peak periods.
4.4 Evergreen Line – Project Definition Update
A TransLink staff report recommends an extension to the construction period for the Evergreen Line that would see the new service launch in September 2011 instead of the current target of December 2009. General inflation, the rising cost of steel, concrete and labour, and the challenge of meeting an aggressive construction schedule to have the line operating in late 2009 would push the estimated cost to $1.06 billion versus the $800 million capital allowance approved in principle in 2003.
Extending the construction period to 2011 would save over $100 million for an estimated cost of $953 million. Other options will be examined in the coming months to generate more senior government funding for the project and to further reduce the cost.
4.5 Canada Line – Richmond-Brighouse & Broadway Station Design Revisions
A staff report recommends that TransLink, the Canada Line and the cities of Richmond and Vancouver cost share some changes to the Richmond-Brighouse and Broadway stations. Richmond has recommended a change to the bus loop at its station that would provide better access, a better environment for transit customers and more flexibility for future bus service expansion. Vancouver wants to move the Broadway station’s platform and entrance closer to Broadway to provide Canada Line passengers with better access to bus services along Broadway and, eventually, with better connections to the Millennium Line’s western extension if it is decided to build it along Broadway.
These changes will cost TransLink and Canada Line $3 million each, Richmond $2 million and Vancouver $1 million.
4.6 Golden Ears Bridge – Land Exchange with the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District
The Golden Ears Bridge project wants approval from TransLink’s Board to swap just under an acre of property that currently forms part of the Katzie Pumping Station site in Maple Ridge. The land exchange will give the bridge project the area it needs for construction and satisfy future expansion needs for the pumping station. The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District approved the land exchange at its June 30th meeting.
4.7 Haney Place Transit Exchange – Additional Funding Request
Staff is recommending that just over $1 million be added to the funding for the new Haney Place Transit Exchange. The exchange will be on the south side of McIntosh Avenue between Edge Street and 226th at the Haney Place Mall in Maple Ridge.
The project was first approved in the fall of 2002 at a cost of $763,000 but a variety of issues including a local dispute over property rights delayed construction. Three additional bus layover areas, work on an adjacent parking lot required by the municipality and escalation of construction costs since 2002 are factors in the cost increase. The exchange will be a major focal point for current transit services and will accommodate future service expansion that is planned for the area.
4.8 2006 Capital Projects – Specific Project Approval
TransLink is seeking approval from the Board for about $19.8 million in transit system upgrades. Projects include lighting improvements and a new public address system on the Expo SkyTrain Line, new ticket vending machines on the West Coast Express and an extension of the trolley lines on Marine Drive.
4.9 Proposed Terms of Reference for TransLink’s Finance and Audit Committee
The Finance and Audit Committee of the TransLink Board is appointed by the Board to assist in the review of TransLink’s financial reporting, the internal and external audit process, risk management and the policies and procedures for authorizing TransLink’s financial commitments. The report proposes changes to the terms of reference for this committee based on its additional responsibilities to review financial statements from TransLink’s subsidiary companies and to reflect the standards and requirements of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
4.10 Toronto Transit Proposal – “Instant Tax Credit�
The Toronto Transit Commission suggests that the federal government not proceed with a tax credit for those purchasing monthly or annual transit passes. Instead, it wants Ottawa to turn that funding over to transit companies to offset the need for fare increases. While TransLink supports sustainable federal funding for transit, the staff report does not recommend support for the TTC’s proposal.
4.11 Golden Ears Bridge – Value for Money Report
The Golden Ears Bridge project has produced a report that details the advantages of having the Golden Crossing Group design, build, finance and operate the new bridge, rather than having TransLink fund and operate the bridge. The major advantage is a significant shift of risk to the Golden Crossing Group, which has assumed responsibility for cost increases due to general inflation or as the result of escalating prices for construction materials and labour. The group has signed a fixed-price, date-certain contract that will have the bridge opening in 2009.
4.12 Parking Tax Consultation Process
TransLink is working with a variety of business interests to find an alternative to the Parking Site Tax. TransLink’s Board has agreed to repeal the tax, which has been strongly opposed by the business community, if an alternative source can be found for the $20 million in annual revenue. The process now underway includes an independently moderated on-line forum in which participants can propose and discuss alternative revenue sources. TransLink is also planning to hold a policy forum this fall to generate discussion about ways to fund the region’s road and transit system.
4.13 Transit Service Improvements
On September 4th, TransLink will expand bus routes and increase service on major corridors, particularly to UBC and SFU. Over all 208,000 service hours will be added this year, the biggest service increase in the region since the 1970’s. Among the improvements rolling out in September will be service increases on: the #480 – Richmond Centre to UBC; the #25, #49, #100, #41 and #84 cross town routes; and the #135 and #145 to SFU.
There will also be increased service frequency in peak periods on the #488 and #492 Richmond – Vancouver Express services, as well as between Langley, Port Kells, Guildford and Surrey City Centre on the #501.
New Community Shuttles will roll out in Tsawwassen, UBC and on a route linking Yaletown to Main Street/Science World Station.
4.14 Broadway Transit Priority Update
TransLink and the City of Vancouver are collaborating on steps to improve bus service along the Broadway Corridor, the busiest bus corridor in the region. Between them, the #9 trolley and the #99 B-Line carry 60,000 passengers per day but increasing traffic congestion has resulted in an increase in travel time and, as a result, it takes more buses to move the same number of vehicles in a given time period. With over-crowding a major issue on the corridor, the Vancouver/UBC transit plan includes “transit priority� measures along Broadway, including curb side bus lanes, signal timing improvements and transit signal priority at most intersections.
In September, about 10 lane-kilometres of general-purpose traffic curb lanes along Broadway will be converted to bus-only lanes. A small westbound section between Grandview and Commercial will be designated by red-coloured asphalt – a system used in Europe. The City of Vancouver has launched a public consultation to review peak period bus lanes westbound from the Commercial/Broadway station to Arbutus and eastbound from Arbutus to Clark Drive. No on-street parking will be lost.
