Category: NWimby

UBE and being good neighbours

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

On another forum, I commented that I thought it was important that we do not let TransLink (through two separate consultations) make the proposed United Boulevard Extension into a New Westminster vs. Coquitlam debate. We’ve been down that road before, to no-one’s satisfaction.

However, some New Wesminsterites have wondered: why does Coquitlam even want this? What’s in it for them? Why are they so hot to see $150-175 Million of local transportation funding go to a little overpass project in New Westminster, when that money would serve them better through the Evergreen Line, or other improvements in Coquitlam?

A recent Coquitlam staff report to council suggests the following benefits from the UBE:

“improved safety, connectivity and mobility for all modes (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, transit and goods movement vehicles)”

If we accept “goods movement vehicles to be a euphemism for trucks, then where are the cars? And as I already commented on earlier posts, none of the 4 options really improve safety or mobility.

“mitigation of reoccurring delay and congestion caused by rail crossing activity on Braid Street and one-lane alternating traffic operations at the existing Bailey Bridge on United Blvd Braid Street”

One could argue (and New Westminster did back in the gate-closing controversy) that the recurring delay and congestion are caused by Coquitlam’s unilateral decision to direct traffic along United Boulevard instead of on the large regional roads that parallel it by a few hundred yard.

“improved access thereby improving the economic development potential of the Southwest Coquitlam employment lands along United Boulevard.”

Ahhh… so the destruction of residential, commercial, and industrial property in New Westminster should be done to support the “development potential” of Coquitlam land.

Note the references elsewhere in the report to improving the traffic system in Maillardville are vague, and mostly refer to required improvements of the Brunette Interchange with the expanded Highway 1. Coquitlam staff and TransLink both know: congestion in Maillardville is not caused by the Braid/Brunette intersection, and will not be addressed by the UBE. It is caused by the intersections of Brunette with Highway 1 and Lougheed.

The lone voice we have heard so far from Coquitlam residents is from the Maillardville Residents Association, who seem to think this is going to improve congestion in their neighbourhood, although they seem to acknowledge in the same article that the problem is Lougheed and Highway 1.

Perhaps the elephant in the room is Fraser Mills. This 83-acre mixed-use development at the south foot of King Edward in Coquitlam will see a series of 30-story residential towers totalling 3,700 units (more than 6 times the size of the massive development at Plaza 88 in New Westminster) along with commercial and light industrial spaces. All connected to the rest of the world by one road: United Boulevard. No Skytrain, no light rail, no alternatives. (if you zoom into Page 2 of this document, you can see the eventual alignment of Highway One and intersections though Coquitlam)

Once you leave Fraser Mills, your eastbound options will be to drive down past the furniture stores and the Casino to join Lougheed or the Highway 1 at the new! Improved! Cape Horn , or to cross the new King Edward overpass (though notably not to access Highway 1), and join Lougheed there. Your westbound options will be to cross the King Edward overpass to Lougheed, then find your way to Highway 1 or further along Lougheed via Maillardville. Leading to increased congestion in Maillardville. Unless, of course, you can avoid Maillardville completely by hopping on the United Boulevard Connector, and take your congestion to New Wesmtinster instead, who hardly saw it coming. This is why I previously referred to the UBE as New Westminster paying more property taxes to support poor planning choices in Coquitlam.

Despite how I started this post, it sounds now like I see this as a Coquitlam vs. New Westminster debate. But it isn’t. Bad planning choices by Coquitlam Council hurt the people of Coquitlam as much as they hurt the people of New West. The residents of Maillardville would be better served if they had better access to transit, and if the Fraser Mills development included a real Alternative Transportation Plan. Just as they would be better served by completion of the Evergreen line, and extension of the Evergreen into downtown Port Coquitlam, and back along the Lougheed Corridor to Braid, completing a loop the comprises both lines shown on this document.

We are talking regional transportation here, and we need regional solutions. We are all in this together. Coquitlam and New Westminster should work together to solve this problem, not conspire to patch a small area of a very large wound.

UBE: Opinions on Options:

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

The discussion around the United Boulevard Extension includes the discussion of “options”. There are diagrams of freeway loops ploughing through neighbourhoods, there is a Mayor suggesting we will only look at the “T” option, and I have made the option I prefer perfectly clear. I would like to use this post to clarify the options, and perhaps dispel a few myths about each.

This is government, and your tax dollars, so let’s do the prudent thing and start with the “lowest bidder” and work our way up:

Option C.
Cost: $151.3 Million (est. $65 million from the Feds, $65 Million from TransLink, $21.3 Million “funding gap”).

