Income in the year 2014

Recently CBC news carried an article that spoke of wages being paid today relative to the past. The article stated that todays minimum wage earners are making as much as people did in 1975. This is not surprising as the shift to non-union jobs has been evident. If unions are not present to set wage standards, wages take a beating. Sadly most non-union workers are not aware that unions and union wages drive wage settings for the non-union workers.

It is our various Provincial and Federal Governments that have failed us at this level. In the drive to be "competitive" and to have "Free markets" and "Free Trading Agreements" our wages and benefits have taken a backseat. Yes, we need more open trade, but at what cost? And what does this do to our ability to be self-standing and to support our local economy? We also need to remember that when our dollar is weak we sell our resources at less than their true value. When our dollar was strong against the American dollar our exporters cried foul. They claimed their markets were decreasing and at peril. Whatever happened to the notion that during good times (when our dollar is weaker than the US $) manufacturers retooled in order to be competitive during bad times? Sadly all these notions have fallen prey to the idea that profit margins be maximized at all times. Just look at Corporate profits since the bank crash of 2008. While claiming poor market conditions were the cause of lay-offs and wage cut-backs, corporate profits have been at an all-time high.

Here in BC, the government has yet again failed in their negotiations with the teachers union. To some degree they have public support in that a lot of folk envy teachers and their summer holidays. What they are not aware of is the time teachers put in during the school year. But mostly the sad part is that BC teachers rank amongst the most poorly paid teachers in Canada! And they are the only people that stand between your kids and a promising future. Is this what good governance is all about, saving money at all costs?

The $3 Billion hoodwink.

The Provincial Government asked the public for input on replacement of the Massey Tunnel. The result of this consultation and final report is an eight lane bridge. The value of this bridge is marginalized by manipulation of the public input. The real reason for the choice of a bridge appears to be dictated by Port Metro Vancouver’s need to get bigger ships up the Fraser River.

 A number of options were presented to the public. Several of these options were presented so that it was almost a given what would be chosen.

One of those options was the retention of the tunnel. As presented this option had no additional means of obtaining the desired results to “support objectives for regional people movement”, to “relieve congestion” or to “improve safety”. As a result, retaining the tunnel was not heavily supported by the public. This is not a surprise as this is exactly what the process was meant to do; pave the way for the removal of the tunnel.

This tunnel will be useful for many more years, a point proven by a similar tunnel in Rotterdam (the Netherlands). So why dismantle it? If we add the additional tunnel or bridge components necessary for public transport to take traffic off the road, the tunnel will remain effective.  This will cost a fraction of the current proposal and will better achieve the desired goals set out by both Government and the public.

The second option to have the bridge “placed in a different location” was equally set up to fail. The new location merely rerouted traffic back to Highway 99 and the Oak Street corridor. This option served neither of the two objectives to “relieve congestion” nor to apply “a visionary long term solution”.

The report allows that “most of the traffic through the tunnel goes to Richmond”. What the numbers fail to factor in is the growth from border traffic and from the “Urban Sprawl” that will be created by a large bridge. Building the bridge will encourage residential and industrial development South of the Fraser. This will put more traffic on the road, not less.  This development will also put more pressure on our dwindling farmlands. With less farmland we will need more produce shipped in, putting more trucks on the road. The dismantling of the tunnel will allow more shipping through,  creating more truck traffic. All of this will only add to the “people movement” problem.

This means that this bridge will soon create a need for an additional traffic corridor to deal with this future growth. Therefore, this bridge is not a “visionary long term solution”. A long term solution can not be reached by putting more cars on the road and adding traffic to the Oak Street corridor. If a bridge is chosen, it should be smaller, augment the tunnel, be placed in a different location and handle public transportation. This would be far more economical, effective and “visionary”.

More importantly, building the bridge where the tunnel is will turn this major traffic corridor into a nightmare for a period of 3-5 years (judging by the Alex Fraser Bridge and the #1 highway upgrades). This will not only affect Delta residents. It will affect South Surrey residents, tourism, ferry traffic and truck and commercial traffic. For some strange reason this does not appear to be a major consideration.

