on skepticism

Posted on October 18, 2013February 6, 2015. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I listen to a lot of podcasts. With the intellectual wasteland that is talk radio in the Lower Mainland, where every conversation or idea is a reduced to either a he-says / she-says argument between two people who are too busy hitting their “message points” to hear what the other is saying, or random uncritical repeating of press releases with no time for setting context, (and don’t get me started on call-in or person-on-the-street bitching), the options are thin. Stephen Quinn is a brilliant interviewer and engaging host, but even his work is hampered by every-10-minutes traffic reports and redundant news “updates” every half hour. As the weekends on CBC 1 have basically shifted to all “Debaters”, all the time, and the commercials have arrived on Radio 2, the wasteland is only expanding.

So while I listen to quite a bit of music, there are many times when talk works better, and occupies brain space that music cannot while doing non-thinking stuff: commuting, weed-pulling in the garden, bike maintenance, ironing. So podcasts, with their flexibility of timing and ready access fit the bill.

One of my favourites is the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe. This weekly hour of “skeptical talk” discusses science and reason in a fun and engaging way. Not a “hard science” program, but one that often delves into pretty science-heavy topics. There are several good Science podcasts (Material World, Science Talk, etc.) but the Skeptic’s Guide stands out in what can only describe as their “skeptical approach”. The hosts and guests spend less time talking about the potential meaning of the latest “groundbreaking” new scientific study or discovery (although they often cover that), and more into the process of how a discovery was made or study was performed, and what that means about the result. In other words- they view a wide variety of topics through the lens of a rigorous application of the scientific method. They are also merciless at tearing apart bad science, bad science reporting, and the preponderance of pseudo-science that fills the modern media. They don’t do this by mocking the characters involved (well, any more than deserved, and I’m talking to you Deepak Chopra), but by systematically disassembling their bad ideas.

As a result, their show is a weekly hour-long primer on how to think. It engages you to not just question “what is the evidence?”, but to question “what is evidence?” or even “what is the evidence presented actually evidence of?”. From listening to the Skeptics Guide, I have learned to better recognize sloppy thinking and weak arguments: on my part, and on the part of others. It has also taught me about common logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques that are used when someone is trying to make a point that the data do not support.

It seems funny that I am still learning this stuff after all the time I spent in school getting degrees in science. However, that is a common failure in our current post-secondary science education system. Neither UBC nor SFU (my alma matter) require a student seeking a science degree to take a serious Philosophy of Science course (although UBC has the optional SCIE 113– which is an English writing course that discusses the topic).

I was fortunate to have an undergrad Prof (who became my supervisor for the Masters) who spent part of a mandatory second-year Structural Geology course discussing the scientific method and its application to problems. We also spent much of his upper-level course time reviewing the scientific literature, with him asking us to critique the thinking in the paper – to understand what the basic assumptions are, and how to test their validity. I learned to look at the citations of a paper, the citation of the citations, to find the root of an idea. All of this was, however, in the context of teaching structural and sedimentary geology. Frankly, I probably did not appreciate it much until I got into my Grad work and realized he had equipped me with a scientifically skeptical mind. Thanks Peter, you sneaky bastard!

However, a geology Prof shouldn’t have to sneak this into students in courses that are meant to be teaching about eigenvectors, stress vs. strain, and what those Moment Tensor solutions on the USGS Earthquakes site mean. Every science student should take a course in third year (after all the wheat-and-chaff data bashing of the first two years is out of the way, and only those really interested in a field of science remain) to teach the philosophy of science. What is evidence? How is it evaluated? What is certainty, and what is consensus, in the scientific context? How do Theory, Law, and Hypothesis interact? What is a model, and how does it compare to reality? What is the Dunning-Kruger effect? What can we learn from what we don’t know? What are the major categories of Logical Fallacies, and how do you detect them?

Why should we subject students to this scientific brainwashing? Because our brains are dirty. We all have our biases, our bad ideas, our perceptual weaknesses. We cannot avoid these, but to approach even the simplest problem scientifically, we need to recognize these problems, and find a way to isolate them from careful observation of the evidence. The more complex the scientific problem, the harder this is to do. With a high level of science illiteracy today (no higher than in the past, I suspect, but more pronounced because there is just more science to be illiterate of), there are often calls to address complex problems with liberal application of “common sense”. The problem is, “common sense” is often wrong. Common sense tells us the earth is still and the sun rotates around it. Common sense tells us that you are more likely to be killed by lightning than an asteroid impact. Common sense tells us driving your kids to school is safer than letting them walk. Common sense tells us more snow is not a predictable result of global warming. The data proves all of these ideas false. Pretty much the entire subject of Quantum Mechanics belies common sense – it is still a hell of a useful model of the subatomic universe.

His Eminence, apparently one of the great Thinkers of our time, does not clarify what to do in frequent occasion when scientific findings are contrary to “experience” or “common sense”.

The problem with common sense (especially when biased by personal experience and inherent confirmation bias) is that we all have it, and we all rely on it too often. This is reinforced by a certain anti-intellectual bias in our current discourse. The list of ways our current Federal Government ignores, muzzles, defunds, and otherwise hinders scientific discussion is well established. Knowledge gained from decades of scientific research is given “equal treatment” in reporting on scientific topics with the opinions of the scientifically illiterate or (worse) those who are willing to give up their scientific credibility for profit. And how are we, those who are curious about scientific idea, or want to apply scientific principles to planning (never mind regular folk trying to make our way through this increasingly complex world), supposed to tell the difference?

A perfect example arrived in the Surrey Newspaper this week. Read this Letter to the Editor, which was sent in support of a scientifically-questionable opinion piece by columnist Tom Fletcher on the recent IPCC report. This letter writer was apparently of the opinion that the entire Anthropogenic Climate Change argument was a result of the world’s scientists not being able to understand decimal points. I quote:

“Never have so many known so little about basic mathematics, physics, chemistry, history and so forth. To illustrate my point, consider that the Earth’s atmosphere is 77 per cent nitrogen and 21 per cent oxygen. That leaves two per cent for all the trace gases including carbon dioxide – currently .04 of one per cent. How can a reasonable person argue that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of climate change?”

This is (as far as formal Logical Fallacies go) called “the argument from personal incredulity”, which can be summarized as “I don’t believe/understand it, therefore it must not be true”. This is an argument wrapped in the same profound lack of scientific literacy or skeptical analysis that the letter writer is accusing others of.

One can easily attack the factual failures in this specific argument (If 0.04 % is not enough to impact the climate, how much do you suppose is required? 1%? 10%? Show me your math / Somehow 0.04% is enough to support the respiration of all photosynthesizing life on earth, yet it cannot impact climate? / Ozone makes up less than 0.00007% of the atmosphere, are you equally convinced of its irrelevance to life on earth?). A more skeptical analysis would lead one to wonder how the writer has discovered a critical flaw in Climate Science that tens of thousands of scientists who work in climate, physics, chemistry, and geosciences for organizations from NASA to NOAA to the Royal Society to every major national scientific body in the world, have somehow missed due to their stunning collective scientific illiteracy? That no-one in the >150 years since the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide was first discovered and measured, no scientist from John Tyndall to James Hansen, ever realized that 0.04% just wasn’t enough CO2 to matter?

No, what we have here is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. We have the bulk of the world’s scientists, who have been plugging away at this problem for a generation, saying they are reasonably certain (now over 95%) that human-caused CO2 emissions are the leading cause of the current observed warning, and you have Francis Patrick Jordan, of White Rock, 100% sure it is not possible because he doesn’t understand small numbers.

But Mr. Jordan is not to blame, his is a failure of the education system not preparing people appropriately for an information-saturated world. We live in a time when everyone is walking around with more raw data than the Library of Congress in their hand, the problem is not getting a hold of facts, it is being able to recognize what the value of a fact is. So when I complain that the graph Tom Fletcher included in his original article dishonestly compares mid-tropospheric temperature measurements from tropical areas with modelled global surface temperature trends (see “Stage 2 – Deny We’re the Cause” here, which two months ago pointed out the falsehood of that particular graphic, complete with references and data and such stuff that a good reporter might be interested in) and even in light of this lie, still counters Fletcher’s thesis by demonstrating a measured increase in surface temperatures on the order of 0.15C per decade during an “pause” in surface temperatures that is not only fully explained by the IPCC report, but the cause of which has been discussed openly in the scientific literature for more than a decade, people should be empowered to follow the links and recognize Fletcher for the non-skeptical, scientifically illiterate, cynical bullshitter he is.