4.15 Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Police Service Update
The new Transit Police Service has been actively implementing its expanded authorities since it officially rolled out in early December 2005. So far this year, Transit Police have made seizures and arrests on 181 drug related incidents. Prior to becoming a fully authorized police unit, officers did not have the authority to enforce possession and trafficking laws.
In addition to the recent high-profile arrest of a suspect wanted in connection with a murder in Toronto, the Transit Police have executed over 300 other warrants, an authority they did not have prior to last December. Officers have also assisted the RCMP, municipal police forces and other government agencies in over 400 incidents.
For the first time, Transit Police statistics reflect their new authority to operate off of TransLink property.
4.16 2006 Q1 Revenue and Expense Forecast
Based on trends after the first quarter of 2006, TransLink is forecasting a $26.9 million surplus by the end the year. The major reason is lower debt servicing costs due to project timing that has delayed borrowing, lower interest rates and a favourable cash position at the end of 2005 that has resulted in less borrowing required this year. This is a one-time, one-year benefit and the funds will be applied to future road and transit improvements.
High fuel prices will result in an estimated $4.5 million reduction in fuel tax revenue than budgeted while diesel costs are expected to be $827,000 over budget. TransLink will not apply fuel surcharges or fare increases, due in part to efficiencies at the Coast Mountain Bus Company that will save $2.8 million this year, and higher-than-expected fare revenue of $5 million because of increases in ridership and purchases of pre-paid fares such as FareSavers and monthly passes.
For more information, contact: Ken Hardie – 604-220-2450
There was an interesting editorial in the < a href="http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=e261c181-720e-4ecc-ae7d-98da305186ac"> VANCOUVER SUN espousing the merits of competition.
I believe competition is important in many aspects of our life but that is another commentary.
As far as competition for our country, trade has and will continue to be an area where we can excel.
As the Sun editorial board noted, "sensible measures within the report include protection of industrial land and the transportation corridor, support for the Pacific Gateway Strategy"....
Full details of the report and related materials can be found HERE
You can read the comments of Patrick McLaughlin, Director, Plannning and Development Vancouver Port Authority regarding the Capacity issue for Delta Port in a recent letter to the editor in the < a href="http://www.delta-optimist.com/issues06/064206/opinion/064206le2.html">DELTA OPTIMIST.
In the same edition, Liz Gough attempts to bolster her case for no further EXPANSION
Thanks for your comments Rob.
I don't particularly need port expansion but that doesn't mean I don't think it will occur. Unfortunately, the needs of Tsawwassen is not what is at stake here. Our national interests are on the table with this one and the needs of the collective will outweigh our local desires.
I want the expansion and related "gateway' issues to be undertaken with the upmost care and diligence.
As far as your Prince Rupert comment, it seems to be a common perception that somehow if Port Expansion occurs there only, all of our trade needs will be addressed. This is just not the case.
All port facilities and planned expansions must occur to deal with the volume of business in the Pacific Rim
I agree completely with Jodi. Delta: "Ours to Preserve By Hand and by Heart". We need to abide our Federal Government's original study that aborted all future port expansion at DeltaPort for various sound reasons. We need to band together to keep what we have. The miopic, shortsighted, vision challanged proponants of expansion do not have Tsawwassen's best interests at heart. Traffic, pollution, obliterated landscape, destroyed sensitive ecosystems are our only benefits. Why would anyone support expansion? Give your heads a shake - Prince Rupert is the place to be if you want to be part of Port expansion. What possible reason would one want Port expansion at DeltaPort?
I just wanted to point out that the increased truck trips from a 'Third Berth" at Delta Port would result in an increaase of approximatly 600 additional Truck Trips of which 40 % (250) would head North through the Tunnel.
This number is significantly lower than the " several thousands" number that Susan Jones refers to in this < a href="http://www.delta-optimist.com/issues06/063206/opinion/063206le3.html">DELTA OPTIMIST letter to the editor.
Using Mike's numbers for container use within the GVRD, we still have more than enough capacity to service the GVRD well past 2020 without expansion at Deltaport. It is estimated that the GVRD use of TEUs may grow from 449,000 TEUs in 2004 to 1,378,000 TEUs in 2020. With approved expansions underway, Vancouver and Surrey Fraser Docks will handle 4,550,000 TEUs by 2020. Deltaport, without any expansion, will handle 900,000 TEUs. So within the Lower Mainland, there is ample capacity to service our needs.
In reference to Prince Rupert, there is expansion to handle 2 million TEUs with capacity for another 2 million TEUs. So there is capacity to service different markets without the same dreadful impact on communities and the environment.
Mike mentions that based on forecasting, the container business will need all the facilities it can build. That is all it is - forecasts. No one has produced any credible feasiblity studies. To become a conduit for Chinese goods, the GVRD would be transformed forever into an industrialized transportation corridor. Governments want taxpayers to foot the infratructure bill of $7 billion for road and rail upgrades.
Business with China is booming but do people in the GVRD region really want to emulate China and become another Shanghai as suggested by Captain Gordon Houston, President and CEO of the Vancouver Port Authority,in a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, November 30, 2005? "these are the people we need to learn from and emulate." He goes on to refer to Deltaport Third Berth expansion and Terminal 2 "which must be permitted and built by 2012 if we are to meet the growing demands of our Asian customers...and we are asking Ottawa to streamline and simplify the process for buying and selling port land...As I've said, both the federal and provincial governments are highly supportive of the Pacific Gateway"
Gateway and plans for port expansion at Roberts Bank are not thoughtful plans designed for a sustainable economy and environment. These plans promote a false economy where short-term profits can be gained from rezoning and industrialization of farmland and environmentally-senstive areas. And, we, the people of the GVRD, get to pay billions of dollars for the destruction of communities, loss of farmland, traffic congestion, noise and air pollution, irreparable damge to the Fraser River Ecosystem and loss of quality of life.