The less discussed and more contentious issue to BC residents is the expansion of the Federal entity, Port Metro, and its need to remove the tunnel to allow larger ships up the Fraser. At the public consultation sessions no mention was made of the issue to “support trade and commerce”. These consultations were strictly focused on traffic logistics and infrastructure. How then did ‘transportation alternatives’ get rated lower than ‘Economic Growth’ in the final report?

Certainly ‘Economic growth’ is important. However, if the desire to remove the tunnel and build a bridge is strictly for the benefit of Port Metro, then why are we paying the cost? Port Metro’s requirements should not be confused with the issue of transportation infrastructure.

At $3 billion the cost of this undertaking is a serious issue.  This amount of money could be spent more effectively to serve the “objectives for regional people movement”.  And, this price is being given to you by the same people who missed the South Fraser Perimeter Road budget by more than 100%. How much will this project really cost?

Lastly, a Media Freedom of Information request for the “business case for replacing the Massey Tunnel” turned up a 14 page response that is “almost entirely whited out” due among other things to “disclosures harmful to the financial interests of public bodies”.

With this amount of money going into the project, it is doubtful that any money will be available to deal with the real issues to “support objectives for regional people movement” or to “relieve congestion”. That cost will be handed down to you in a separate tax on top of the cost for this project. All of BC will pay if this project is allowed to go ahead. Not just those who took their time to respond to this issue.

Peter van der Velden

Facilities Management Consultant

Tsawwassen

August 6, 2014

 

The following is a link to the virtual bridge created and paid for by the BC Provincial Government

 

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO5qu9HDJHM)

 

 

Port Metro Vancouver and their responsibilities

Well, here we go again. Port Metro is back in the news. And the news is not good.

Port Metro, as you probably know, has been trying to establish that it is a responsible Corporate citizen Environmentally. In the past several years it has undertaken a number of Environmental initiatives to "Bank" environmental points. These points can then be used when undertaking environmentally questionable efforts like the Terminal 2 expansion for Delta.

This is all encouraged under Canada's "Responsible Resource Development" action plan which supposedly "Strengthens Environmental Protection" as one of its four key themes.

Those are the theories. The reality is that Port Metro as a Federal Crown Corporation sits between the Prime Minister and the Queen in terms of regulatory determination and can (and DOES) pretty much what it wants. The latest news really only goes to emphasize how they see themselves relative to local regulators and their Corporate/environmental responsibilities.

Metro Vancouver issued a $1000 fine to the Fraser Surrey Docks for "discharging an air contaminant during port operations". The response to this fine was not an apology and payment as you might expect a responsible Corporate entity to make. Instead, the response of Fraser Scott, CEO of Fraser Surrey Docks was a letter to Metro that stated they would dispute the charge because it did not believe the Regional District had the authority to issue such a fine.

This brings up some interesting questions:

If the Regional District does not have the authority, who does?
What is Fraser Surrey Docks really interested in here? Are they trying to skirt their environmental  responsibility or are they just letting the local governing body know how powerful they really are.

The truly sad part here is that this was a blast of Soy Dust. Fraser Surrey Docks are proposing to handle over 8 Million tons of American Thermal Coal for shipment to China annually. If they can't be responsible for the handling of Soy can we trust them to be responsible for the Highly Toxic Coal dust?

How does this fit under "Responsible Resource Development"; better yet, how does it "Strengthen Environmental Protection." And lastly; why would a Federal entity want to question a local Municipal Authority on an issue so central to its existence: Corporate Responsibility?

If our regulatory bodies are allowed to fail at this level how can we possibly protect ourselves?

Here is a slide show of some photos from Delta days 2014. It was a lot of fun!


https://picasaweb.google.com/118228061219287470670/20140623#slideshow/6028312254791155938

Fraser Surrey Docks and Coal

Ah, where to start on this one. With the planned coal port expansion at Fraser Surrey Docks, the capacity of Port Metro increases to 59 million (yes million) tonnes per year making it the largest coal exporter in America.

