Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
10,000 people (and two polar bears) Petition Premier.
Share:
by WestCoast TreeHugger | April 23, 2009 at 03:01 pm
159 views | 32 Recommendations | 14 comments
Videos
Photos
VANCOUVER - The Society Promoting Environmental Conservation and Wilderness Committee delivered petitions with over 10,000 signers to the Premier's office today. The petitions ask that the government to cancel the Gateway Program's highway expansion components and invest more in transit instead.
The gateway program is a transportation infrastructure project that includes over 260 km of new highway lanes.
Dozens of activists rallied outside the office in downtown Vancouver including two dressed as polar bears. The premier's office initially declined to accept the invitations. After the activists attempted to enter the nearby convention centre where the premier was speaking, staff working with the Premier agreed to accept the petitions.
“Translink is currently exhausting its capital reserves just to keep existing service going,” said Karen Wristen, Executive Director of SPEC. “At this rate, they will be broke in two years. We simply can’t afford both freeway expansion and transit development: we have to solve the transit crisis first.”
“It will be virtually impossible to reach BC’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) if Gateway is allowed to proceed. Gateway is not just an irresponsible plan, it’s immoral,” said Ben West, the Wilderness Committee’s Healthy Communities Campaigner.
The government calculates that greenhouse gas emissions will increase by over 170,000 tonnes per year from the Gateway program.
Premeir Gordon Campbell has not yet responded directly to the petition. In recent interviews he has defended the Gateway Program.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
eastvanray
vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Related Stories
Recommendations (32)
badfreeway
Canada
Barbara McPherson
Nanaimo, Canada
Tina Kells
Vancouver, Canada
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (14)
at 15:40 on April 23rd, 2009
I'm in support of this, let us know if there are any updates.
at 17:44 on April 23rd, 2009
Good thing polar bears don't have to commute over the Port Mann!
at 12:46 on April 24th, 2009
I overheard couple of people that do commute over the Port Mann stop by and offer support at this event. I guess they realize that transit is a much more efficient, cost effective and cleaner way to reduce congestion. Are there any examples of highway expansion reducing congestion? Even one?
at 13:37 on April 24th, 2009
And the Port Mann expansion will finally provide access for bus and rapid transit after over 20 years of not a single bus being allowed over it. Transit is needed but so is expanded capacity for vehicle travel.
at 13:54 on April 24th, 2009
Not sure what you mean by "not a single bus allowed."
Bus service was stopped when the Expo Line was opened due to budget considerations.
Translink did plan to add bus service on the Port Mann in 2007. Pressure from Falcon's office cancelled this planned service.
There have been good studies to show that bus service could be added to the Port Mann bridge as is. See:
http://www.transitlab.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=60
At 12% (and even less in Surrey) transit modal share we are way behind other world class cities that have modal shares of 20-50%. If we want to balance the system we need large investments in transit first.
at 13:58 on April 24th, 2009
Why didn't the NDP put busses on the Port Mann when they were in power? They had ample time in office to do it if they wanted to. Transit (including either Skytrain or light rail) will flow on the new Port Mann.
at 14:04 on April 24th, 2009
Good question - people should be asking the NDP that.
There is no evidence that transit will even happen on the new Port Mann. Translink just announced this week that they do not have funding for bus transit on the Port Mann bridge. There is certainly no funding for skytrain or light rail infrastructure on the bridge. Meanwhile, the existing skytrain bridge is not even being used to capacity.
at 13:40 on April 24th, 2009
If reducing pollution is your goal then convince Carol James to stop lying about clean power initiatives and vote Liberal so we can stop buying dirty coal-fired electricity from the US.
at 14:01 on April 24th, 2009
- I am not aware of any coal-fired electricity that we buy from the US. We do buy some from Alberta - but mainly for economic reasons. It is cheaper to turn off the large hydro turbines at night, buy cheap coal power from Alberta (because they can't turn off the coal plants) and then sell the excess power we have stored up behind the dams for higher prices. Adding the IPP projects is not going to change that economic reality unless Alberta starts shutting down coal fired power plants. And there is no evidence they will do that.
- Only about 2% of our ghg emissions comes from electrical power generation. Over 30% of comes from transportation. So if we really want to reduce pollution it makes sense to focus on transportation not electrical generation.
- Since the Liberal's IPP "clean power" projects are not linked to shutting down any coal fired power plants there is no evidence they will actually reduce ghg emissions or other forms of pollution. In fact, in the short term they will increase emissions since construction of these facilities is fairly ghg emission intensive.
at 14:15 on April 24th, 2009
I understand that we do purchase power from the US grid.
at 14:38 on April 24th, 2009
I stand corrected - we import more from the US than I thought. But I am not sure how much of this is really coal-fired since the US Pacific Northwest uses a lot of hydro power as well.
In most years we actually export more than we import and much of the imports are for "revenue" reasons - not the actual need for power. So, my comments on the power we import from Alberta also apply here. I don't think that the IPP projecs are going to do much to reduce pollution (unless we demand that the new generation replaces coal-fired plants that get shut down)
at 15:03 on April 25th, 2009
They will replace expanded gas or coal fired production. Every megawatt produced by a run-of-river plant is a megawatt that we do not have to get from dirtier sources.
at 17:40 on April 25th, 2009
But we don't have to get it from coal or gas now. For the most part we get it only because it makes economic sense to do so at certain times of day and year. That won't change with more r-of-r.
It might reduce the need for future fossil fuel power expansion but it won't do anything to reduce current ghg emissions - which was my point. The science (and the Liberals own plan) calls for a dramatic decrease in current ghg emissions. And the r-of-r IPPs aren't helping in that respect.
at 11:19 on April 26th, 2009
I think a technology shift that places more emphasis on electric power (electric vehicles, trucks, busses rail etc) combined with more hydro production will accomplish.that.