(click above to clarify, note “before” picture by me taken at same location as “after” drawing from TransLink)

Description: a 1-lane loop, elevated to gain clearance over Brunette. The loop is a little tight, with the lane having a radius of about 45m. This compares to about 53m for the for the new loop at the north end of the Queensborough, and is actually more similar to the tight loop at the Brunette Exit from westbound Highway 1: the one that occasionally features trucks on their side on the shoulder. The difference will be that this loop will be downhill, not uphill.

This option also includes paralleling Rousseau Street with a three-lane truck route to Braid. This will involve the removal of at least 18 residential and commercial properties on the west side of Brunette, with significant “disruption” to at least a dozen more. It is a shame if your house is knocked down, but at least TransLink will have to pay you “fair market value”. For the people on the west side of Rousseau: don’t expect any compensation for your lost property values.

Option D.
Cost: $152 Million ($22 Million funding gap).


(click above to clarify, note “before” picture will be the same as Option C)

Description: a 3-lane loop, partially elevated to gain elevation over Brunette. The centre lane of the loop has about the same 45m radius as “Option C”, with the tighter downhill lanes on the inside and a single uphill lane. While reducing the impact at the northern end of Rousseau, it will still involve the removal of at least 15 residential and commercial properties on the west side of Brunette, with significant “disruption” to at least a dozen more. Not quite as bad as Option C, but clearly the $700,000 difference will not be made up in the expropriation of a few less properties.
An interesting point of this design is that it will “free up traffic” on Brunette by adding another traffic light, only 150m from the Braid intersection, to allow traffic off the loop to turn onto Brunette. If the whole idea is to end stop-and-go traffic and keep the trucks a-rollin’: this is a non-starter.

Option B
Cost: $167 Million ($37 Million funding gap).


(click above to clarify)

Description: This includes a 2-lane loop of similar size as the previous options, but with no less than three overpasses spanning the rails and SkyTrain. This is the one plan for which TransLink did not provide a ground-level viewscape, but it might look something like this:

It will involve the removal of about 14 properties, and significant disruption of about the same number. However, if the only goal is to “keep traffic moving” to the next bottleneck, then this is likely the best option. This plan introduces more lanes to one side of the Brunette-Braid intersection, and adds at least one potentially perilous merge zone for south-bound vehicles on Brunette, but doesn’t require new stoplights.

Notably, this is by a long shot the worst option for cyclists and pedestrians, the only one that might actually make the situation worse for them, forcing everyone in a 2-kilometre radius to manage the expanded Brunette-Braid intersection.

Option A
Cost: $175.6 Million ($45.6 Million funding gap).


(click above to clarify, note before and after pictures)
Description: This is the so-called “T-option” that was apparently first offered to New Westminster Council, and that several local politicians have admitted to preferring. Their soft support seems to be based on the perception that this option will not be a “disruption” to Sapperton.

However, the diagrams show at least 6 home or properties that will need to be removed, and significant encroachments onto another half dozen properties, including two properties further south than any other plan would disrupt. The impacts on the “preserved” properties on the south side of Rousseau from having a 20-foot high elevated intersection out their back door will be significant (but not likely compensated). The “T” option does not remove all disruptions.

You can see why neither TransLink nor Coquitlam like this option. Besides it being the most expensive option, it doesn’t solve any problems. I hate to point out the obvious (a lie, I actually love pointing out the obvious), but the top of the “T” will require a stop light, which will definitely reduce the “free flow of trucks”. The on-ramp from the north will have to start at the Braid-Brunette intersection, which means the problem of people having to dart across three poorly-defined, curved lanes on the current Brunette crossing of the rails will be made worse. Any back-up on the ramp (caused by the new stop-light on the top of the “T”) that backs up to the Braid intersection will effectively stop people from turning right onto Braid, and stop busses getting into the Braid Station loop…yikes.

This plan also has no indication of how the pedestrian and cyclist situation will be improved. There are some vaguely defined sidewalks shown on the overpass, requiring the crossing of several controlled or uncontrolled intersections: then going no-where on the top of the “T”. (a firepole maybe? None shown on the ground level perspective view…)

This is a terrible plan, in spite of the reduced (Not “eliminated”) disruption to Sapperton residents and businesses, it costs the most and solves no problems.