And my fear is that this is not all it wants. There is a desire on the part of the American producers to ship as much as 6 times the presently planned 3 trains per day. 6 TIMES! 18-1+mile long trains coming through the Delta area, White Rock and Burns Bog. This will no doubt become a reality when the Massey Tunnel is removed. (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fengage.gov.bc.ca%2Fmasseytunnel%2F&ei=4uSYU8OOGJHqoASVioL4Dg&usg=AFQjCNHhdqbOhl99z9QUWWY4D2pnAv4pkw&sig2=nY7vaSgpTlXUsHtMYZ1Iwg&bvm=bv.68911936,d.cGU)  The channel depth is only an issue at the tunnel. By removing the tunnel the boats can be loaded without the present set-up which requires barging the coal to Texada Island to load onto a ship.

This coal is a softer coal than the coal presently being shipped from the Roberts Bank Coal Terminal (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Powder_River_Basin). It is problematic for that reason and a real health and safety concern (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_exports_from_ports_on_the_west_coast_of_Canada_and_the_United_States). As a result at least two American terminals have refused to handle this material. This puts it right in line with the way Mr. Harper is handling all environmental issues; ie, what environmental issues?(http://www.desmog.ca/2013/10/16/canadian-taxpayers-fund-harper-s-65-000-keystone-xl-advertising-trip) And, as we know, Port Metro Vancouver is a Federal Crown Corporation which basically has no accountability (even though they are mandated with decision-making responsibilities under section 67 of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012). They perform a number of "Habitat Enhancement" Programs in the hopes of being seen as an environmentally friendly group that deserves to have their way with the environment. Sadly what they are proposing for Terminal 2 and enlarging the capacity of the Fraser Surrey Docks is less than good for the Fraser or the Delta area (“Having looked at the document (environmental assessment), it does not meet what we consider the very basic requirements of a health impacts assessment,” Dr. Patricia Daly, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority chief medical health officer, told the Vancouver Sun). And has anybody actually explained how few jobs the coal is creating? And, oh, have I mentioned before that they have taken on no responsibility for the dismantling of the tunnel for their purposes? You and I, BC, will be paying for that.

As a result chief medical health officers of the regional health authorities, have demanded a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts. However, Mayor Louis Jackson is -typically- deferring to "more information from staff" before they join other Municipalities (including Metro Vancouver and Surrey) who have also asked for the assessment. Is it that difficult to believe the healthcare professionals know what they are asking for; is it that unreasonable to assume that the assessment should be done by an independent third party? I appreciate that Mayor Jackson does not want to have a rubber stamp council, but really; just what did she learn on her fact finding mission to Norway? Or is this just a continuation of her recent comment that Delta is "Open for Business."

Yes this does sound like a bit of a rant. But then....if Port Metro is not doing its due diligence, who can we hold responsible or accountable?  The Federal Minister of Transport, the Honourable Lisa Rait seems to have given tfhe Port free reign and has not gotten involved in the discussion. Neither has the BC government of Christy Clark gotten involved. I guess we can only hope that the staff at Delta comes up with the necessary information to join the other Municipalities in asking for a full and independent environmental assessment.

The next -and last- comment here is more a question. How is it when this issue is not settled that the BNSF railway is doubling its rail line?(http://www.vickihuntington.ca/content/bnsf-railway-extension-needs-federal-review-huntington) for this contentious coal? Is there something we don't know?

The Massey Tunnel

On the same theme as the last blog entry, this letter was sent to the board of Metro Vancouver. Metro is concerned with Regional Planning and at first blush Mayor Jackson of Delta was the only Mayor in favour of the bridge.

 

I was interested to read that Mayor Louis Jackson was actively courting the Provincial Government for THE BRIDGE last week. And, that the Provincial Government is actively pursuing the construction design phase.

