Get Moving BC. Get Moving BC. 3 Nov. 2008 website.
Bridging the Infrastructure Gap. Sep. 2008 Get Moving BC. 1 Nov. 2008 website.
An organization self-proclaimed to represent that majority of citizens who, in their belief, support the Gateway Program. They are mainly supported by Jordan Bateman, a Langley Councilor. Their report, “Bridging the Infrastructure Gap”, focuses on the inadequate number of bridges in the Metro Vancouver area compared to other major Canadian cities. They find that in order to live up to the standard of these other cities, Vancouver needs at least four times more bridges. They promote massive increases in both vehicular and transit infrastructures all across the region. They also support the use of PPP’s to finance projects. Bateman supports another organization which is called South Fraser OnTrax which wants to revive light rail in the South Fraser Valley to also help ease congestion.
Any websites that attempts to bribe people into registration for iPods or transit passes in my personal opinion should carry no weight in an argument. I also have a problem with their list of "40 groups working to keep you stuck in traffic"; I doubt that is their true intention. In addition they do not take a balanced approach on the issue of congestion; they turn it into a black and white argument. Their solutions are not realistic: that many infrastructure projects could create a fantastic society but would not only be very costly to build but also to maintain. I understand that their belief is that PPPs will help cover some costs but it does not seem economically viable. They seem to believe that bountiful cheap vehicular infrastructure and transit infrastructure can coexist. True both infrastructures are necessary but it is not economically sound logic that both can prosper. In addition their ideas are based on infinite oil reserves which is a fundamentally false concept. Their report is widely discussed on the internet as making unnecessary comparisons to Canadian cities in the prairies. I just cannot accept like their rhetoric.
November 3
.
Showing posts with label Essay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Essay. Show all posts
More Opposition to the GP
CSDP Policy on the Port Mann / Highway 1 expansion. Civil Society Development Project. 3 Nov. 2008 website.
Keeling, Paul, and Christopher Barrington-Leigh. “Greenwashing Gateway.” The Tyee 19 Mar. 2007. 31 Oct. 2008 website.
The Civil Society Development Project is also opposed to H1 expansion. However they introduce a thorough analysis of PPPs that are now frequently used by the provincial government in major projects. Their claims are that by introducing the concept of profit into services for the general public, a conflict of interest arises. The claim is made that maximizing profits will create inequalities amongst the users. Many examples are used from Toronto and Australia of PPPs where public interest has been compromised. They also claim that PPPs do not have to be as accountable as the government and that there are then issues relating to transparency. They state is that if the government wishes to go ahead with the project, the tolls must be public and be enacted on a system wide basis in order to act equally on all citizens. They say that this would be the most effective way to discourage unnecessary trips. In addition, they explain that if the province and region keep opposing views of infrastructure development, future city planning will be nearly impossible.
The Civil Society Development Project including Keeling and Barrington-Leigh take a more balanced perspective on the issue. They clearly state that they are opposed to the project on similar ground to the LRC and DSF. This article offers some good insight about how to satisfy the economic necessities of twining the PMB and sustainable development. The argument against PPP’s is very strong and builds off what we learned in class. What is even more interesting is the proposal for system wide tolling in order to discourage vehicle usage and finance transportation projects. It would probably be expensive to implement but I can see how it would benefit the region in the long term. It raises the issue of equal treatment of all citizens of Metro Vancouver; why should only those south of the Fraser be paying for vehicle use and be punished for being vehicle dependent.
November 3
.
Keeling, Paul, and Christopher Barrington-Leigh. “Greenwashing Gateway.” The Tyee 19 Mar. 2007. 31 Oct. 2008 website.
The Civil Society Development Project is also opposed to H1 expansion. However they introduce a thorough analysis of PPPs that are now frequently used by the provincial government in major projects. Their claims are that by introducing the concept of profit into services for the general public, a conflict of interest arises. The claim is made that maximizing profits will create inequalities amongst the users. Many examples are used from Toronto and Australia of PPPs where public interest has been compromised. They also claim that PPPs do not have to be as accountable as the government and that there are then issues relating to transparency. They state is that if the government wishes to go ahead with the project, the tolls must be public and be enacted on a system wide basis in order to act equally on all citizens. They say that this would be the most effective way to discourage unnecessary trips. In addition, they explain that if the province and region keep opposing views of infrastructure development, future city planning will be nearly impossible.
The Civil Society Development Project including Keeling and Barrington-Leigh take a more balanced perspective on the issue. They clearly state that they are opposed to the project on similar ground to the LRC and DSF. This article offers some good insight about how to satisfy the economic necessities of twining the PMB and sustainable development. The argument against PPP’s is very strong and builds off what we learned in class. What is even more interesting is the proposal for system wide tolling in order to discourage vehicle usage and finance transportation projects. It would probably be expensive to implement but I can see how it would benefit the region in the long term. It raises the issue of equal treatment of all citizens of Metro Vancouver; why should only those south of the Fraser be paying for vehicle use and be punished for being vehicle dependent.
November 3
.
Livable Region Coalition
Will Freeway Expansion Kill the Livable Region. Oct. 2004 The Livable Region Coalition. 1 Nov. 2008 website.