I just want to take a moment to respond to Susan Jones recent post HERE regarding container shipping. I did find the document to which she refers and have a different interpretation of the info.
The percentages quoted are correct but they are based on projected increases in container throughput from 2010 to 2020 which requires the terminal infrastructure.So, the percentages for transfer of containers within the Lower Mainland (the intra-regional market) remain similar but the number of containers for the local market increase from 449,000 TEUs in 2004 to a forecast of  994,000 in 2010 and 1,378,000 TEUs in 2020.
As far as Prince Rupert goes, it was considered as a part of the third birth assessment and it should be noted that there is no market for the transit of containers there as the terminal is under construction. From what I have read the two terminals would serve different markets, and based on the forecasting, the container business will need all of the facilities proposed by the Vancouver Fraser River and Prince Rupert Ports.
Some new FAQ's on the VANCOUVER PORT AUTHORITY will be of use for those wishing to make sure they are up to speed on the issue of expansion. Check it out!
There was a post earlier this week indicating that Mike is "the main author of this website" and we feel there is some need for clarification. As one of the other several founders of Town Portal it is important for all participants to know that the amazing volume of writing by Mike reflect his energy, commitment and passion for writing about local issues. The goal of the Town Portal is to stimulate opinion from all of our community and Mike just happens to be beating you all to the punch. We encourage - no, challenge - all of you to match his output. In this way the Town Portal will continue to grow and benefit our community. And oh yes, Mike's opinions don't always match up with mine or other founding members of this Town Portal. We do however respect and encourage him to continue. Let's all be nice and civil about our words or I'll have to do some hand slapping. Now, if he says anything about my knobby knees then we've got a war on! Best regards, Geoff Flamank, TPG (Admin) or gflamank@town-portal.com
Thanks Susan. Jimmy, I put some links in a prior post...one of which Susan refers to. Here they are again...The entire Deltaport EA Application (February 2005) and supporting documents:
http://www.portvancouver.com/container_expansion/deltaport/index.html#EA_application
Supplemental documents created after submission of original EA Application (December 2005)
http://www.portvancouver.com/container_expansion/deltaport/index.html#supp_docs
I gather from your comments that you think it is all right for DFO Lawyers to advise the Vancouver Port Authority how to circumvent a proper Environmental Assessment when the DFO is supposed to represent the public interest, not a proponent. I gather you think it is all right to transfer 1153 hectares of provinicial crown water lot, protected for habitat under an Order In Council, to the management of the Vancouver Port Authority. I gather you think it is all right to bypass regular procedure and not take the Terms of Reference to public for input. I gather you think it is all right to proceed with the environmental process even though Environment Canada has raised major concerns that the studies undertaken by the Vancouver Port Authority are seriously flawed and could have consequences that would cause international embarrassement. I gather you think it is okay to ignore the findings of previous environmental assessments which warned that further development at Roberts Bank could cause an unacceptable threat to the Roberts Bank ecoystem. And you say the process is not flawed?
You asked for information. A lot can be found at the following site. Google: B.C. Government EAO EPIC. Then open Epic Project Information. Scroll down to Under Review. Scroll down to Transportation and you will find Deltaport Third Berth Project. Open that and you will find a lot of information. I suggest you read the input from the public.
Thanks again Jodi. I am reading through this massive amount of stuff to legitimize my own perspective on the issue. I guess I may somewhat jaded by stalling techniques when I see that there is legitmate process underway. Again, you are wrong. I do respect people working for the environment. If you are, I respect you. Again, I certainly respect the work that Susan Jones has done and is doing. I don't agree with her in how she argues that the review process is flawed at this stage, but hey, that's life. I get frustrated every once in a while. Do you? The Margearet Mead quote?...yes I know it and I have seen it a lot lately. I am happy you have passion for your cause. I like to share facts just like the next guy, and, I like to get emotional when it is appropriate and I would expect that we all should.
Mike - you certainly do not communicate like you respect people doing work for the environment. Also, I never implied you were naive to the issue, I intended to say that to blindly believe, and to not question the government is naive. You also say that we should make sure all possible sides of the issue are heard, but you've also said to stop the delays and just build it. Frankly, I'm confused; you contradict yourself a lot.
I leave you now with one last thought:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
– Margaret Mead
Wow, I just bumped into this blog-versation! I love it when Special Interest Groups bump into General Interest Groups. As a born member of all GIGs I must admit that we are a very dangerous and uneducated lot - we are still interested though. I thank Mike for his style - whether you like it or not - it did generate many gems of knowledge from Guest (whomever he or she is). Hey Guest, please put some links in to where we can find out more and get ourselves educated - help me move from being a "generalist" to somewhere where I'm less comfortable with my lack of knowledge. I think I saw a columnist in the latest edition of the Optimist that wrote about how many issues there are to deal with in our community. Us members of GIGs rely on those who have made the time and allocated the commensurate and infectious energy to pass on the salient pieces of information.
I'm almost interested in what triggering events in this issue moved GUEST from being a GIG to a SIG. In issues relating to environment though its hard to say that this doesn't impact us all - this issue is especially general. Ah, sorry about that.
Guest, please give us some key bullets to help us out. And Mike, if you can take the heat, keep nudging those SIGS out there. I love these blogs. Bring it on! Educate us!! Please!!
As you appear to be the main author of this website, may I suggest you stop cloaking contempt with an appearance of reason. Your choice of words shows your true intent of discrediting participants and their input. You use words to capsule comments in a derogatory way. An example is your comments on Motion to Delta Council. You accuse me of being paranoid and promoting a conspiracy theory. You place yourself in a superior stance and warn against the emotional trap of environmental catastrophe brought on by a corrupt and devious government and agencies. This is a false and ungenerous characterization and detracts away from the intent of the dialogue. They are your words, not mine. You seem to find it difficult to have a simple, straignt-forward exchange of ideas and information. Did you notice how one participant picked up on the conspiracy theory and went off on that tangent when, in fact, it was irrelevant to the exchange? In another exchange on this website, you state you do this to stimulate conversation. That's a cop-out. I think you get some strange pleasure from using language to put down others in order to justify your point of view. Regarding the topic of this exchange, if you read the input from Environment Canada to the Deltaport Environmental Assessment Studies, April 27, 2005, you will read: "EC has adopted the position that the risk of eutrophication within the intercauseway cannot be dismissed. If it does occur, the state of eutrophication is predicted to result in such massive environmental change between the causeways that there would be public outrage as well as agency embarrassement on an international scale, not to mention the loss of productive habitat for a very large and diverse assemblage of biota." These are words from Environment Canada - not me. Do they warn of catastrophe? You bet. The input by their own federal scientists is now being ignored by the managers of the environmental process. This is the process that you say you trust.