And please, I encourage everyone to treat me with the same skepticism, but be prepared to provide the refuting data and back up your claims.

T2 or not T2?

Posted on October 16, 2013February 6, 2015. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

You have to be a real transportation/Port/Environment geek to know that this is going on, but I thought it might be interesting to call attention to one of Port Metro Vancouver’s current projects. The Port plans to expand DeltaPort- the big island created out next to the Tsawwassen Ferry terminal – to double the capacity for the movement of containers.

PMV graphic, click to zoom in.

They have just applied for an environmental assessment for the so-called Roberts Bank T2 Project, but are doing their own outreach to ask the community a few questions about the current project.

By “community”, I mean people South of the Fraser, because the pubic open houses are all being held south of the middle arm, but there is lots of opportunity for on-line comments, and with a comprehensive EA very likely, there should be more opportunity to talk over the next year or so.

My initial impressions are surprisingly (for some) not all that negative. However, before I present them, I need to do one of my every-so-often caveat things:

Although the footprint of this project is well outside of the City than employs me, my employer has been identified as a potential stakeholder in the project. I am in the department of the City that would theoretically be providing technical assistance to the City’s correspondence on the matter. That said, I have no pony in this race, nor have I any decision-making power in how EA or the Port plans advance, or how my employer approaches the EA. I am not privy to any behind-the scenes information, all I know about the project comes from the publicly-available records. Everything I say here is my opinion, not that of my employer or anyone else who may work for my employer, or any rational person, for that matter.

With that out of the way, I’ll give a quick description of the project. PMV wants to expand the container facility at DeltaPort. This is part of on-going expansion plans out there on Roberts Bank. To put the expansion in perspective, cast you mind way back to 2009, when Hannah Montana was still a thing, and the Roberts Bank Container facility had an annual capacity of 1.2 Million TEU per year (“TEU” is twenty-foot equivalent units, essentially a 20-foot long standard container. The ones you typically see on the back of trucks on Royal Ave are 40-foots, equivalent to 2 TEUs, although the 2.6 TEU 53-footers at are increasingly common).

In 2010 a third berth was opened, which boosted capacity 50%, to 1.8 Million TEU. Since then, an ongoing project to improve the rail and road connections and off-ship container handling is aiming to boost capacity by 2015 to 2.4 Million TEU. If approved and completed, the current project will boost capacity yet again, to 4.8 Million TEU. As full build-out of this project will not arrive until about 2024, the net result would be a quadrupling of container capacity over 14 years.

PMV’s own graphics Click to make bigger

Clearly, the Port is bullish on containers.

There is much to be discussed here, as the projected growth will impact every bit of our City and region. I want to concentrate on two specific issues at this early stage, both close to my heart. Transportation and the Agricultural Land Reserve.

Transportation
If you think there are too many container trucks on Royal Avenue now, what will it be like when container throughput is increased three-fold? Where are all these containers going to go?

I dug through this recent report commissioned by the Port, and used as the justification for expanded container capacity at Roberts Bank, and the existing terminals in Burrard Inlet. There are a few lessons in here.

First off, Surrey Fraser Docks will not be a significant mover of containers at the Port for the foreseeable future, regardless of the fate of the tunnel or dredging of the river. Simply put, the average every-day container ships being built today are too large to navigate within the Fraser River. At 400m long and 60m wide, their 15m draught is the least of their worries. Port facilities along the Fraser River may have many uses, but moving containers on and off of boats will not be one of them, unless the Port decides to finally start investing in the type of short-sea shipping that was recommended to them a decade ago by this other report.

Second, note from the graph above (page 36 of the aforementioned report) that the vast majority of the import containers, more than 90% from 1990 to 2010, are bound for destinations outside of Western Canada. The forecasts deeper in the report suggest this trend will continue, as most growth calculations are based on competitive advantages accessing the Mid-West and eastern parts of North America though rail. This should reinforce the question – why are we moving these things around by truck? What are the economics of moving these containers from the boat to the truck to the multi-modal yard where they eventually end up on trains?

Part of the answer might be train capacity. It has been suggested by people much smarter than me that the single most pressing goods movement choke point in the Province is the New Westminster Rail Bridge, underlying a challenged rail infrastructure throughout the region.

However, this report suggests quite the opposite- saying that there is lots of rail capacity, and that the economic advantages of direct-to-rail are clear:

“… the costs associated with trucking containers from terminals to rail yards were obviously highly uncompetitive. Hence, there was a switch in favour of on-dock rail facilities, and all new container terminals on the west coast either incorporate such a facility or provide on-dock access to an adjacent rail yard.” –pg 146.

So the economics make sense, the global trend is established, and the Port is making plans to take advantage of this reality. Which makes me wonder why we are still investing heavily in the building of truck-freeways to move trucks from the Docks to the Intermodal Yards? Why are we being told we have to accept the community impacts and cost to the public purse of all these container trucks when the economics don’t make sense?

There was one shocking statement a few pages later under Conclusions:

“The only possible difficulty if proposed oil exports from Alberta were to compete for rail space with coal and container trains. Clearly, the correct mode for these exports will be by pipeline. This is the only potential capacity constraint for increased container volumes via Vancouver.” -pg 150

I don’t think any of us were under any illusions about the Port being an interested partner in the building of pipelines to move bitumen from Alberta to the west coast, but this dynamic is one that shows how complex, yet strangely tenuous, our transportation network truly is. How Coal snuck into the discussion here is another point of speculation. Are plans for expanded coal movement really suited to the Port’s expansion plans for containers?

Agriculture / Land Use
The current Port Boss has been questioning the preservation of Agricultural lands. He has gone so far as to say we don’t need farmland in BC, as we can import all of our food through his port. So it is really hard to give him the benefit for the doubt about this topic…but hear me out a bit.

It is possible that the building of new land out where DeltaPort is currently located will reduce the pressure to re-purpose existing new land in the lower Fraser Valley from farm to Port servicing. If we accept that the Port’s expansion models are realistic, and we accept that expanded movement of container goods is a great thing for our economy, and Roberts Bank Terminal 2 is designed to primarily move goods on and off of boats and on and off of trains (three big “ifs”, admittedly), then of all the places for this activity to take place, perhaps Roberts Bank is the best option. Maybe this is a project that Environmentalists can somehow “get to yes” on (to borrow the parlance of the day).

The habitat loss out on Roberts bank will be small, and adjacent to already highly disturbed habitat. With some creative design, there is no reason T2 would create any harm outside of its 100 hectare footprint. It could be argued that compensatory habitat required under the Fisheries Act will be of higher quality than that lost through this project, but that is yet to be seen, and something that will come out during the EA.

PMV Graphics, Click to zoom in.

Public meetings:
There will be 5 public meetings, starting tomorrow, led by the Port, and discussing three aspects of the project: Habitat Mitigation Plans, Methods for improving Port-related truck traffic; and ideas for community legacy benefits. As I said, they are all South of the Fraser, but you might want to make the trip and check them out:

October 16 @5:00pm-8:00pm UBC Boathouse, Richmond
October 17 @5:00pm-8:00pm Surrey Arts Centre, Surrey
October 22 @5:00pm-8:00pm Coast Hotel , Langley
October 24 @5:00pm-8:00pm Delta Town & Country Inn, Delta
October 26 @10:00am-1:00pm Coast Tsawwassen Inn, Delta

Trial by Fire

Posted on October 11, 2013February 6, 2015. by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

I went down to the site of the fire yesterday.

Part of me didn’t want to, I knew it would be a mess, and there are serious people there trying to get work done in whose way I don’t want to get, and although we are (thankfully) lucky that no-one was seriously hurt or killed by the fire, the site is a type of grave- the smoldering remains of people’s businesses, aspirations, dreams. I didn’t want to be a gawker. Approaching the site in the early evening, I was angry at the news helicopters circling – how dare they intrude on our town seeking lurid images for the 11:00. I was bothered by the people who brought their kids to the Parkade to ogle the damage and get pictures of their kids in front of it. But there I was, one of the gawkers, one of the oglers. I even took a picture.