Analysis:
All 4 of these plans have one thing in common: none show how the Brunette River will be crossed. No matter what route you choose, there are industrial and commercial properties in the way. And it isn’t just 4 lanes of freeway, if we want these businesses to have access to this road, there will need to be offramps somewhere between the Skytrain and the Brunette River, or a stoplight-controlled intersection. They are going to take up even more space. Are we actually going to provide better truck access to industrial land by removing that industrial land?

Remember, TransLink does not pay property tax to the City, these industries and commercial businesses do. If those industries are not playing property taxes, the rest of us will have to pay more. New Westminster taxpayers paying more taxes to support poor planning choices in Coquitlam: I’m all for being a good regional partner, but how far over do we have to lean?

If we are going to take the Mayor on his word that:

“there is no-one who wants the disruption you are talking about, and we are not going to support some disruption” (CBC Radio Interview)
…then it is time for us to come together on Option E.

South of the Fraser – OnTrax

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Comments on the NWEP’s forum on the future of Sustainable Transportation, held at Douglas College on November 9th, 2010. – Part 3, Joe Zaccaria for South Fraser OnTrax.

I like the theme Joe Zaccaria brought to his presentation, especially as it came right after Jerry’s discussion of the Olympic transportation success. Each slide started with a headline from the media, and drew the contrast:

Before the Olympics: “Olympic Transportation Plan draws Widespread criticism”
After the Olympics: “Vancouver Becomes a Transit City for 17 Days”.

Which reflected one of the themes of the evening: developing a vision, following with good planning, leading to predictable and desirable results.

Joe was clear about how South Fraser OnTrax sees their role:

“We don’t protest – we engage”

I like that idea as well. To me, the difference is developing positive ideas and bringing those to the decision makers (depending on the issue: those may be government staff, elected officials, a private enterprise, or the population in general) and hope they see the idea as viable. Protesting too often concentrates on the negative, after all there must be something to protest against. Protest has place. I still think that the massive public protests leading up to the Iraq invasion in 2003 were a big reason that the Canadian government decided not to get involved in that enterprise. I am proud of having taken part in those protests. It was the only thing we could do. But protest with no specific complaint other than “things have to change” inevitably devolve into unproductive messes, with poorly defined messages and no ideas on how to effect change offered. /rant

So what does the future hold for South of the Fraser, and how does that affect New Westminster?

Joe brought a compelling pile of numbers, stats and maps, giving us a good sense of the rate of growth across the bridges. Surrey will have more people than Vancouver at some point in the future, and the Langleys will become the “Burnaby” of this new regional centre. Far from being a “bedroom community”, there are more jobs in the Langleys than there are residents: and more than 80% of people living and working South of Fraser don’t cross the River for work. The $3.3 Billion Port Mann / Highway 1 Project will do nothing for this 80%.

Joe also provided some details around the Langley City / 200th Street corridor (where 65% of the population of the Langleys live: a proportion projected to grow to 80%). With more than 76,000 people living within a kilometre of this road, and projected growth topping out at 184,000 people, why are we waiting to build rapid transit on this corridor?

The same story goes for the centre of Abbotsford, where the “horseshoe” growth pattern from the Historic Downtown along South Fraser Way to the Cascade-Airport commercial area is ripe for rapid transit development. The population is there now, and there will be 60% growth: the time is now to build the infrastructure that will support more sustainable transportation.

Joe and the OnTrax folks know a lot about the technologies available. They seem to favour the Portland-style streetcars or light rapid transit. Busses just don’t attract new riders (like it or not) and Skytrain’s huge initial cost rarely offset the benefits. This was demonstrated with Patrick Condin’s diagrams discussing the cost of Skytrain to UBC, and how that would translate into Light Rapid Transit (click to grow sustainably):

But how does this relate to New Westminster? As has been obvious from recent discussions, most of New Westminster’s traffic woes are caused by people driving through the City, not by trips initiated in the City. This problem may become worse with the inevitable growth South of Fraser: but only if our transportation infrastructure investments are all dedicated to building bridges and freeways, and not viable alternatives that meet the needs of that 80% of South of Fraser residents who don’t want to drive through New Westminster every day.

United Boulevard Extension open house

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

Wow, what a night. There were a lot of people at the Justice Institute last night, and lots of lively discussion about the United Boulevard Extension. Now, I might be biased, but the overwhelming message from people I talked to was that this project is a non-starter.

The TransLink staff might have been a little over whelmed by the turnout, the room was often packed beyond comfort, and it was hard to spend a lot of time at each display poster, as there were so many people about. The displays were a little short on detail, and a lot short on rationale. But the plans were pretty clear.