An alternative to Deltaport is Prince Rupert. One difficulty in planning for ports in Canada is that they are in competition with each other so Canadians are not the recipients of good overall port planning. You will hear many dispersions cast on the plans to expand at Prince Rupert as an alternative but one of the main reasons that the push is on for Deltaport is that the company that leases at Deltaport, Terminal Systems Inc (TSI) owned by Orient Overseas International Limited of Hong Kong (OOIL), does not have the lease at Prince Rupert. This powerful company is very influential so hence the push for Deltaport. One argument is that we need the goods coming in for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. However, we have more than enough capacity for that already. About 38% of imported container goods are needed in the GVRD. The rest is being tranported elsewhere - a good percentage across Canada. Hence we need the Gateway Project to transport goods by road and rail. If you read the study, Economic Impact Analysis of Investment in a Major Commercial Trnasportation System for the Greater Vancouver Region, July 2003, you will read the plans for Gateway. It was estimated in that study that taxpayers will need to pay $6.4 to $6.9 billion dollars for road and rail upgrades to transport goods in the GVRD. So think about the costs. There has not been a proper cost/benefit analysis of port expansion and Gateway plans. There should have been an overall plan with an environmental assessment, a feasibility study and a cost/benefit analysis. Is it possible that this may be an economic boondoggle?
The VPA and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should not even be looking at a Habitat Compensation Plan. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is very clear that the project can proceed only if it can be assured that, with mitigation, there will be no significant adverse environmental effects. Compensation is only being suggested because the effects will be significant and they cannot be mitigated. This is one example of how the process is skewed. Also, the Habitat Compensation Plan is not based on scientific facts and there is no evidence that the lost habitat can be compensated. Please read the public input to this document.
Once again, Mike, rather than casting dispersions on people, you should stick to the facts. There is evidence that DFO Lawyers in Ottawa advised the Vancouver Port Authority how to circumvent a proper cumulative environmental effects asssessment of the Deltaport Third Berth project. So not only have they not followed due process as you profess, they have betrayed their mandate. This is the process that you purport to be so trustworthy and thorough. The emails that provide this information also show that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency warned against the changes to the Scoping Document and the assessment of cumulative effects stating that it would go against the intent of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and set precedence that would defeat the purpose of including future projects in the cumulative effects assessment as required under Section 16 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I would be happy to send copies of the email to anyone who is interested. Just email me at susanj@dccnet.com.
For your information, the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee is very careful to document and reference sources of information. So before you continue spewing venom on groups and people who work to protect the Fraser Delta Ecosystem, perhaps you should do your homework. Our organzation is pleased to share our letters and sources of information. One problem is that it takes long hours of research and reading to research the issue of Deltaport Expansion and the assessment process.
I can assure you that the process has not been proper. Not only is due process being denied for the Deltaport Third Berth Environmental Assessment but agreements and plans are being made that include measures to assist the Vancouver Port Authority with the next phase of port expansion - Terminal 2 with 3 new berths. Not only are the most Important Bird Area in Canada and the most important salmon river in the world at risk but also the foundation of democracy - respect and adherence to legislation by public officials. Perhaps this is not important to you.
I like the fact that there are usually two sides to a story. It gives everyone a chance to spend some time engaged in meaningful discussion. As far as the Port goes I can see why people would be generically against it. I think that these people, and all of us for that matter, should fight to ensure that all environmental aspects are dealt with as best as possible given the nature and scope of the proposal. Sometimes "trusting' government can be difficult given the many instances where our trust has been misplaced or taken for granted. Still, the "consiracy card" doesn't sit well with me. I could see it if we lived in a military dictatorship or in a generally corrupt country...but we don't.
Thanks for expressing your point of view Jodi. That is the purpose of this Blog, plain and simple. I respect what Susan Jones and others are doing. That does not mean that I have to agree with it. I'll admit that I have not dedicated my life to this issue but having spent many hours playing "catch-up" I can certainly say that I am not "naive" to the issue, but thanks for your bold assertion nonetheless. I'll stand by my statement that I do not suspect that there is a Government conspiracy at play. Thanks again for contributing. Let's make sure as many people as possible hear all sides of the issue so that they can thoughtfully engage themselves as they see fit.
In your statement regarding development issues in Delta/Tsawassen you state: "I personally trust the BC and federal Environmental Assessment offices and agencies and am not paranoid enough to believe that there is a conspiracy at play as Susan Jones and others do". This stand point is narrow minded and contrary to your belief it is you who are naive. Susan Jones is dedicated to her community and has spent a large portion of her life ensuring that all aspects of community needs are met, not just those of the developers and the insatiable appetites of their backhoes. Very few people in this world have the courage to undertake the jobs Susan and her group do, and they don't do it for recognition or money. They do it because they care. Residents of the area should be thankful for people like Susan, they ensure that all members of a community are heard. They don't always win, but people get heard, and in a democratic society everyone is supposed to have a voice. We can not take for granted that various levels of government are acting in our best interest. Democracy was originally defined as "Government by the people, of the people, for the people", these days many people believe it goes more like: Government by the people, of the people, for the corporations. And an endeavour like the port expansion is definitely for the corporations. Do you personally need a bigger port? NO, but the corporations sure do, they might have to wait a minute for a berth - and oh my goodnes, wouldn't that be a waste of time? Oh yeah, don't forget the bottom line! Perhaps you should step outside your comfort zone and consider what the folks like Susan are saying - basically it boils down to what good is money if the entire environment is a toxic-cement wasteland?