I talked to quite a few people on Thursday and Friday. I heard some pretty sad stories about loss. There are people who lost almost everything in this fire. There are businesses that are not coming back. There are things insurance can replace, there are things it cannot. I don’t want to tell those stories here, because they are not my stories, and I fear talking for others at a time of grief.

I’m not the kind of person who thinks we have fates or destinies. To me, things like this don’t happen “for a reason”, they don’t happen to teach us lessons, or to tell us about the universe. They just happen. That doesn’t stop us from trying to find “the reason” in them – we are pattern-seeking animals. They can, if we let them, tell us about ourselves and our community.

For me, it was strange how emotional this fire is. I didn’t lose anything personally, I don’t even live close enough to have heard the sirens. Several years ago when I lived on Royal and 10th, the paint store right across the street burned to the ground in a spectacular display. Right next door, but to me it wasn’t much more than a curiosity. Why is this fire different? Of the shops that were lost, the only one I frequented was La Saigonnaise (Alas! We were there Sunday – so glad I got to sample the Chef’s Special instead of my “usual”), but there is something about those heritage buildings on Columbia Street, something in their 110-year-old bones, that make their loss different. The Copp’s building (Sorry, Mr. Lewis, that’s what I thought of it as) was one of those locations I remember going into and remarking at the space, which filled me with ideas. I could see a funky bar/coffee shop, a book/media store, a decent men’s clothing place that isn’t Moores. There was so much potential there to be realized. Maybe that’s where the difference was: this building was not just part of our landscape, it was part of our imagination about what New Westminster will be if we keep pushing ideas.

This picture is not mine. It was posted on Twitter by @Mondor13, beautifully adapted from pictures from @stephmer and Daniel Fontaine, and widely distributed.

That, however, is the loss part. Fortunately, the loss is only half the story. The rest of the story is about a community coming together in time of crisis. It started with our neighbouring communities, Burnaby and Delta, providing mutual aid to relieve and back-up our New Westminster Fire crews. With ashes and cinders dropping all over downtown, and 100-year old buildings made of brick but filled with kiln-dried wood and labyrinths of ducts and holes and wires and shafts- the effort required to stop the flames must have been massive. The amount of water required was monumental, evidenced by the flooded-out excavation at the nearby Trapp+Holbrook development, as the local storm sewers were quickly overwhelmed.

The rest of the story continued as the first social media and old-school phone call offers of help. At first, so many offers to help that they outdistanced the requests for help from the impacted businesses. The City stepped in with business continuity planning. The Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown BIA immediately started sending out messages, and developed lists of all the businesses and individuals in town who want to provide temporary space, technical help, services, cupcakes, whatever. People around town were not gawking, they were asking how and who they can help.

Follow that last link to the Chamber site and see the list of people and businesses stepping up in the way they can – if that doesn’t put a lump in your throat, you might want to have your cynicism gland checked out.

A nice piece in one of the Local Postmedia Media Newspapers of Note™ by New West Resident Jeff Lee gets it only half right. This fire was a strike at the soul of the City, but the soul did not lose a piece, it was just tempered a bit. This City will be strengthened by the community connections that are being forged as we get past this. There is talk of a benefit event of some sort – too early to speculate on how that will form – but watch the Columbia Theatre space. People will be sharing as they try to move their businesses forward. People will say thank you, and others will say you are welcome. This will be the social glue that fills the gaps created by this fire, long before a new building fills the physical gap in our downtown.

The day after the fire, this message went up on what is, to some, an unexpected medium:

Photo from Theresa McManus’ Twitterfeed

I love this City.

Besides the helicopters, there was something else circling the site yesterday evening: a small flock of pigeons. They were circling over the now-extinguished ruins, stopping occasionally to sit on an adjacent rooftop and look at the damage. I had to assume they weren’t there to gawk, but were wondering where to hunker down for the night, as their nests were somewhere down there in the rubble. I wonder how long until they start rebuilding? How do they even start?

Hyack

Posted on October 4, 2013February 6, 2015. by Patrick Johnstone. 12 Comments.

OK, I’ll wade in.

For anyone paying attention locally, the Hyack Festival Association has been embroiled in some sort of internal-strife shit-show for several months now. I commented a bit on the situation back in August, when the information was scarce, and appropriately kept my comments limited to hoping that things get worked out. After all, Hyack’s volunteer force and their link to the public face of the City are important to the community. They have for 40 years maintained many of the traditions that describe New Westminster, and I hate to see babies tossed out with bathwater.

But the bathwater is getting so deep and murky, it is hard to tell if the baby is still in there.

Since my initial comments in August, I have had discussions with many people in the City about Hyack. I have talked to one current Hyack Board member (notably not one who has been commenting in the media), I have talked to both Bart Slotman and James Crosty (both of whom claim to have been drawn into this public conversation reluctantly). I have talked to Executive Directors for other organizations and business people in the City who work with Hyack, and even to a former Hyack staff member. I have not talked to Douglas Smith (I have still never met the man) or Gavin Palmer (we have not been formally introduced). I have also tried to piece things together based on various media reports, letters to the Editor, and social media conversations. I am hardly “inside” this issue in any way (although I am now a Hyack member – more on that below), but I feel I have done everything I can as an “outsider” to gather info and understand the issue as a concerned citizen.

As every conversation I list above was casual, social, and off-the-record, I am not going to quote anyone or put anyone else on a particular side of an issue. Coming out of the closet about their Hyack opinions is up to them. If they choose to speak up or correct me in the public record, I am happy to be corrected on any point of fact. I am also going to assume that everyone writing to the paper or speaking out about this is being truthful, because I have no reason to assume otherwise.

So with those caveats, here is the gist of the situation, as best I can stitch together. There is a battle going on right now for the heart of Hyack – what it is, what it has been, and what it will be in the future. There are essentially two “camps” within Hyack, and if I can paraphrase their positions:

One group has a “steady-as-she-goes” attitude about Hyack. The organization has deep roots and traditions, and it is by respecting these traditions that they have accumulated assets worth more than $1 Million, and have an army of volunteers ready to fill roles in the established routines to keep the ship floating. They have been successful for 40 years, and will continue to be successful if they keep running things the way they have proven works. Careful evolution is preferable to massive changes. This group includes the current President, two remaining Executive members, and a large contingent of ex-Presidents and former Board Members (the “Plaid Coats”). This group also probably represents a plurality of the paid Members of the society.

A second group thinks Hyack needs to makes changes to get with the times. They see some of the traditions of the Hyack Association as dated, and feel that money and volunteer effort could be better spent on updated or refreshed events. They are concerned about the Hyack’s lack of transparency and apparent inability to broaden their appeal to a more diverse community. They see flagging interest in some Hyack events (i.e. the Easter Car Parade) and recent successes on new events to attract an audience and sponsorship money (i.e. Uptown Live), as evidence that they can broaden their appeal and be a more successful festival organizer to the benefit of the entire City. This group includes the (now-former) Executive Director, and (this is the important part) a slim majority of the current Hyack Board.

The conflict arose when the majority of the Board (the second group) supported some updating of the traditions through a new strategic plan, and the Executive and Plaid Coats (the first group) did not agree with that decision. Best I can tell, from that single disagreement on long-term vision of the organization, a lot of bad decisions were made that got us to our current situation.