Mayor Jackson is, I believe, the only mayor in Metro Vancouver who supports this BRIDGE and the dismantling of the Massey Tunnel. And yet, the Provincial Government will have us believe that this is the option that is not only the best option, it is the popular one. That is to say that the bridge is the choice that came from public input.

What has been lost in this debate is the fact that Port Metro Vancouver wants the tunnel dismantled so that bigger ships can be handled and port capacity can increase. Until this topic was raised, the dismantling of the Massey tunnel was not an option.

So why is it that British Columbia taxpayers and Metro residents (through road taxes yet to be determined) are going to be paying for Port Metro’s desire to have the tunnel removed? Port Metro is under Federal jurisdiction. It seems that they are pushing our Provincial Government into a decision that is not the choice for Metro Vancouver. We only need to look at the traffic patterns and the growth in traffic at the border, the port, and the region to see that this is also a very questionable choice for placement of a bridge. It does little to redirect traffic away from the Richmond/Vancouver corridor nor does it really allow for traffic growth to circumvent Vancouver.

This all begs the question, why are we paying for this need of Port Metro to have the tunnel removed? And, more importantly why are we even considering this alternative? An appropriately placed bridge and maintaining the tunnel would solve all of those issues. And do it in an economically feasible way. To suggest that THE BRIDGE is the only way to handle the public transportation requirements is just irresponsible.

Port Metro’s desire to increase shipping traffic is a separate issue that needs to be addressed by the Federal Government. The cost for this and the affect on Regional Infrastructure needs to be accounted for. Mayor Jackson has the untenable position of supporting THE BRIDGE option. Neither the Federal Government nor Port Metro have suggested that they would pay for any of the costs while being the only ones that would benefit. From a planning perspective this choice is just plain wrong! We need to put pressure on Metro Vancouver and the Provincial Government to change direction on this issue. If we are going to pay for a bridge let it be the right choice in the right location. And let it be a choice that will enhance our regional planning.

The Massey Tunnel

This letter was sent to the ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and various news outlets as well as (MLA) Vicky Huntington on May 7, 2014. The only one to respond was Vicky Huntington. The letter points out the Massey Tunnel is far from being obsolete. Like the South Fraser Perimeter road we can plan for something far better and far less costly. It is truly amazing that this bridge is planned for this location with the demolition of the tunnel for no other reason than the desires of Port Metro Vancouver.

This letter is regarding the replacement of the Massey Tunnel. There is real concern in this region that this project is one to finance Port Metro’s desires to have more access to the North Delta harbor and that it has little to do with dealing with the REAL traffic issues of the region. The issues of increased traffic in the Richmond corridor has been minimized by your department. Never has your department shown any real data to convince anyone that this is actually true. It would be really beneficial to see this data. As well, for future growth, why is the issue of taking border traffic away from the city not addressed by this elaborate and expensive plan. Surely a bridge placed further East and avoiding Richmond and the Oak street corridor makes more sense than adding to the traffic in this congested area.

It is clear that “the (tunnel) needs are just for stabilizing the ground and replacing operating systems. If it’s found that the “tube,” the tunnel structure, can remain sound, the rest is only renovation”.  replacement of the tunnel is unwarranted. The tunnel, like the Oakland tunnel of a similar design built in 1928 will remain more than satisfactory and cost effective for many years. “The Massey Tunnel is most like the tunnel under the Maas River in Rotterdam that was completed 17 years earlier by the same Danish engineering firm. After renovation last year, it (is) doing fine”. So why are we going to the expense of dismantling the tunnel when it can work in tandem with a bridge in another location and be far more effective and far less costly? And why, has Port Metro not been a part of this discussion when in reality it is the only reason that the removal of the tunnel is being considered. Surely we can do better in planning infrastructure than planning around the Port’s needs. If the Port’s needs are so prevalent why are they not a part of the negotiation and why are they not footing ANY part of the bill?

 Peter van der Velden

Tsawwassen