Also, the EA approval was suspended due to irregularities, and ommissions that were identified. These are legitimate concerns - so you are essentially advocating that these two developments occur as approved without a clear picture of the consequences. I guess you REALLY do trust the government. And how is it possible? How can any one be so certain of government intent when we are constantly bombarded with news of under the table deals, payoffs and any other number of the shams that occur. Didn't Kevin Falcon just last week say that he wished we were in China where there are no environmental regulations, then he could build what he wanted, when and where he wanted. And you chose to trust this man explicitly? Wow. Would you still trust him if the port or bridge was going in your backyard? Well it IS in your back yard! And the alternative voices people like Susan offer bring a more thoughtful holistic approach to development - and that my naive friend, we should ALL be thankful for. I have encountered individuals like yourself my entire life, and I am sure Susan and her friends at the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee have too - I know you all think we are a bunch of tree-hugging hippies. Well we're not, many of us have obtained the same educations as the people you trust so much, and we did it so we could fight the fight on a level playing field. You will not stop us, we may be beaten, but ultimately you will not win - at least we will know that we stood up for our beliefs and did not follow along sheepishly believing everything we see in the newspaper or on TV.
One last thing, no friend of the environment talks like you did in your opinion piece, and no friend of smart growth does either. Perhaps you should brush up on the concepts before you call yourself their "friends", from my viewpoint, you sound like your a friend of Kevin Falcon and he is definitely not the friend of any environmentally concsious individual or smart growth advocate.
Holistically,
Jodi
Do we really need to micro-manage every issue in our community? I am a friend of the environment and I am a friend of Smart Growth. I personally believe that very complex issues can be dealt with by forward thinking representatives from all levels of Government. At the risk of getting in to a massive debate on the merits of trade and commerce, let's just say that if you don't appreciate what they do then you are just simply naive.
This past Monday council postponed Motion on Notice regarding on the table correspondence from Susan Jones, Director, Boundary Bay Conservation Committee. The < a href="http://www.deltaviews.com/contentengine/launch.asp"> MOTION asks that Delta Council:
(a) reiterate its earlier request to Federal and Provincial agencies that the Deltaport environmental assessment process be suspended; and
(b) request a full and immediate independent review of the Deltaport environmental assessment process; and
(c) that the findings to be made publicly available.
The environmental review of Delta Port has been delayed for a year thus far and it appears as though further lobbying of Delta Council by special interest is poised to attempt further delay.
The suggestion that there "appears to be a collaboration between the regulatory authorities and the Vancouver Port Authority with respect to the cumulative effect assessment of the Deltaport Third Birth" is an assertion that I am having trouble coming to grips with.
The perception that we are somehow being deceived and manipulated is a common tactic employed by those wishing to instill grassroots cause championing. The fact of the matter is that all regulatory bodies associated with the proposal for the third birth have followed clear terms of reference throughout the process.
It is important to understand that the VPA developed the Deltaport Environmental Assessment Application based on predetermined guidelines from our provincial Governments' own Terms of Reference and the Federal Scoping Document.
* The provincial Terms of Reference for the application was developed by the BC Environmental Assessment Office in conjunction with the project working group which included representatives from Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada, the Corporation of Delta, The Fraser Health Authority, GVRD, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Agriculture and Land and several First Nations including the Tsawwassen First Nation.
* The federal scoping document was developed by Environment Canada and DFO and circulated for public comment prior to being finalized. The federal scoping document describes the scope of the assessment and the scope of factors to include in the assessment of the Deltaport Third Berth Project including cumulative effects.
In addition, the VPA did conduct a cumulative effects assessment for the Application which includes the cumulative effects of the Third Birth Project in combination with other projects that have been or will be carried out based on the best information that was known at the time of the assessment, including Terminal 2 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road.
It would appear that the process undertaken by the Port Authority would be compliant with Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Now that it appears as though a decision will be forthcoming on the adoption of the South Option for the Gateway Project, I would hope that our Government agencies and elected officials will move ahead with the project without further delay.
To suggest as is implied in the current motion before council that somehow an analysis of the process be undertaken by an "independent" authority is certainly a recipe for disaster.
Who will be the independent group to undertake such a study and who would appoint them?
I personally trust the BC and federal Environmental Assessment offices and agencies and am not paranoid enough to believe that there is a conspiracy at play as Susan Jones and others do.
There is no doubt this an extremely complex issue that requires more diligence than most people have the time to undertake. That being said we should make sure that we avoid falling in to the emotional trap of believing that an imminent environmental catastrophe brought on by corrupt and devious Governments and agencies is looming.
If you can put your book down for a little while you should visit the following sites:
The entire Deltaport EA Application (February 2005) and supporting documents:
http://www.portvancouver.com/container_expansion/deltaport/index.html#EA_application
Supplemental documents created after submission of original EA Application (December 2005)
http://www.portvancouver.com/container_expansion/deltaport/index.html#supp_docs
BC Environmental Assessment Office:
http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/html/deploy/epic_project_home_212.html
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (coordinates federal review):
http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/Viewer_e.cfm?SrchPg=2&CEAR_ID=3792
There is a < a href="http://www.deltaviews.com/contentengine/launch.asp">Motionbefore council to postpone the environmental review of Deltaport.
Council may have asked Gateway to review Hoover/Naas....but isn't that like asking the Fox for a security update on the Hen house?
Come on Gateway is never going to slap their forehead and say " wow
what were we thinking?" Just not going to happen.
Like the gun registry, the fast ferries and 1000 other government projects......they will spend thousands more to justify the continuance of their nonsense.
I would suggest that a highway engineering firm be engaged from Alberta to do a comparative study and evaluation of Hoover/Naas versus Gateway. No interference from anyone in BC. Just a list of pros and cons, costs and effects......just facts no bull!