What is the current situation? Not good:

The organization is currently without an Executive Director- and seems to be burning through them at a rate that hampers long-term planning and relationship building. Now, back when I worked in retail, there was pretty good staff turnover. Low wages and hard work – that’s the reality of retail. But if I had 4 people I hired for the same manager job and they all quit or were fired after only two years, the owner would be looking at me as the problem, not the people I hire. I’m not saying…. I’m just saying.
The organization appears to not have a functioning board. If decisions made by a clear majority of the board can be overturned by a minority, or vetoed by a President, then there are serious governance issues that need to be addressed. Not just to make the organization function as intended, but to meet constitutional and legal requirements under the Societies Act.
The organization may be headed for a bad day in court. The former Executive Director has all but told the media that there will be legal action over his dismissal. We can assume from this he will be arguing for wrongful dismissal, and some of the untoward comments made in the media about alleged reasons for his dismissal probably bring an aspect of defamation into the conversation. I obviously don’t know if there were grounds for dismissal, but the hasty invitation back and negotiation of terms suggests someone received legal advice and the organization may need to dust off their chequebook and write down a lot of zeroes to make this go away, or risk spending a lot of time paying lawyers to go to court.
The organization is having a problem with sponsors. There have been several news reports of large sponsors distancing themselves from the current imbroglio. Some of them may come back if the confidence in the organization returns (although after making Slotman the villain, and calling for a boycott of Royal City Centre, some bridges might be harder to mend…), and I don’t know how widespread this is, but if three major sponsors are publicly announcing their concern, you can bet there are many more quietly stepping back. Continued strife, lack of direction, and potential court battles will do nothing to encourage any of them to come rushing back any time soon.
The organization is eating itself by not dealing with the situation. The roots of this problem go back at least to the strategic plan in the spring, and the current situation came to a head in July with the firing of Douglas Smith. We are now in October, and the Hyack President has yet to make a statement about the situation or discuss how it is addressing what may be a mortal wound. The organization was unexpectedly pulled from the agenda for Tuesday’s special meeting at Council to determine festival planning needs and requirements for the coming year. By looking at the report they provided for the meeting (with important numbers missing and typos) – it seems that Hyack is unprepared to take part in that meeting and provide a cohesive vision for the City. Meanwhile, the President, instead of busting his ass getting this report together, mending fences and reaching out to concerned citizens, is down in Leavenworth, Washington taking his spot in the Autumn Leaf Parade representing the Hyack Festival Association between the Distinguished Young Women of Ellensburg and the Martins Allstar Showteam.

First Law of Holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

So where does Hyack go from here? I guess it depends on where you are looking from. In my comments in August, I said I want this organization to exist and be effective. To me, that looks more like this:

The 2013 Uptown Live event- a great compliment to the Hyack Parade.

And less like this:

The Royal Rosarians of Portland preparing to “knight” the president of Hyack

Much like Douglas Smith stated in his report, I want a Hyack that represents New Westminster in a modern, meaningful way. Events like the Columbia StrEAT Foodtruck Festival, Uptown Live and the very successful rejuvenated Hyack Canada Day Fireworks are better examples of how our City can benefit from Festival funding and the hard work of volunteers. We drew the locals out onto the street to meet and mingle, and we drew people a SkyTrain-ride away into New Westminster to see our businesses, our downtown, our waterfront, and hopefully we put on a good enough face that they will return.

A little Pomp and Ceremony can also be good idea, if it serves to motivate volunteers, bring community together, and increase awareness of the organization and its benefits. Many would doubt, however, what exporting our pomp and ceremony to places like Ellensburg (where!?) Washington does to boost New Westminster’s profile, community spirit, or business connections. This is the case being made by some right now, but there is clearly a fundamental disconnect between the people who criticize these types of activities and those who partake in them. Honestly, I don’t know how this letter argues the case made in the first sentence – to many readers, it argues the exact opposite.

Perhaps the question I have not addressed is – Why do I care? Why should anyone care?

Those who regularly read this blog (Hi Mom!) know I am not the type to stand back and watch when a situation needs fixing, I would rather help, and encourage everyone else to help. That is the reason I had the conversations I did with the people I mentioned above. For the most part, I didn’t necessarily seek them out and corner them on the Hyack situation, but when I did run into them socially or on the street, the Hyack situation came up in conversation. Admitting I didn’t really understand the situation, I tried to get as much information as I could, mostly to separate the rumour and innuendo from the reality.

My first impression was, as I stated in August- this is an important organization in my community that I want to see operate successfully. When faced with the opinions of the “two camps” described above, I found myself agreeing with the later, more “changey” group. With reflection, it seemed obvious that this was my natural viewpoint, because I am not Member, and the traditions and “old way” of doing things were basically invisible to me. I had no frame of reference.

So I joined Hyack, and encouraged people I know to do the same. When there was talk of a September 10 special meeting of Hyack to determine the fate of Douglas Smith and/or the Executive that had him fired, I decided I wanted to join, attend that meeting, and hear the two sides argue their case. I also canvassed some of my social group to do the same, for the sake of everything that Hyack has done for the City, and the potential inherent in the organization. Some of my New West network reacted with surprising vitriol, told me the organization was not worth saving, or didn’t understand why I thought they might care. Others saw where I was coming from, got that the organization was a part of the community, and might be worth saving, if only because of the positive changes that have been seen in the last couple of years.

Then the September meeting was postponed, then cancelled, with no explanation to members or the public. I assumed the parties were working out the details of a settled conclusion and everyone was getting back to work. I could not have been more wrong.

I have not been contacted by Hyack since joining in the first week of September (although they wasted no time cashing my $55 cheque). Frankly, I have no idea when or how they meet, or even how I can get involved. The employee who received my membership forms is apparently no longer with the organization, leaving the same day that Douglas Smith decided to end his short return. Admittedly, the organization has bigger concerns than keeping lil’ ol’ me informed, and I haven’t gone out of my way to seek clarity from them, but as a new Member, I expected some kind of hello. Meanwhile, competing letters to the editor demonstrate very effectively who is in each of the two “camps”. What I do not hear is anyone looking for points of resolution. I also don’t hear anyone talking about a game plan or a way forward. Instead, one of the directors muses about splitting the organization up, while concurrent heart-felt, impassioned defenses of Hyack traditions fail to acknowledge that there may even be a problem.

Love it or hate it, Hyack is a vital part of our community – this is not just about the money taxpayers contribute to the organization (although that does matter), it is about representing the public face of the City. Hyack is quick to point out their efforts are all to promote New Westminster, so what impression of New Westminster are they currently showing? Every person who has staked their future on the success of this City should care about what Hyack represents in this town, and how they do that. For this reason alone, members, sponsors and the community need to know that Hyack is not just burying its head in the sand hoping this blows over, but is taking steps to address the criticisms, manage their structural and governance issues, and find a place in the New Westminster of the 21th Century.

I realize just by writing this blog post, I run the risk of making enemies. That is not my intention. Many will disagree with me about this topic, and some will take it personally. I hope those who do will reach out to me and set me straight, and I will be happy to print their reactions here, unedited. In an absence of certainty about motivations and reasoning, I always appeal to Hanlon’s Razor. I assume everyone involved here has the best interests of Hyack and the City in mind. However, no-one seems to agree on what those best interests are, never mind how to get there. The fact so many community members, even the normally “well informed” ones, are trying to figure out what is happening is not a condemnation of us, it is a condemnation of Hyack for not communicating effectively with its constituents. As a member of the community who wants to believe in Hyack, I am struggling to explain to others why.

Up to now, too much of the media conversation has been about entrenching positions, not about moving forward. Yes, the Hyack Festival Association has a proud 40 year history, but this City and many of its traditions have a history 3 times that long. The City will be able to exist and maintain important traditions without Hyack. There are other organizations, established and burgeoning, that would be happy to step in and take their share of that $140,000 in annual taxpayer support Hyack receives, and use it to promote the City, our business community, and our History. I’m not saying that is the best or most desirable result at this point, but those pulling the strings at Hyack have to keep that in mind.

Therefore, Hyack’s first priority right now needs to be convincing us – the City, the community, and their sponsors, and their members, that they are the best option the City has to promote the public face of New Westminster and bring community events to the Royal City.

On Bridges and Consultations

Posted on September 29, 2013February 6, 2015. by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

There’s been a lot of talk about a new bridge in New West. Some love the idea, some hate it. Paradoxically, those who will use it the most (those right next to it) hate it the most: at least those on the north side of the crossing. Those on the south side seem to insist a better connection is needed.

The initial designs were met with much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. The consultation was a sham! The options were not viable!! The neighbourhood will not stand for it!!! Pleads of urgency and need were tempered by vaguely Nimby-esque calls for caution and/or outlandish alternatives. Loggerheads were met. Funding sources were debated, petitions were signed, Council was implored.

So the responsible agency hit Ctrl-Alt-Del; sent the engineers back to the drawing board to re-evaluate and return with better options. Third parties were brought in to consult. Previously-discarded options were reconsidered. Numbers were crunched, common ground was sought, new sketches were proffered. More than a year later, the conversation is re-booting, and it is time for you to provide your input. Yet again.