The questionnaire offered to us for comments began with a strange question, and one that was hard to answer: “Are all the problems defined”?

Hmmm… there are vague references to moving goods, greenhouse gasses, and bad intersections, even a suggestion that the Bailey Bridge was dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, many references to “Challenges”, but it was hard to determine how any “problem” was being solved.

Truck Traffic? The trucks backed up at the Bailey bridge pale in comparison to the trucks backed up at Front Street or Stewardson Way. This may be a choke point, but hardly the only one.

Truck Pollution? Too many trucks belching diesel on the Brunette will somehow be cured by adding more room for trucks?

Cycling access? The Bailey bridge is pretty bike-friendly, as it is one lane (no on-coming traffic) and everyone pretty much crosses it at cycling pace. More importantly, the bike trail behind the Braid Station connects seamlessly, and the stretch on United Boulevard east of there is great for bikes: but ironically built too narrow for 4 lanes of traffic and bike lanes: no plan here to widen United. This project may hurt cycling access.

Seems to me, the only real “problem” being addressed here is the $65 Million dollars of Federal money that has to be committed by Christmas, before it turns into a pumpkin.

That seems like a lousy reason to spend another $100 Million and to invite more trucks and cars into our City. At least until there is a plan, with committed funding sources, to manage the traffic once it enters out City.

The good news is that I heard very encouraging things from the Mayor and Councillors who attended. This is not a done deal, and they all assured me no decision would be made unless it served the people of New Westminster. At this point, I am taking them at their word.

I was simultaneously encouraged and concerned by the Mayor’s words on the CBC this morning, which I transcribe here, in their entirety, for the record:

Why this project?

“In the lower mainland, there is properly not another pug for the transportation system or the trucking than there is on the Translink portion of the Gateway Project. That goes all the way from our Queensborough Bridge right through the City and ending up at the Braid Street Connection which goes onto Highway #1. And so, with this back-up, they have been trying to fix this for years and years since I’ve been here and we are in the process now of looking to see how do we do this so it mitigates the problems for the travel industry, but as importantly, how do we take care of the Citizens of New Westminster with as least an intrusion as possible.”

On removing houses:

“Well, first of all, before the decision is made that we will lose anything, we will make the decision. That has not been made. We made it perfectly clear to TransLink that we ware going to go to the public and let them see what the four options are, before council makes a decision of what their choice is. I can tell you, probably, there is no-one who wants the disruption you are talking about, and we are not going to support some disruption. Let’s see the people tonight, there will be lots of them coming out, I’m sure.”

Quote from Sapperton McBride Residents Association President (paraphrased): Residents were surprised, didn’t like “freeway interchange” design, wondered why were these options never raised in the past?

“Well, because they just came up (chuckle). So it is very simple. It was just brought to our attention, and as soon as it was brought to our attention, we said “Just wait a minute, we’ll take this back to the public, you will hear from the people of New Westminster, you’ll hear from this council, and then we will sit down and we will see what had to be done, if we want to go ahead with this. Because, if there is no benefit to the City of New Westminster, there is not going to be much support to go forward at all. We are trying to help the region, but the region has to make sure we are kept whole, that this City isn’t affected by just being a transition place for cars to drive through and hurt our neighborhoods. I can guarantee you that.”

On Federal Funding:

“The deadline for the matching funds, which is approximately $60-65 Million, is at the end of December, I think December 31st. Now let’ face it, it is good to have some additional funding that comes come through, but we have to be very careful that what we are going to do is not create more problems than what this amount of money will give. Now, since we have been in this situation for this piece of property or this roadway, it has gone three times the value that it was ten years ago, since I have been here. This comes right back to the funding. The funding for transportation has to be changed. It is no longer so simple that you give something that is so important to everybody in the region no method of funding. And that’s what this is. Now we are trying to match the $65 Million, it is still going to be short, we are going to have to come up with another 25 or 30 Million, if there is a particular choice that is made, because the choice that looks best for the City is what is called the “T”choice, in the shape of a “T”, and that T is I Think $170 Million dollars now, and the other choices may save them a bit of money, $120 Million or $150 Million dollars, but let’s face it, this is forever in this neighborhood, in this community, and we are going to go for the one, if we go forward, that is going to make sense for us, as well as the region.”

Where is the Grand plan? How does this fit a bigger plan?