I'd be very happy with that!
Delta Council made a motion last night for Gateway to let the public know specifically why the Hoover Naas proposal was not considered. They also conceded that though their option was not considered (hwy 17 retrofit) that we should all move on with what looks like will be the South Option.
I am not convinced we should be as worried about increased traffic from an expanded Port as we should be about our own driving habits. We need to revisit our driving needs and talk to our emplyers about flex time and telecoomuting as employee benefits. This is what I had to say about it in the DELTA OPTIMIST.............As summer approaches I would really like for at least one of our major issues to be well down the road to completion before I take a break. I must admit that I am suffering from "issue fatigue" and would enjoy writing about great BBQ sauces and how to make the perfect margarita.
I spend most of my day reading and writing about, or researching issues that affect Delta and other communities for www.town-portal.com and am coming to realiize just how incredibly complex our particular problems are.
There is a common thread that has lots of "crosssover" on many of our local topics and it is transporation. The Port Expansion is a key driver here as is a low local employment rate and a lack of products and services in our community. What do we do with the trucks? Gateway North, South, Hoover Naas? The tunnel? Emissions, congestion, infringement on ALR by new infrastructure, damage to the environment, densification, zoning, more potential noise to East Ladner residents...... It literally goes on and on and on.....
Next time you are driving through the tunnel (alone), why don't you ask yourself the uncomplicated question before you start yapping about how there are so many trucks and that traffic was a nightmare. The obvious question is why are you in your car by yourself?
When I take the HOV lane I cannot believe how many single occupant vehicles (SOV's) there are. I literally laugh at the people clogging our arteries. It is a real joke! I'm more concerned about SOV's than I am about increased truck traffic from an expanded Port. What a bunch of hypocrites we are with our 2.5 or 3 cars per family stacked up on our expansive driveways. How many of us single occupant drivers are the same people who bitch about Port Expansion, Tunnel traffic and higher densities? I wonder?
We are close to being the leader of inter-municipal commutes in the GVRD. For a community that portays itself as so environmentally sensitive and aware we should not be taking this well. Commuters from our municipality take an average of 7 car trips per day. Apparently our walking threshold is five minutes. Walk from your house for 5 minutes. Then come home and draw a circle around your house from that point on a map. This is your walking threshold. If the Town Centre Mall is not in your cirlcle, that means that you likely drive to get your milk. How pathetic is that?
Smart Growth tells us how to build more liveable communities and how to integrate densities so that grating transportaion issues can be mitigated. Zoning in accordance with Smart Growth principles could provide for the density that we will need to ultimately lower our commuting ratio and our daily car trip total.
The next Smart Growth Discussion series is May 24 at the South Delta Baptist Church at 7Pm. It is unlikely that this destination is in your five minute circle so you should car pool if you would like to practise what you preach.
People have to make the calculation. The math part is not fun and that is why people generally ignore it. People are generally math stupid but that is another topic. Your topic and this thread may be a way for us to recognize the "meat" of the transportation issue, and not relegate discussion of it to blaming Port Expansion, the other guy or whomever else we continually attempt to scapegoat. Look in the mirror people...and, give your heads a big shake. You need to convince your employer that you want a benefit. Employers need to take a couple of bucks off the dental plan and put it in to a car-pooling or telecommuting program. What is your solution?
I am in the midst of doing my own diligence on this massive issue and, as mentioned in other areas in this site, I just want to make it clear that I am in favour of Port Expansion. I have my reasons and I will be happy to debate them. I enjoy a good discussion on South Delta stuff, I really do. I only like talking about any given issue if I know at least something about it. I like the freedom of being able to have a little chat without having to result to throwing out useless barbs intended to somehow solicit a supposed moral point of view. I will listen, maybe interject a few things but I will generally lay low or lob a few trial balloons over to the other side to see what happens. One thing I am not going to do, ever in my life, unless my tongue is far in my cheek it is actually in my ear, is paint the horror story. I am really bored with the horror story. Ice packs melting, and now, thanks to Liz Gough, "decreased quality of life" ,Delta turning in to "another Mitchell Island", lack of tourism...blah...blah..blah! Liz is the Stephen King of everything "portish". Liz is very well informed but her or her handlers (if there is a group) have misunderstood the fact that you cannot possibly be so utterly hostile in your public stance on any issue if you hope to garner support. I would suggest you might be losing some of your "share of mind " Liz. I / we understand your position but do you have to be so loud and potentially alienating about it? We would like to listen to what you have to say and make an informed opinion. Enough with the overblown rhetoric!
Mike Schneider
Thanks Greg. I very much appreciate your comments. I am also concerned with the "human" aspects as someone who has been frightened more than a few times driving along hwy 17.
I am not an environmentalist as you can probably tell. Having said that I have been spending a lot of time trying my best to understand all positions on this issue.
Please let me be perfectly clear to you and to all of the people who visit this blog. I have no other intention in this forum other than to engage the public. Plain and simple. I think some people may visit, see a few comments and then run away. The idea is to get as many opinions as possible and stimulate a dialogue that will hopefully attract interest from policy makers, and politicians. We all have our points of view and what I am attempting to do is provide a forum us to express them. Some people are nervous...i umderstand that. Blogging is something that one demographic takes for granted and another will simply not understand.
If things work according to plan, the simple scale of participants should show a good representation of public opinion that you would not normally see. It is difficult to gauge true public sentiment in a dozen or so weekly 'letters to the editor' but if you have regular commentary from regular people like you and me in a daily forum you have some meat on the bone. I want us to be able to say what we wnat when we want to without fear of editorial. That is my goal. Please feel free to express your opinions on transporation or any other issue as you see fit. And, thanks for contributing. People like yourself and Mr. Naas need to be heard.
Mike Schneider
Mike;
Hoover/Naas has been around for 3 years now and we have never argued with the Port, there are other groups doing that. In a nutshell our whole intent was to get these Port trucks through our community as quickly, quietly and safely as possible. We believe our proposal accomplishes that. We're construction guys and we understand that, but when it comes to the environment and eco diversity and all those good things, well someone else will have to make those points.