I am talking, of course, about the proposed Quayside to Queensborough pedestrian crossing (what else?).

The people of New Westminster are being asked to comment right now on the two options that have been pencil-sketched for us. We have on-line info, there has been a travelling “whattya think of the bridge now” road show at most recent community events, Ted Eddy has expressed his opinion(s), and all that is left is for you to spend 5 minutes filling out the quickie questionnaire. You have until October 16, 2013.

Allow me to opine.

The current proposals address one of the biggest challenges for the project as originally conceived: the Navigable Waters Act requirement that there be 22 metres of air above the River to allow medium-sized ships to pass into and out of the North Arm of the Fraser River. Less than 22m, then the bridge has to be openable, like the current swinging train bridge in the location.

The engineers have come back with two options to avoid the 22-m high bridge that made for an opposing edifice and a challenging ramp for the less-able-bodied. “Option A” is a bridge that coalesces with the swing span of the existing train bridge, and opens and closes with the rail bridge. “Option B” is a bascule design, which is a drawbridge common to medieval castles and the Chicago River. This would be build adjacent to, and separate from, the train bridge. Each have advantages and disadvantages.

Note there is a language issue here. When talking about a draw or swing bridge, relativity rules the use of the terms “open” and “closed”. Since I (and presumably you) see this as primarily a piece of pedestrian infrastructure, “open” would mean you can walk across it, and “closed” means you cannot. This differs from the mechanical and nautical view of an “open” drawbridge being one where boats can pass. So just to make things clear: when I say open, I mean closed to boats; and when I say closed, I mean open to boats. Clear?

The primary advantage of Option A is cost. The study suggests the entire bridge can be built for $5 Million, which is less than the remaining DAC funds that have been allocated for the project. The bridge will also be slightly lower with shallower ramps and less visual impact for residents.

OPTION A: You can click the image to zoom in.

There are however, significant negatives related to this option, mostly related to being literally mated to the existing rail bridge. The owner of the bridge (Southern Railway / SRY Rail Link) has indicated that pedestrians will not be permitted to use the bridge while a train is present (currently, about 8 trains cross the bridge every day) which could cause significant delays for people hoping to cross the bridge.

OPTION A: You can click the image to zoom in.

The existing train bridge is 100 years old, and there are some questions about the longevity and engineering reliability of that crossing. Attaching a multi-million dollar piece of City infrastructure to a privately-owned piece of infrastructure approaching the end of its service life may not be the most prudent choice, and may represent “penny wise, pound foolish” planning. What happens to that investment if the rail owner decides to replace their aging bridge in 10 years? What if a moderate seismic event or barge collision closes the rail crossing for an indefinite period? What are the odds SRY’s business plans will change at some time in the 75-year lifespan of a pedestrian crossing? Arguably, these issues may be managed through a deftly-negotiated agreement between the SRY and the City, but some risks will still be there for future administrations to deal with.

Option B will be higher than the existing rail bridge. With 9.6 metres clearance above high water mark, it will not be so big that the on-ramps will be daunting, but high enough that many of the boats that pass the rail bridge will not require the pedestrian bridge to be opened (um… closed). Current estimates have the Option B bridge being open for boats less than half as often as Option A. It will also not be tied physically to SRY’s bridge, so changes in rail operations or replacement of the century-old wooden structure will not adversely impact the accessibility of the pedestrian crossing. This is all good.

OPTION B: click to make bigger.

The downside, of course, is the increased cost. At an estimated $9.6 Million, there will need to be a second funding source aside from the remaining DAC funds. The City will have to shake out the couch cushions or borrow to fill the funding gap and get the job done.

OPTION B: click to make bigger.

When discussing the Q2Q pedestrian crossing, people talk about it in different terms. Some think of it as a nice amenity, a connection between neighbourhoods, an extension of the park system or a tourist draw. I think of it as all of these things, but primarily as a vital piece of transportation infrastructure. With this in mind I quote myself:

Ultimately, I only hope the crossing will be reliable – one you can count on being there when you need it, and not unexpectedly opened [sic] for a hour at random times – because I see this bridge primarily as a transportation link… then it will be the link we have been missing up to now.

So I vote for Option B.

As for the money, let’s go back in time a bit. The DAC funding was part of a negotiated package the City worked out with the Province over permitting for the Casino. The original allocation of $60 Million looked like this:

$5 M for park improvements across Queensborough;
$35 M for a Multi-use Civic facility in downtown;
$6 M for a new and improved Queensborough Community Centre;
$4 M to improve the docks at the Quay;
$10 M for a Quay-to-Queensborough pedestrian crossing.

The two Queensborough community projects have been delivered: Parks in 2011, the Community Centre in 2013. Last year, the City decided, and received permission to, “reallocate” $8 Million from the last two projects to the MUCF, which became the Anvil Centre. They more recently announced the dock program is not likely to happen any time soon. That leaves $6 Million for the Q2Q Bridge.

Back when the original Q2Q Bridge plan estimates came in around $20 Million, the difference between $10 Million and $6 Million in available DAC funding seemed a little academic- they were still going to have to pop for a significant amount of money to fill the gap. So transferring some of that money with uncertainty attached to the much more certain (as there was a hole in the ground having cement poured into it) seemed like a good idea at the time.

Now that the revised, reasonable, and more acceptable to the community “Option B” estimate is $9.8 Million, the City has a bit of a problem. What to do when the better option is within your original committed budget, but you have now re-allocated such that there is only enough left to pay for the lesser option?

The Bridge to Nowhere.

Posted on September 23, 2013February 6, 2015. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I have already opined about the potential to replace the Massey Tunnel back when the rushed “consultations” were launched in the Spring. People with better minds than mine have already challenged the base assumptions built into the apparent need for a replacement using the Ministry of Transportation’s own numbers.

This week’s announcement that this low-priority election bauble was pushing on, full steam ahead, despite the objection of pretty much every Mayor in the region* except for the one who doesn’t want to pay for it, is still a little confounding. Our all-but silent rookie Minister of Transportation continues to dither about Transit funding models and a still-born referendum, everyone from Teachers to Nurses to Social Workers are being told there is no money in the kitty for any of their essential programs, but for some reason this multi-billion dollar boondoggle is a Provincial Priority. Depressing, but not shocking.

Since the announcement was amazingly bereft of details: size, scale, scope, costs, tolls are all things we can only speculate on. The only substantive thing we have to base our speculations upon is the fly-through animation of the proposed bridge, a fanciful piece of salesmanship no doubt created in a wet dream by the very engineering firms and Project Managers that are now engaged by the Ministry of Transportation to ~~sell this product to a reluctant taxpayer~~ consult on the project design and implementation on behalf of the Government, so they can eventually get paid by the same Government to build it. You know who you are.

First off, note the lane count. 10. Well, 12 if you include the “safety lanes” that appear to be full-lane width on this rendering. Plus a bike/pedestrian path. As drawn, this bridge will be wider than the Port Mann, the alleged widest bridge in the world.

Yes, two of those lanes will be “HOV” lanes. Note the HOV lane is dominated by cars and commercial vehicles, which makes them very different than the HOV lanes we know and love.

Note no substantial changes to the design of the Steveston Highway intersection as far as lanes in and lanes out, (although it looks like the overpass will be blown out to 4 lanes, which will not do much for Stevenson and No 5 Road). Note especially how the free-flowing traffic from the new bridge disappears as it exits to the 2-lane Steveston Highway, as if by magic. The magic of road builder renderings. That traffic is distinctly “somebody else’s problem”. Or the next problem they will get paid to solve.

Nor do will see substantive changes to the Highway 99 / Highway 17A intersection. Except, of course, the current 6-lane Highways that extend through farmland away from the Bridge north and south are shown to be 10 lanes wide as far as the eye can see. Pity the Oak Street Bridge, I-5 Seattle, here we come.

Note the pedestrians on the bridge. There are a dozen pedestrians and three cyclists shown. Cyclists I’ll give you, but the bridge is 3 km long, with the north end ramp more than a kilometre from the nearest doorway of any kind, and the south end something like 5 km from any likely destination, be it residential, commercial or recreational. Where the hell are these walkers going?