“I have no idea, I have asked many times why TransLink has this piece of the Gateway. Why; no-one has ever been able to explain to me. But I can tell you this, we are also, with the uh, Translink organization, we have given them things that we need. We have given them the Front Street, which is our main downtown area, which is part of this, has to come forward, we have to have and agreement about how that will be fixed, if it is un… if it is encapsulation , if it is tunneling, but that has to be dealt at the same time as this. It is part of the broad corridor that is there. The Brewery study has to be done, that ii s where the old Labatt’s is, that corner has to be looked at, if you look at it: it is part of it. Then when you come down to McBride, You’ll see that’s where the trucks all stop because there is light down there that comes up from the bottom and it needs to have a tunnel. Now we’ve talked about that. We have talked about the bridge ramps that are coming. All of these things are part of a bigger picture you are asking about, and that’s what we are negotiating right now with the TransLink people”.

What about tonight’s meeting?

“I think the people will come forward, The question Mr. Pinkerton asked “how come we didn’t know before” will be answered pretty quickly. They’ll show all the slides, of what they want to do, and they will have some of us there saying “wait a minute, take a look at this, this is what we have been talking about for the past 10 years, and you people give us your opinions”. Now, I think we will end up, at the end of the day, people are going to say if it has to come, this is the particular one that looks like the one that we may be able to live with. Now give it back to the Council, let us negotiate with the Translink people. The council has been here long enough that, we don’t sit in a room with them and our staff and let anyone run over us. We’ll be alright.”

That last line was encouraging, as it reminded me of the neon sign/installation art by Martin Creed, visible over the DTES from the Skytrain when pulling out of the Stadium station. In big, white, friendly letters, the sign simply says: “everything is going to be alright”.

But I was also concerned that in the ten years he “has been here”, none of the traffic problems have been solved between the Queensborough and Braid. Yes, there are multiple jurisdictions, multiple pressures, no money, etc. But I think after 10 years of no action, our local leaders should stop looking for others to make their plans for them, and step up with some policy. After 10 years, we should have stronger statements from our local leaders than “let’s see what they offer, and if there is outcry from the public, then we will react”.

Instead of winging about our traffic fate, New Westminster should say what we will and will not accept for Front Street, for Columbia, for Braid, for Royal and for Eighth Ave. That way, when TransLink or MoT show up with hastily-assembled plan to patch one area, the answer from the City is is easy: does this meet the City’s policy objectives, our Master Plan? This year, the City is updating it’s Master Transportation Plan. Let’s include the higher-level policy statements about how we want to move cars, goods, and people thorugh our City. Let’s stop waiting for others to identify and scab over our traffic woes: let’s make policy now and get ahead of this issue. Beats waiting ten more years. The time is now.

No UBE for NW

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

The single biggest environmental issue in New Westminster today is not the “Toxic Blob” in the waterfront park. It is not the pending garbage incinerator. It is the United Boulevard Extension.

TransLink has cooked up a plan, using Federal stimulus money (your income tax), TransLink funding (your property tax + provincial tax), and …uh…some other mystery source… to more than double the number of trucks and cars that will enter the City from the east, with no plan to manage the traffic once it gets to the City.

And to make it more palatable, they are doing a Dr. Moreau melding of the project to the NeverGreen Line. And the whole thing is so fast-tracked, that the residents they plan to kick out of house and home were not even part of the consultation process.

This issue is covered excellently over on the Tenth to The Fraser Blog, and I think Matt Laird hits all the talking points really well over there.

The way I see it, New Westminster is a City with an enviable “sustainable mode share” (use of walking, bicycles and transit as opposed to private motor vehicles), but is still suffering from a significant traffic congestion problem. This is caused by a huge thru-traffic load. This is only going to get worse as the Port Mann becomes a toll bridge, and people divert to the Pattullo, and may become orders of magnitude worse if an increased-capacity Pattullo and the UBE come to town, bringing more cars and trucks to New Westminster’s residential streets, with no plans to move the increased traffic efficiently or safely through our streets.

All of the TransLink news of late has been about a “Funding Gap”. Major regional transportation projects like the Evergreen Line remain underfunded more than 10 years after they are announced, while our (soon to be former) Premier talks about trains to UBC and trains to Langley, with no plan to fund these initiatives. Meanwhile they are sneaking through a $150 Million highway project by tying it to the Evergreen, and pretending that it somehow “reduces greenhouse gasses” or “provides for non-SOV options” .

I can’t think of a more elegant way to say this: Bullshit.

The UBE does nothing to meet TransLink’s “6 Broad Goals” as set out in their Transport 2040 Strategy Document. It does not serve New Westminster in any way, and it takes money away from more valid projects that serve other part of the Lower Mainland better. Let’s kill this thing before it goes so far that it can’t be stopped.