We're more concerned about "human" habitat and the safety of our families on the road.
Regards
Greg Hoover
The idea of a "Port Ghetto" brings interesting imagery to mind. I don't think it appropriate that the word "ghetto" be thrown around loosely in area where we live in an area that has traditionally done its best to maintain values associated with peace and well being for all. I took this description of Ghetto from "Answer.com"....
1. A section of a city occupied by a minority group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure.
2. An often walled quarter in a European city to which Jews were restricted beginning in the Middle Ages.
3. Something that resembles the restriction or isolation of a city ghetto: “trapped in ethnic or pink-collar managerial job ghettoes� (Diane Weathers).
Pretty absurd to suggest that Delta would ever become anything resembling these descriptions and, I think, a little offensive to anyone who has had family experience relating to real ghettos.
The main reason this community Blog exists is to get a sense of what we are all talking about at the dinner table. This is South Delta's dinner table and it is open for discussion.
Like any good topic, the issue of Port Expansion always seems to come up at dessert when my wife and I entertain. Never during dinner..the food is too good I guess and no one has time to open their mouths let alone talk.
When it does come up I've only been able to address it in very simple terms. I just haven't been as exposed to the background material as I probably should be. The past few weeks have seen me correcting the error of my ways. I've been doing a little research on the Port Expansion issue because I found myself lacking sufficient ammo to enter in to any kind of debate without looking, well, stupid.
It's easy to pidgeon hole this one though, and I get the sense that most people do. My grade four teacher called it "your mind's eye'. It's the tool you use too visualize things. Ok, visualize this - large Port with big cranes and stuff and highways and trucks and smoke and all things industrial like. Take that vision and stick it on a river estuary. Then, take those two items and put them in South Delta and you have the recipe for a fist fight.
I see the point of people who have obvious concerns for the environment in this issue. The Fraser River Estuary is an incredibly complex ecosystem that requires an extremely careful and thoughtful solution approach. The traffic considerations are massive as well. Mr. Greg Hoover has been kind enough to offer his thoughts on this issue in the "Port discussion thread".
This topic requires careful consideration of many other issues and while I can tell you I don't intend to become an expert or to profess that I have more to offer in terms of insight than the average Joe, I will tell you that I have thought a lot about how to discuss my perspective.
Just so there is no confusion, I am for Port expansion for a number of reasons that I will deal with throughout this Blog and the Port Expansion discussion thread. Having said that, I am for expansion if I can be satisfied that infrastructure needs, environmental impacts and policy procedures are addressed and followed in the most reasonable of ways given my view that we have to deal with our responsibilities as global trading partner so that our nation will continue to enjoy its way of life. I guess that is my "schtick". I don't see the Port going elsewhere and I don't see it operating at zero growth so lets make sure that if it does grow it grows properly.
I've decided to take on this issue of self education in five separate pieces:
A.) Resources
There are a lot of them out there and I'll probably miss a few but here is where I have started DELTA PORT THIRD BIRTH PROJECT Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, The entire Deltaport EA Application (February 2005)Â and supporting documents:
http://www.portvancouver.com/container_expansion/deltaport/index.html#EA_application
THE GATEWAY PROGRAM .., WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE.... TSI TERMINALS... HOOVER NASS PROPOSAL
That's where I have started in any case. Please feel free to send me more resources or refer to them in your comments. The more the better!
B.) Process
What has been the process so far and which agencies have spoken to who about what and when
C.) The business of the Port...why we need it
D.) The environmental impact study
E.) Effects on the community of Delta
That's it for now folks. I would encourage you all to have your say in this forum. It doesn't take long to contribute and it is important that there is a record of communication within the public domain on this and many other issues in our community. Only by looking at all points of view can we work toward a solution. I have asked others who have been following the Port expansion to offer their views. Some have declined and some are eager to contribute.
Mike Schneider
Thanks for your point of view Greg. For my part, I would like to hear from a realestate agent to see if there is any merit to this. I am a homeowner in the community and want to hear points of view from all angles on this issue.
Although I believe that term is a little over the top and alarmist, I do know from talking to local Real Estate people that residents are quietly leaving because of the Port, and potential new residents are not buying for the same reason. When the trucks go from their current 2000 a day to 5000 and beyond I'm sure it will make that situation worse. So our property values will decrease, the roads and the tunnel will be overloaded with big rigs, and by then the Port and the trucks will be running 24/7. Does that make Delta a ghetto? I don't know, but I do know the Port can expand without causing those negative effects in Delta.......Hoover/Naas can achieve that.
What did you think I was going to say?
Cheers
I'm really doing my best to get up to speed on this issue. I think we all should. Recently I have heard the term "Port Ghetto", most recently in this Delta Optimist< a href="http://www.delta-optimist.com/issues06/045106/opinion/045106le1.html"> LETTER Does anyone have any background data to suggest that such a phenomena would evolve? This same letter gives an e-mail address for APE at ape.info@dccnet.com. I would like to see some info on potential property assessments if there is any.
Hello Mr. Hoover and thanks very much for taking the time to participate in our "blog". The main reason we took this project on was and is to afford our community the opportunity to hear points of view, gain some insight, and participate in an ongoing dialogue that will hopefully make South Delta a better place to live in the long run. I appreciate that you are a busy man and that you cannot take the time to answer everyone's questions. The tone of this Blog may indicate a certain 'leaning' one way or the other, but it is hoped that as the numbers of participants increases, a certain "even playing" field will evolve that will ultimately prove to be a worthwhile forum for us to express our opinions on transportation, the Port, TFN treaties, the Southlands and all the other issues that our small community deals with on a regular basis.
I hope that you and your followers use this forum to illustrate your points of view and that you engage the population in the hopes that we can sort out some of our local problems.
Thanks again, and we look forward to hearing from you and your supporters.