Perhaps they got tired of waiting for the transit that never showed up, as the established bus stops on the Richmond side of the bridge have been removed, and the HOV lane moved to the middle of the freeway, so Transit connections have clearly not been thought out here. Probably TransLink’s problem to solve.

At least I give the rendering props for truthfully representing the types of vehicles that use the Massey tunnel route. In the animation, 83% of the vehicles shown are private cars, 14% are commercial trucks, and 3% are buses. Admittedly, they are “tour” bus types but let’s assume the animator meant for these to be ultra-luxury Transit buses that will come with expanded Transit funding to go with the new road (yes, that was sarcasm).

These stats are close to the actual current count of traffic going through the tunnel: 87% cars (including HOV, which means at least one passenger), 12% trucks, 1% transit.

Source: Massey Tunnel Replacement Consultations.

Actually, the 2% increase in trucks is almost exactly the increased number that will result from the most ambitious Port expansion plans at Terminal 2. Keep that 2% number in mind when you are told “Goods Movement” is a primary reason for spending a couple of billion of your dollars to replace the tunnel.

In contrast, the displayed tripling in transit service is clearly fanciful, as TransLink has no money to maintain the routes they currently run. This is important, because if transit use (which at 1% of vehicles, already represents 26% of the people travelling through the tube) tripled, then the numbers of cars going through the tunnel would be reduced by half. Which would end our congestion problem for a much lower cost than a $X Billion bridge.

Alas, I heard Moe Sihota speaking for the NDP on the Rick Cluff Radio Confrontation Hour (follow link to about 1:50:00) this morning, also agreeing that the tunnel needed to be replaced with a big shiny bridge, using the same incorrect data and false assumptions as Premier McSparkles(Tm). Of course, he disagreed with Colin Hansen on some arcane aspect of the funding or the opportunism of the announcement, but he was all for pissing away you tax dollars entrenching another generation of motordom.

This leaves the 100,000 daily transit users on the under-serviced Broadway Corridor and the tens of thousands in Surrey loading on stuffed and increasingly unreliable SkyTrains every morning wondering who represents them.

*note, just before writing this, I heard an unintentionally hilarious interview with Mayor Diane Watts of Surrey, where (the always-excellent) Stephen Quinn has her so confused by her own talking points, that she appears to be all for the Bridge, although it is a low priority compared to pretty much any other transportation project; for tolling the bridge, though against tolls, except for them if they are low, except not unless everyone pays; and against a Transit Referendum, except for it when important for deciding transportation alternatives, except when it isn’t. It is well worth the listen.

In which I declare my Luongo bias

Posted on September 22, 2013February 6, 2015. by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

I have been a Canucks fan for almost as long as I remember. Actually, I remember liking the Habs as a young kid because my Dad liked the Habs and Guy Lafleur was a fast-skating hair-flying chain-smoking badass of a hockey player, even with the paisley shirts and floppy collars.

By the time I started really watching and loving hockey, at some point between the ’82 Cup run (with King Richard and Tiger) and the ’87 Canada Cup (or the “Gretzky-Lemieux Show” as I remember it) I became a fan of the Canucks. In good times, and (much more often) in bad. The 1994 Cup run and the hiring of Mike Keenan. The West Coast Express flying, then choking by losing 6 of 8 games in April 2006 to miss the playoffs. The “sisters” winning back-to-back Art Ross Trophies to silence the critics, the same pair leading the team to 1-7 in April 2008 to miss the playoffs, again. I remember in the late 80’s once going to a pub in Vancouver where the price of a pint of beer was equal to Kirk McLean’s GAA. I have my personal list of favourite Canucks – Tiger Williams, Cliff Ronning, Esa Tikkanen (just kidding!). I love this team.

I remember when Luongo arrived with all the hype afforded one of the best goaltenders in the League. He demanded a lot of salary, but he would fill the gap the Canucks had somewhere between Dan Cloutier’s pads and over Alex Auld’s left shoulder. However, I was wary. The Canucks had a history of bringing in an overpaid superstar to finally solve all of their problems once and for all. I present for your consideration: Mark Messier. Matts Sundin. Felix Potvin. Vladimir Krutov. OMFG, we signed Vladimir Krutov.

The difference here is the Luongo performed. He was an ironman in goal. All the talk about him having “bad games” needs to be put into the light of whom he replaced: Dan Cloutier. Lou has the best record of any Canucks starting goaltender ever. More wins (233 wins in 406 games, that beats #2 Kirk McLean by 22 wins, but McLean took 516 games to do it), best Goals Against Average (2.35 vs. Cloutier’s 2.42 and McLean’s 3.28), best save Percentage (.920 vs. Cloutier’s .906), and 2 more shutouts in 406 games as McLean and Cloutier managed combined in 724 games. There is no doubt he is the best goaltender to ever wear the Orca (or the hockey rink, or the skate going down in flames).

In 2011, he led the Canucks to the Presidents Cup, won the team’s first-ever Jennings Trophy, and was the only Canucks player to show up in the Stanley Cup finals.

Yes, I said that. He was the best player on the ice in the 2011 Final series. And I stand behind it (with a hat tip to Ashley, my staff statistician).

The Canucks scored 8 goals in that 7-game series. Luongo backstopped two shutouts. Thomas got two shutouts as well, and he got the MVP for it. Unlike Boston, however, every one of the three games Vancouver won, they did so by a single goal (meaning every single save made by Luongo in those games was “game-saving”). People point out the 4-0 shellacking in game 7, but the Canucks didn’t lose game 7 by allowing the meaningless 3rd and 4th goals, they lost by not scoring a single goal in the most important game in the franchise history.

Let us not forget the other thing Luongo did in Vancouver? He won us a freaking Olympic Gold Medal. Right here in Vancouver. When Brodeur coughed up a furball, Lou stepped in, made four saves in overtime (one of them spectacular) and gave Sid the Kid a chance to be hero. I remember a couple hundred thousand of us celebrating on the streets. For that alone, Lou should never again have to pay for another beer in this town. Ever.

20 months later, I shook my head as Vancouver “fans” booed Luongo for a lackluster performance in a meaningless mid-season game. They got on sports radio calling him a goat, they made fun of his wife. They did all this to the guy who took the Vancouver Canucks farther than any other player has, who brought a Gold Medal to this City less than a year before. Thanks for nuthin’.

Winning seasons or losing seasons, this was the first time I was embarrassed to be a Canucks Fan. (albeit, I was too young to remember this City booing Team Canada in the ’72 Summit Series).

Even during the last bizarre year- when Lou was pushed to #2, told to get ready to pack, strung along past trade deadlines and other milestones, then finally told he was not going anywhere, Lou has handled it with class, grace, and humour. When everyone was speculating about what was happening in the back room, he remained silent and let the teams do their negotiating. When told by his team to expect a trade, he started to pack his boxes and publicly supported Schneider. When Canucks management bungled the trades, he offered to re-negotiate his contract behind closed doors, while remaining stoic and professional to the press. When everyone in Vancouver was criticizing the Schneider trade.Lou stayed out of the limelight, and let the dust settle a bit – for the good of the team and management. When the dust settled, Lou gave an extended interview, talked about the events of the summer (without laying criticism or blame on anyone), expressed his range of emotions though it all, and how he was looking forward to getting back on the ice and doing his job.

I cannot imagine an athlete acting more professional over such a difficult year than Luongo has, especially in a sport market where idiots like Tony Gallagher write tripe like this.

So for all those who were hoping for a trade; those foisting Schneider onto a pedestal from which you would have eventually shoved him? Get over it. Schneider is an excellent goaltender, may become a great one, and I am happy he was able to develop his skills here in Vancouver. However Lou is here, and I hope for a long time. I also hope when he skates onto home ice on October 5 against the team that swept them out of the Playoffs last year, the fans in Vancouver give him a standing ovation. For winning a Gold Medal in that building, for taking the Canucks to Game 7, and for being the best goaltender the Canucks have ever had. And for giving us fans this moment:

Rest assured, in a few more years, we will be lifting #1 to the rafters.

Shoreline Cleanup 2013

Posted on September 15, 2013February 6, 2015. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

note: below is a guest post (a first!) penned by Karla Olson, who has been carrying much of the New Westminster Environmental Partners load on her back this year. She has also spent the last three years applying her considerable project management skills towards making the local portion of the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup as successful as possible. The 2013 event is coming up soon- and I hope you will take part!