Show up on Thursday at the meeting at the Justice Institute, not to protest, but to learn. The meeting will be run by TransLink staff, people who do not make the political decisions I am railing against, but are paid to bring plans to the public and answer questions best they can. Screaming, pulling of hair, calling of names will not be productive, these are not the people you need to convince that this plan does not work for you or your community.

Instead, one you know the plan, talk to your Mayor, and to your Councillors. In the end, they are the ones who are going to say “Yea” or Nay” to this project, and they are the ones you will be going into a polling booth in November 2011 to vote for.

On Blobs and politics.

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The news seems bad, a toxic blob is waiting under our new waterfront park, ready to strike down our children and any fish silly enough to brave the New Westminster waterfront. Proof again that our Mayor bought a bag if cursed seeds in a pre-election rush to appease the milling hoards…

Ugh.

Contaminated Sites happen to be an area where I have some technical knowledge. Note, my information here is limited to the reports that the City have made available, and the sporadic news reports, and I am not legally entitled to provide technical advice on this, but what the hell. Everyone else has a misinformed opinion. Here is mine.

The news report that this is a “high risk” site does not mean people or fish are currently or imminently threatened by it. This is simply a procedure that all Contaminated Sites undergoing Independent Remediation go through. The evaluation involves a whole bunch of criteria. If any one of them apply, the site is determined to be “high risk”. Here is the criteria table from the Ministry of Environment:

(click to zoom it)

The list is comprehensive, but based on the media reports, it seems the trigger here is chlorinated solvents, 8m below the surface. So the only risk criterion that applies is “mobile DNAPL”. With the Ministry saying it is not getting in to the River, it seems the only pathway to the actual environment is not open. So the risk is here may be “high”, but in a future-case sense.

Nothing says anyone or anything is going to die right now from this. The classification means that there is a significant amount of contamination, and that there is potential for this contamination to cause harm.

So if you own and are cleaning up a contaminated site, what does it mean to have your site designated “high risk”? It means that the Ministry has to be informed. That’s it.

Does it mean it will cost more to clean the site? Not necessarily.
Does it mean that we have to accelerate the clean-up process, or it will take longer to clean up? Not really.
Does it mean the site has to be physically remediated and cannot undergo risk assessment and management? Nope.
Does it mean the City Park is doomed? Not yet.
Does it even mean the site is making people sick or hurting fish? Not likely.

It is also silly of Voice to suggest somehow that High Risk determination is proof that the City did not do “due diligence” in 2008. The Site Risk Classification criteria did not exist until June 2010. The City did the environmental studies it felt it required, the City knew the site was contaminated, knew the scope of the contamination as well as they could with reasonable investigation efforts, and was working on the advice of a qualified Environmental Consultant. I don’t know what else they could have done.

Now onto the topic of the “Toxic Blob” itself. Notwithstanding all the above, the problem is not a minor one. DNAPL (Dense, Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids) are petroleum products that are denser than water. That means that instead of going down to the water table and spreading out on top of it (like so much olive oil on the balsamic vinegar of your dippy plate at Anducci’s), this stuff sinks through the water table until it hits some layer of soil it cannot penetrate. Sometimes that layer is really far down.

This sometimes makes it difficult to manage, and challenging to clean up, as you can’t just dig down to the water table and scoop it out, like you might with fuel oil. A more technical approach is required, but, and I can not emphasize this enough, typical for waterfront brownfields in BC. These kinds of challenges were faced by Vancouver in False Creek and the Olympic Lands, Victoria at Dockside Green, North Vancouver at the Pier… I don’t think the consultants or the City were surprised to run into them here.

From the press reports, this is “chlorinated solvents”. That likely includes tetrachloroethylene (“Perc”), trichloroethylene (“TCE”), or carbon tetrachloride (“Halon 104”). To most people in Contaminated Sites work, that suggests one thing: drycleaners. There are some significant wide-area sites in BC where drycleaners (before there were strict laws about this sort of thing) dumped solvents wherever they could, and caused large contamination plumes. However, these solvents were also used widely industrially and commercially, so it will be neigh impossible to point out a single cause for this plume. And it is unlikely chasing down the source will do anyone any good anyway, as they are unlikely to be forced to pay for the clean-up. The “train derailment” theory fails Occam’s razor, as more mundane excuses (historic washing of equipment with Perc, a drycleaner located uphill in the commercial part of town, etc.) are much more likely.

Long and short: stop worrying about Blobs.