Mike Schneider
Hi Folks;
I'm one of the co-authors of The Hoover/Naas proposal.
www.thereisanotherway.com
Our involvement on this issue started 3 years ago so most of the questions I've seen here I will try to answer. Now please don't dump a million questions on me, as I have a business to run, a life and this highway issue.....but I'm happy to help with your questions because it is THE most important issue in Delta bar none.
1/ is the Port a benefit to Delta?
Sure....if it's done right!
If it isn't we will have 5000 semi trucks a day on local roads, endless tie ups at the tunnel, and all our land values will drop.
2/ Does Liz Gough have an alternate?
The idea of transferring all containers to Prince Rupert has been suggested but it won't happen.
3/ Will the Port give back to the community?
They do and will continue, but it's chump change compared to what they will make!
4/ Is there an alternate to saying no to Port expansion?
Yes! Hoover/Naas.....the Port expands but because the effects of that expansion....trucks and trains........are all confined to a commercial corridor then the effects on Delta are minimised.
5/ Re "the math question"?
What Susan Jones meant was the South Fraser Perimeter Road,in Delta and Surrey will cost TAXPAYERS $800,000,000 and the road is not needed by commuters in those places. It's for the trucks!
The shipping industry will increase their bottom line yearly by
$1,500,000,000........their figures not mine!
6/ re the lecture on trade and Canada's well being.
Agreed, however there is no need to plow over and destroy this community when there is a viable, cheaper, faster safer option.
The Hoover/Naas proposal would allow the Port to expand, operate 24/7 and that would have less effect on the community than the Port does now. SOMEBODY has to think outside the box!
7/ re councils support of the petition against the Port.
That's a good one, but try this.......if you're a polititian that can't or won't commit......why not commit on something that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell.....so when it fails you can say
"well we gave it our full support!"
8/ re Orcas and economics!
Lets just stay with the program! I'm worried about my kids driving with those damn trucks much more than I'm worried about the whales!
How come dangers to humans aren't considered in environmental studies???
9/ re friends of the voles!
This council and those before protest everything and present very few new ideas. It's not what they support you should criticize, but the lack of forsite and inovation that they exhibit.
10/ re Rush Hour....... The density of South Delta will never have the condition at the tunnel fixed. Point Roberts, Tsawwassen and Ladner can't grow much and the ferry traffic has been constant for the last ten years.
The only immediate improvement for the tunnel is Hoover/Naas, which takes all the northbound and much of the south bound port and ferry truck traffic out of the tunnel.
11/ Re Traffic and his/her support for Gateway.
One little detail you and Gateway don't mention......84% of all traffic headed north on highway #17 is headed for the tunnel.
Why do you think a four lane highway to Maple Ridge is going to make them change their destination? Why would anyone currently going to Coquitlam use the jambed tunnel and the east west connector rather than 99 and 91. There is no traffic study to say traffic will leave the tunnel when the SFPR is built, and with 5000 trucks a day I would say the tunnel will get much worse!
CONCLUSION;
Take a look at Hoover/Naas we even have a solution for the power lines in Tsawwassen.
Take a look at www.thereisanotherway.com
To Mike. You are living in a dream world if you think your simple minded analogy applies to the Port expansion. There is no need for compromise here. The simple fact is that irreputable damage will be caused to the entire Fraser River Estuary system if this expansion takes place. The VPA is incapable of providing any solution here.
Its time for the Left and the right to have a meeting. How about over lunch? Tofu, green tea and organic greens on one side of the table, Big Macs and super-sized fries on the other. Let's compromise. How about organic greens tossed with a little free range chicken There...everyone happy for a second or two? Ok, let's take that little metaphor out to the real world and see if we can get anything done around here. Doubtful! You know what? I am about sick to death of cranky and over reactive activism that seems to dominate our local scene. Endless complaining and whining is supposed to build an army to get something done, or, more likely, undone? The way things are going for the left it would seem that alienation of potential recruits is what may ultimately transpire. The notion of big bad nameless faceless corporate giant plundering our world is really tired. Hey, they're bad and they know it but at least they are willing to contemplate change. That they and governments are often portrayed as subversive secretive and ultimately evil is stereotypical fodder for naive and selfish people who have no intention of communicating let alone collaborating with the forces from the dark side. The boring imagery of the epic David and Goliath struggle and of the champion hemp wearing long hair throwing rocks at the suit and tie set just doesn't do it for me. I'm sick of NIMBYism...it wears really thin. I wouldn't mind it so much if there weren't so much evidence of hypocrisy within its stubborn ranks. An example... the single passenger car traveller who makes an average of 7 trips a day and who buys their groceries from the United States in supermarkets that aren't in their own community but has the gumption to say no to Port Expansion because it will create more traffic problems and increase emmisions. To those folks, you better be prepared to eat rat if you want to start a revolution. I'm sick of political NIMMism (not in my mandate) as well. If you can't take the risk you know you probably should you shouldn't be there in the first place and we were sucked in to voting for you by the strength of your contrived political machine and not by your good looks and mental genius alone. As for the right. You have to continue to find new ways to measure "return on investment" "dividend" and "shareholder value". Is it possible that the people who run your beloved corporations and invest in your relentless quest for market share can ask for a benefit other than a rising share value? What about your recycling programs and your contributions to public facilities and infrastructure? Can you appease your detractors by improving the environment in other areas not easily seen in your core activity. Can you alter your budgets and allocate more funds to sustainable initiatives that may slow your growth but ultimately improve the local environment? Point is that there is are environmental and economic equations, that, like it or not are far more intertwined than both the left and right can imagine. It sounds easy to drop the baggage to facilitate a decent discussion from both sides on many local issues in Delta. The only real path may be to research, listen and educate yourself before you speak. If you are unable to provide useful support for your argument or find yourself unable to compromise with a contrary notion that may prove ultimately useful, you should fight your battles somewhere else. I don't care if you have lived here for three or thirty years. Really, I don't. I welcome your comments.
A recent article on the infrastructure associated with the Port Expansions is availble HERE
Post new comment