Site prep team on Queensborough’s South Dyke Road last week:
(LtoR) Karla Olson (author), Patrick Johnstone, Jaycee Clarkson,
Lisa Egan and Harry Buchholz.

Help Nature Return to Its Natural Beauty

Next Sunday, starting from 9:30AM, is the South Dyke Road Riverfront Cleanup in Queensborough. A family-friendly event, it is open to everyone who welcomes taking care of our shoreline. Volunteer to take part in a variety of activities, from active to easy.

At last year’s Shoreline Cleanup, 79 participants removed about 165 kg of litter and invasive species. People came from Surrey, Delta, and Vancouver, and included Councillor Jonathan Cote, as well as Fin Donnelly, MP. Some of the littered items collected included an oven, a refrigerator door, a microwave, 6 tires, a barrel that was estimated to be forty years old, and bags and bags of waste produced from daily human activities.

Along with all of the garbage and invasives removed, what is equally impressive is how experienced people are getting at doing these cleanups.

Last year, one couple from Surrey removed 4 of the 6 tires, the barrel, and huge blocks of Styrofoam from the river. This year, when I took part in the Queensweep Cleanup with NWEP member Jaycee Clarkson, I was so impressed by the ingenuity of Lisa Egan and her family. They used garbage pickers to get at the litter stuck in the ditches, and the kids’ wagon was a perfect addition to help carry it all.

Besides litter, another concern for this shoreline area is the dumping of yard waste that is occurring. Most likely people think because it is organic that it doesn’t do any harm. But what they don’t realize is that they are introducing non-native species into the habitat and adding nutrients that create an imbalance to this ecosystem.

Jaycee Clarkson, NWEP member, spraying blackberry in prep for the Invasive Plant Pull Shoreline Cleanup 2013

What Makes a Plant Invasive?

Plants are considered invasive for two reasons. One reason is because people or animals have brought them from their original natural habitat to a different one; they are non-native plants. Which non-native plants become invasive depends on their adaptability—how quickly they grow and multiply in the new habitat.

When non-native plants grow quickly, they take over and force native plants from their home. They rob them of their space, sunlight, water, and nutrients. Over time, these invasive plants change and damage the conditions of the natural habitat. For these reasons, invasive plants are carefully removed to not spread their seeds or other plant parts that can regrow from special habitats like—our Fraser River shoreline.

Patrick Johnstone tagging invasive plants for the 2013 Shoreline Cleanup

For those of us who love the taste of blackberries, it can be hard to learn that the Himalayan blackberry is considered an invasive plant (Invasive Species Council of British Columbia). But one of the best ways to stop it from spreading is to eat the berries before their seeds grow new ones! Now that berry season is over, it’s important to minimize the hazard of the plant’s long shoots, which can be hazardous to humans and animals alike.

Invasive Plant Tagging

Two site visits were done in preparation for the cleanup to target those invasives that are best to remove—morning glory, Lamium, bamboo, English ivy and Himalayan Blackberry—by tagging them with orange or white paint. The first visit with Claude Ledoux, Parks Horticulture Manager, helped to verify the success of our volunteer efforts.

Claude Ledoux, City’s Parks and Horticulture Manager, identifying morning glory.

Some invasive plants can take years to completely remove once they have been introduced. But even so, the minimal re- growth of these plants in the areas that were pulled last year was quite apparent. Our efforts are really having a positive impact.

Data Collection

In addition to the invasive pull and picking up garbage, an important activity is collecting data on the numbers and types of garbage found. By keeping track of what’s collected by members of your team, participants help shine a light on the types of litter people throw out and which types make up the most garbage. This information leads to understanding the behaviours that trigger littering and to finding ways to stop it from happening. If you would like to help out with this activity, please bring a clipboard, if you have one, and a pen.

To show how much litter was collected, a graph will be displayed at RiverFest on Saturday, Sept 28 to show just how much litter was collected.

Patrick Johnstone, NWEP member, standing on an oil drum recently washed up onto the Shoreline

And if participants find any “unexpected” litter that can be kept safely, it will be on display at RiverFest too. Hint: Expect to see a lot of cigarette butts that will be bagged to go to TerraCycle, a company that specializes in recycling previously non-recyclable items, such as pens, inkjet cartridges, and Tassimo coffee, tea, espresso, milk and hot chocolate T Discs.

Show Your Love for the Fraser River: Join the South Dyke Road Riverfront Cleanup

For us in New Westminster, this Shoreline Cleanup launches the start of RiverFest, an art and environmental festival inspired by the Fraser River that celebrates BC Rivers Day at the Fraser River Discovery Centre. It is also part of the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup™, an annual event that helps keep our oceans, rivers, and lakes healthy. People from all across Canada join in to remove the human-made litter and garbage that was either dumped or accidently deposited into our water systems.

This year on Sunday, Sept 22, at 9:30am, meet at the Spagnol Street Walkout on South Dyke Road to join in. To register and get more info on the Shoreline Cleanup, click on the link—Registration isn’t necessary, but does help with planning.

Attention: YOUTH, participants under 19, if you are taking part without your parents or guardians you need to bring 2 signed waivers with you and you can find them on the New Westminster Environmental Partners’ website, nwep.ca and go to the Shoreline Cleanup menu tab.

The South Dyke Road Riverfront Cleanup is organized by New Westminster Environmental Partners (NWEP) in partnership with the City of New Westminster and the Fraser River Discover Centre.

Patrick Johnstone Standing on Oil Drum Submerged in our NW Shoreline

“Getting to Yes”

Posted on September 10, 2013February 6, 2015. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Further to poorly-framed arguments supporting specific hydrocarbon-transportation projects, there was this recent opinion piece written by John Winter, who is the President and CEO of the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. It was, frankly, disappointing. Not because I disagree with Mr. Winter, but because it was so poorly argued.

The opinion was in response to this previous piece in the same Important CanWest Newspaper of Record. In the first piece, economist Robyn Allen pointed out that the economic arguments being made by Enbridge on the Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal were “just not true”. Ms. Allen, in a tightly-argued 600 words, explained the factual misrepresentations in Enbridge’s claims, from the perspective of an economist, using Enbridge’s own numbers. No-where does she suggest the Northern Gateway, or any other project, should be stopped. Instead, she simply criticizes, point-by-point and from a position of considerable knowledge, the mis-characterization of the economic impact of the project as presented in the proposal. She then suggests:

“In the interests of transparency and accountability, British Columbians deserve better than what Enbridge seems capable of delivering.”

Mr Winter’s response to this argument does not engage in the same detailed analysis of the data presented by Enbridge, nor does he directly address any of Ms. Allen’s actual points. Instead he engages in over-the-top and largely fact-free rhetoric. He further characterizes her argument as an “intellectual exercise” to undermine the project:

“It’s disturbing to see how much British Columbian ingenuity is being channelled into our province’s alarming — and growing — ‘culture of no.’ And for what gain?”

I don’t know where I got this idea, but I suspect the gain Ms. Allen was aiming for is that the conversation be “in the interests of transparency and accountability”.

You see, Ms. Allen is a scientist who studied, spent a career working in, and teaches economics. It is her job to scrutinize economic augments and determine if they are fact-based or not. If Mr. Winters disagreed with her factual information, he might have made a counter-point. Instead he engages in a bunch of irrelevant hyperbole:

“In virtually every corner of the province, we’re seeing the same thing: Smart, highly environmentally responsible projects that can employ our children and keep our towns alive are being battered, paralyzed and stomped out.”

I’m not sure what dusty corners of the Province Mr. Winters is spending his time, but the vast majority of large industrial projects in BC are being stomped upon only by rubber stamps. If one looks at the BC Environmental Assessment Office records, one can look at the history of project proposals in BC since the Act came into force in 1995.

Completed: 128
Refused: 3
Pre-application: 69
Exempt: 22
Terminated: 6
Under Review: 10
Withdrawn: 21
Total: 259

So of 259 projects, exactly 3 have been refused permits. That is just over 1%. In contrast, 150 were either issued certificates or were found to be exempt from the process. That is 58%. If you re-calculate those numbers without including 79 that have not yet reached the decision stage, 83% of projects have achieved approvals. Where is the alleged battery occurring here?