Jerry Dobrovolny on The Olympic Transportation Plan

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

Comments on the NWEP’s forum on the future of Sustainable Transportation, held at Douglas College on November 9th, 2010. – Part 2

In the second part of his presentation, Jerry talked on how this one-time event can be used as a model for what transportation will be like in Vancouver in 2050, if the transportation plans of the City are realized. Much of this talk is actually available on the City Vancouver Website, so I won’t go into details here.

Short version: mode shift was responsible for getting most people to most events. Unlike recent Olympics in North America (e.g. Salt Lake City and Atlanta), Vancouver did not send a message for its Citizens to avoid downtown at all costs. Quite the opposite, they set up free events and pavilions around Downtown to encourage people to attend. They just told people to not bother trying to drive in Vancouver.

The City planned for a slight increase in overall traffic for the two weeks, and to avoid traffic gridlock, they hoped for 75% “alternative modes” (transit, bike, walking, rolling office chairs, crowd-surfing, and being dragged down the street on downhill skis being pulled by your drunken buddies I saw all of these on Granville. It was a good party). In the end, they got almost 80%. Notably, their initial estimates of total trips was way too low as there was a 44% increase in trips, but due to the high diversion rate, traffic chaos did not ensue.

Transit chaos only occasionally ensued. But TransLink did a great job managing it, and Jerry was quick to point out how pivotal their role was in running a successful games. I remember spending a half an hour in line at Main Street Station to catch a train home after a Hockey Game. But the line was well managed, organized, and moved pretty swiftly given the circumstances. Only at Jerry’s talk did I realize the people who were out on the street in yellow jackets organizing these lines were TransLink staffers: the managers, planners, secretaries, lawyers, engineers, and custodians who usually occupy TransLink offices were out on the streets during the Olympics, helping make things run smoothly.

Then there was the Olympic Line Streetcar, which proved it worth, moving more than half a million riders during the Olympics and Paralympics. Oh, to have streetcars on our streets again…

There is an inherent problem in all science: either you control all your variables and have an unrealistic model, or you collect real data from the messy real world, and then try to figure out what the variables are after the fact. This is definitely an example of the second half of this problem. It could be argued that the Olympics are a really terrible model for everyday life in the City. Many of the “trips” during the Olympics were taken by tourists, who were unlikely to use a car (as the City’s rental pool was way over depleted). Most of the trips were not people going to work, school, and everyday chores, but were people going downtown to enjoy the festivities: it is safe to assume they would tolerate more inconvenience on the way to the Closing Ceremonies than they would on a daily basis commuting to work. Sobriety is also a confounding factor in every day life that was no significant on February 28, 2010.

So the transportation plan worked, it proved that good planning and an integrated infrastructure not based on single-occupant vehicles can efficiently move larger numbers of people through Vancouver without increasing road capacity. But realistically, this is not the future of Vancouver transportation:

Jerry Dobrovolny on The Olympic Transportation Plan

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Comments on the NWEP’s forum on the future of Sustainable Transportation, held at Douglas College on November 9th, 2010. – Part 2

In the second part of his presentation, Jerry talked on how this one-time event can be used as a model for what transportation will be like in Vancouver in 2050, if the transportation plans of the City are realized. Much of this talk is actually available on the City Vancouver Website, so I won’t go into details here.

Short version: mode shift was responsible for getting most people to most events. Unlike recent Olympics in North America (e.g. Salt Lake City and Atlanta), Vancouver did not send a message for its Citizens to avoid downtown at all costs. Quite the opposite, they set up free events and pavilions around Downtown to encourage people to attend. They just told people to not bother trying to drive in Vancouver.

The City planned for a slight increase in overall traffic for the two weeks, and to avoid traffic gridlock, they hoped for 75% “alternative modes” (transit, bike, walking, rolling office chairs, crowd-surfing, and being dragged down the street on downhill skis being pulled by your drunken buddies I saw all of these on Granville. It was a good party). In the end, they got almost 80%. Notably, their initial estimates of total trips was way too low as there was a 44% increase in trips, but due to the high diversion rate, traffic chaos did not ensue.

Transit chaos only occasionally ensued. But TransLink did a great job managing it, and Jerry was quick to point out how pivotal their role was in running a successful games. I remember spending a half an hour in line at Main Street Station to catch a train home after a Hockey Game. But the line was well managed, organized, and moved pretty swiftly given the circumstances. Only at Jerry’s talk did I realize the people who were out on the street in yellow jackets organizing these lines were TransLink staffers: the managers, planners, secretaries, lawyers, engineers, and custodians who usually occupy TransLink offices were out on the streets during the Olympics, helping make things run smoothly.