The Livable Region Coalition effectively argues that the provincial GP counters many regional initiatives for sustainable growth. They cite LRSP goals of protecting green space, building complete communities, achieve a compact metropolitan region, and increased transportation choices and then proceed to demonstrate how the highway enlargement violates these goals. They demand a thorough assessment of the most effective method of long-term congestion reduction. They claim that the plan will not solve the problem of congestion, will have negative effects on the liveability of the region, does not consider more effective solutions, and that the process lacks transparency. The report demonstrates the highways lead to more traffic and not reduced congestion. It also explains the detriments to standards of living such as suburban sprawl, congestion on secondary roads, public health and physical activity, and environmental impacts. The report follows with other solutions of improved transit, carpooling, light rail, flow regulation, congestion tolls, and managing demand on the transportation infrastructure. The conclusion of the LRC is that the GP will not achieve its intended purpose and that different approaches are necessary in order to reduce congestion while keeping Metro Vancouver liveable.
In order to add more weight to the argument, the LRC lists their supporters on the first page. Some may state that this is an elitist strategy and that they are trying to use their credentials instead of logic. I am of the opinion that it demonstrates that they have made a thorough analysis of their position. It makes it easy to distinguish in whose interests the report was prepared. Because I made an analysis of the DSF paper first, and this report is two years older the DSF one and predates the GP Definition Report by 6 months, it is slightly less relevant.
November 3
.
The Livable Region Coalition effectively argues that the provincial GP counters many regional initiatives for sustainable growth. They cite LRSP goals of protecting green space, building complete communities, achieve a compact metropolitan region, and increased transportation choices and then proceed to demonstrate how the highway enlargement violates these goals. They demand a thorough assessment of the most effective method of long-term congestion reduction. They claim that the plan will not solve the problem of congestion, will have negative effects on the liveability of the region, does not consider more effective solutions, and that the process lacks transparency. The report demonstrates the highways lead to more traffic and not reduced congestion. It also explains the detriments to standards of living such as suburban sprawl, congestion on secondary roads, public health and physical activity, and environmental impacts. The report follows with other solutions of improved transit, carpooling, light rail, flow regulation, congestion tolls, and managing demand on the transportation infrastructure. The conclusion of the LRC is that the GP will not achieve its intended purpose and that different approaches are necessary in order to reduce congestion while keeping Metro Vancouver liveable.
In order to add more weight to the argument, the LRC lists their supporters on the first page. Some may state that this is an elitist strategy and that they are trying to use their credentials instead of logic. I am of the opinion that it demonstrates that they have made a thorough analysis of their position. It makes it easy to distinguish in whose interests the report was prepared. Because I made an analysis of the DSF paper first, and this report is two years older the DSF one and predates the GP Definition Report by 6 months, it is slightly less relevant.
November 3
.
David Suzuki PMB Briefing
Bruce, Ian. Briefing Document: Proposed twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1 expansion. 13 Jun. 2006 David Suzuki Foundation. 1 Nov. 2008 website.
The briefing document by the David Suzuki Foundation analyzes the implications of twining the PMB on current regional goals. Bruce acknowledges that there is congestion but believes it is due to the approaches and not the bridge itself. He also states that unlike the other Gateway projects which assist cargo transport, the PMB project focuses on SOV use during peak-hour commutes. One of the reasons they oppose highway expansion is that it would lead to urban sprawl which conflicts with the Livable Regions Strategic Plan of Metro Vancouver that promotes sustainable growth. In addition, the document outlines the failures of highway expansion at reducing congestion in the long term through sprawl, longer commuting distance and pressure on secondary roads. They also state that the minimum 1.5 billion dollar cost is too expensive (not including social costs of increased obesity, traffic accidents and air pollution) and actions are required now and not as far as the 2013 completion date. Finally the report claims that alternatives were not sufficiently considered and provides numerous options, many of which have been considered by regional organizations, for alleviating traffic congestion on Highway 1. The proposed options include increased bus service in both frequency and area service, more Park and Ride locations, a rapid bus to Coquitlam on priority bus lanes, better connections to an expanded SkyTrain system, Evergreen line construction, and rescheduling peak commercial transportation demand with longer port hours.
The David Suzuki foundation has strong national and international support and accreditation. As a founding member of the Livable Region Coalition, one of the strongest opponents of the GP, their briefing holds decent weight on the discussion. The source is well written and documented. They could have used statistical evidence to show that their alternatives are viable but I don’t think that was their intention.
November 2
.
The briefing document by the David Suzuki Foundation analyzes the implications of twining the PMB on current regional goals. Bruce acknowledges that there is congestion but believes it is due to the approaches and not the bridge itself. He also states that unlike the other Gateway projects which assist cargo transport, the PMB project focuses on SOV use during peak-hour commutes. One of the reasons they oppose highway expansion is that it would lead to urban sprawl which conflicts with the Livable Regions Strategic Plan of Metro Vancouver that promotes sustainable growth. In addition, the document outlines the failures of highway expansion at reducing congestion in the long term through sprawl, longer commuting distance and pressure on secondary roads. They also state that the minimum 1.5 billion dollar cost is too expensive (not including social costs of increased obesity, traffic accidents and air pollution) and actions are required now and not as far as the 2013 completion date. Finally the report claims that alternatives were not sufficiently considered and provides numerous options, many of which have been considered by regional organizations, for alleviating traffic congestion on Highway 1. The proposed options include increased bus service in both frequency and area service, more Park and Ride locations, a rapid bus to Coquitlam on priority bus lanes, better connections to an expanded SkyTrain system, Evergreen line construction, and rescheduling peak commercial transportation demand with longer port hours.
The David Suzuki foundation has strong national and international support and accreditation. As a founding member of the Livable Region Coalition, one of the strongest opponents of the GP, their briefing holds decent weight on the discussion. The source is well written and documented. They could have used statistical evidence to show that their alternatives are viable but I don’t think that was their intention.
November 2
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