As an aside,the Federal EA process numbers are very similar. Well, they were, until the Federal Government in one stroke of a pen in 2012 changed the Federal EA Act, such that thousands of Federal Environmental Assessments will simply not happen now. Where before there was scrutiny, proponents can now fill their boots.

But back to the Project in question: the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Mr Winters continues:

“So there’s a lot at stake here. And frankly, what’s yet to be decided has nothing to do with project economics (which, Ms. Allan, are frankly settled), but rather how we balance economic value against other B.C. priorities, as the Joint Review Panel is assessing.”

This is actually where Mr. Winters is wrongest. Ms. Allen has aptly demonstrated that the project economics are far from settled, and there still exists debate. At the very least, some clarification is required from the project proponent.

It is interesting that many of the environmental protection measures that come out of this type of Environmental Assessment are codified in the review documents as conditions of approval. For example, if the exclusive use of double-hulled tankers was promised by Enbridge, then using single-hulled tankers would be a breach of the Approval, and the certificate can be removed, shutting down the project. However, none of the “economic” commitments have the same status. Enbridge could promise to employ every adult person north of 50 degrees, then only employ three people once the assessment is done, and there would be no recourse for the Province or communities to whom the promises were made. I’m not saying they would do that, but that makes it important that any assessment of the anticipated economic impacts be as accurate, fact-based and defensible as possible- we only get one crack at that part of the project review.

“And with this project, as with any that proposes such substantial benefits for B.C., we hope that British Columbians will take a close look at what’s to gain here. We certainly don’t ask that environmental or community concerns be sidelined. But we’d ask that jobs and economic value not be sidelined as well.”

Ms. Allen is not sidelining economic values, she is assuring they are properly assessed so that we can, as British Columbians, take the close look at what’s to gain for which Mr. Winters is asking. Surely, the CEO and President of the BC Chamber of Commerce wants the public to be provided with factual information, both when they question the economic gains, and when they question the environmental impacts. That is why we have Environmental Assessments, and that is why responsible businesses engage in them.

Alas.

The entire argument presented by Mr. Winters is framed around “Getting to Yes”, which has become one of those abstract rhetorical phrases that everyone thinks they understand, but in reality it means different things to different people, and is actually completely meaningless. Mr. Winters suggests we need to “Get to Yes” on these projects. But who is it, exactly, that needs to “Get to Yes”?

Does the Provincial Government need to “Get to Yes” by bypassing (or tossing out a la Stephen Harper) their own environmental assessment laws, ignoring the environmental protections afforded by Provincial Law, Federal Law, and our constitutional responsibility to First Nations?

Does the Media need to “Get to Yes” by continuing to publish fact-free editorials that would have us believe that 3 certificate refusals out of 256 applications is some sort of war on resource development?

Does the public need to “Get to Yes” by agreeing to whatever Enbridge says, and refusing to listen to people who point out factual errors in what they promise?

No. It is Enbridge who needs to “Get to Yes”. They will get there by providing realistic data about what they have to offer BC, and what the risks to BC (economic and environmental) are. Then they need to convince us that those risks are managed and mitigated to the point that the economic development they are offering us is sufficient payment.

It is possible that Enbridge will not, with this project, ever “Get to Yes”. But that would not be from a failure of British Columbians to dream, it would be from a failure of Enbridge to convince us they are good for our future.

Parking variances for new developments, and other Green things

Posted on September 8, 2013February 6, 2015. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Remember that whole Downtown Parking Strategy and the concomitant “Tear Down the Parkade” movement? What ever happened with that?

There are two recent news stories that are directly relevant to this study, both about newly-proposed developments in the Downtown.

The first development plan is for a location in deep need of redevelopment: the mid-block area on the north side of Carnarvon across from Plaza88. The so-called Carnarvon Gardens (ugh…) development is creating a bit of a disagreement on Council because of various challenges in providing parking space and the impact on the neighbourhood form.

At least part of the reason for debate here is the location across the street from Plaza88, whose own parking situation is an ongoing cause of chagrin. As I have said many times before, Plaza88 is a great idea as far as Urban Planning, but suffers from some poor execution as far as Urban Design. One of those issues is the wall of parking lots that provide the facade of the building. The multiple stories of above-ground parking exacerbate the canyon effect on Carnarvon, at least partly because it is not “human space”, but machine space. If that facade was windows and balconies with evidence of human life, the effect would be much more gentle. If it was set back from the street by a few metres, it would be even better.

The proposal for Carnarvon Gardens, right across the street, is to have a similar 5 stories of above-ground parking, but to hide most of them behind a wall of office/commercial space, much like the bottom two floors at Plaza88. The top floor would not be so obscured, nor would the Victoria Street facade or the little side-lane that connects Victoria and provides access to adjacent buildings (9th Street?).

The development looks great- (you can see it in these Meeting minutes, starting down on page 88) – 23K sq.ft of office space, 10K sq.ft. of retail, and 198 residential units. But even back in July, Council asked questions about the plan for parking. Originally, 308 parking spaces on 7 floors (2 underground and 5 above ground, at least on the Carnarvon side) was proposed, although the current Bylaw requires 353 spots. After sending the July plan back for more consideration, the proponent came back with a similar proposal (two underground parking floors, five above ground) but have now reduced the number of parking spots, based on two studies.

The Downtown Parking Plan study suggested 278 parking spots were required here, where the Proponent’s own study indicated 260 were required to service the building’s needs. The Proponent, however, is willing to build 294 spots- as they figure that is the magic number that balances the cost of building parking with the “marketing goals” for the condos. They also balked at the idea of moving the exposed 5th floor parking down underground where it will be out of site, presumably because of increased costs.

During discussion at Committee, Councillor McEvoy raised an excellent point, in that there will be a time (perhaps now?) that we stop thinking about the street presence on only one side of a building. This development “backs” on Victoria Street, but other businesses and potential future developments front on Victoria. So why is a parking lot facade that is not acceptable on Carnarvon acceptable on Victoria? If we want the best revenue-generating and job-creating parts of our renewed Downtown to expand, then we cannot afford to create more “dead space” roads. More imagination is needed here.

The second development plan is much more preliminary, according to this story, but has many parallels other then being three blocks to the east. This building will have 7,500 sq.ft. of commercial and 282 residential units, planned for rental as opposed to market condos. Here, the Bylaw parking requirement is 410 spots, the Downtown Parking Study suggests 218 are needed, but the Proponent is proposing 169.

So two concurrent (or close enough) developments one block uphill from Columbia Street, and both want to save money by not building parking. A bit of quick math gives us:

Bylaw Requirement: 763 total spaces.
Parking Study demand: 496 total spaces.
Proposed to be built: 463 total spaces.

So depending on how you count it, there are between 33 and 300 parking spots being left on the table. These are spots the Developer is required to install according to existing City policies, but is asking for an exemption because they won’t make any money from them.

Now compare those numbers to the “peak use rate” of the Front Street Parkade according to this report to council. 38% of 800 parking spots is 304. Now you (hopefully) see where I am going.

This is, ultimately, the solution to the Front Street Parkade problem – distributed parking in new developments. I’m not saying both of these buildings need to build parking to 100% of their (now dated) Bylaw requirements, but there needs to be a discussion about how new developments provide public parking at rates similar to the Parkade. 30 to 50 lots in each new building, the construction paid for by the Developer and the rental income going back to the Developer (unless, of course, they choose to sell the parking lot rental business off) to offset the cost.

Instead of pulling into a decrepit waterfront white elephant, one can find public parking in any of a half dozen buildings within a block or two of your destination. And we get a major part of our waterfront back.

This is not as easy as it might seem, though. We need to convince the Developers that it is worth their time and money. We also need to worry about the urban form issues that Councillor McEvoy raised, and that threaten to make Carnarvon and other streets into car park canyons. However the first step is to stop handing out variances for every new building so Developers can save the hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes to provide market parking. Instead, we need to create the market incentives to make it worth the Developer’s time to install public parking as part of every new large development.

As for the Parkade, it is not giving up without a fight. It has apparently been exposed to Gamma Rays, and vents its occasional rage through Twitter:

So there’s that.

Patrick Johnstone

Fan of cities; Mayor of the best one.

Author: Patrick Johnstone