Then there was the Olympic Line Streetcar, which proved it worth, moving more than half a million riders during the Olympics and Paralympics. Oh, to have streetcars on our streets again…

There is an inherent problem in all science: either you control all your variables and have an unrealistic model, or you collect real data from the messy real world, and then try to figure out what the variables are after the fact. This is definitely an example of the second half of this problem. It could be argued that the Olympics are a really terrible model for everyday life in the City. Many of the “trips” during the Olympics were taken by tourists, who were unlikely to use a car (as the City’s rental pool was way over depleted). Most of the trips were not people going to work, school, and everyday chores, but were people going downtown to enjoy the festivities: it is safe to assume they would tolerate more inconvenience on the way to the Closing Ceremonies than they would on a daily basis commuting to work. Sobriety is also a confounding factor in every day life that was no significant on February 28, 2010.

So the transportation plan worked, it proved that good planning and an integrated infrastructure not based on single-occupant vehicles can efficiently move larger numbers of people through Vancouver without increasing road capacity. But realistically, this is not the future of Vancouver transportation:

argumentum al Gorium

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

There is a meme from the old days of the Usenet that will be familiar to people who frequent blogs and boards. It is known as Godwin’s Law. Follow the link for details, but it essentially says that as any online discussion thread increases in size, the probability of someone making a comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1. Since initially invented, the meme has expanded somewhat to include the proviso that the point where Hitler is first mentioned, all further discussion becomes irrelevant and the person who raised Hitler is immediately considered to have lost the debate. argumentum ad Hitlerum.

May I humbly suggest it is time to suggest a new Corollary?

Anyone in the least bit interested in the science and politics behind Anthropogenic Global Warming will recognize this. Any online discussion about AGW inevitably results in someone raising the spectre of Al Gore, usually as a purportedly stunning rebuke against an actual rational point. At that point, any further discussion becomes irrelevant.

…argumentum al Gorium.

NWEP AGM: Separated Bike Lanes

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The NWEP had a forum on urban transportation on November 9th, with several speakers touching on various topics realted to the evitable shift to more sustainable transportation. This is the first in a series summarizing some of the topics.

The first speaker was Jerry Dobrovolny, the Director of Transportation for the City of Vancouver. He also happens to be a New Westminster Resident, and was once a City Councillor here in Richmond. He spoke on two topics wrapped in one title:

“How the Olympics and Separated Bike Lanes are helping Vancouver become the Greenest City in the world by 2020”.

First, on the bike lanes.

Jerry brought a lot of perspective to the issue of the Separated Bike Lanes that is lost in the recent media hype about the issue. Surprisingly, these bike lanes are not an evil conspiracy of a single bike-friendly Mayor, or even of a rabidly socialist Vision Vancouver Council . They were established as part of the 1997 Transportation plan that was passed under (NPA) Mayor Phillip Owen, supported by (CoPE) Mayor Larry Campbell, (NPA) Mayor Sam Sullivan, and the current (Vision) Mayor and Council. They are one link, (the previously “missing link”) in a City-wide cycling infrastructure program that has been happening for more than a decade.

They are also not new, but reflect what is quickly becoming the “standard” for road construction in urban areas, in Montreal, in New York, in Portland… Not to mix metaphors, but we aren’t reinventing the wheel here.

And it works. The money being spent on these cycling improvements in Vancouver is about $4 Million, out of annual transportation budget of about $125 Million, so about 3% of the budget. But in the downtown core where these improvements are happening, around 12% of all trips are by bicycle. Cyclists are no using roads they don’t pay for (roads are overwhelmingly financed by property taxes), they are actually subsidising other road improvemetns by a factor of four.

Since the 1997 transportation plan, the City’s population has increased more than 25%, jobs more than 20%, and the number of cars entering the city on a daily basis has gone DOWN by 18% (and these numbers are from before the Canada Line opened).

Yes, a few parking spots were lost on Hornby; 158 spots in total. However, as part of the program, 162 spots were added to Howe and Seymour Streets (one and three blocks away, respectively), which pales in comparison to the 10,000 off-street parking spots available within 1 block of the Hornby Street bike lane. If you survey people on Hornby, you would find 90% of them walked more than 2 blocks to get to their desination. In other words, the parking issue is another non-issue.

I wish Big, Fat, David Pratt and professional blowhard Bruce Allen were challenged with some facts for a change. Alas, that isn’t their job, is it?