Wednesday, August 31, 2011

How to increase cycling in Metro Vancouver

At the Connecting Communities: BC Youth Summit for Sustainable Transportation, I heard a great presentation on how to attract people to cycling. Portland, OR did a study to find out what it would take to get people into cycling. They found that about a third of the people would not cycle, “no way, no how.” Another 10% where hard-core cyclist that cycle no matter what. 60% of the people would cycle, but they had concerns.

60% is a pretty big numbers and it’s a group whose needs haven’t been meet when it comes to cycling infrastructure. End of cycling facilities such as bike parking and shower are important, but so is the cycling facilities “on the ground.” This 60% group of concerned, potential cyclist do not and will not ride with cars meaning that the typical shoulder bike lane is useless. Off-street bike paths and multi-use paths are the top choice for these potential cyclists. The second choice was separated bike lanes like in Downtown Vancouver. If we are truly serious about increasing the amount of cycling done in our region, we’re going to have to get serious about cycling infrastructure. The great thing about cycling infrastructure is that even separated bike lanes and off-street path are an order of magnitude cheaper than transit or roads expansion.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

The 200th street that could have been

Back in 2006, UBC's School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture launched Sustainability by Design (SxD). The effort envisioned what Metro Vancouver might look like in 2050 without eroding our livability. 200th Street was one of the corridors studied and SxD produced a report on how to build it more sustainably.

Mixed-use nodes along 200th Street.
Nodes are points of dense land use connected to each other and to surrounding residential neighbourhoods by important community corridors. Nodes are complete communities, each including residential, business/commercial, recreation, and ecological land uses. They evolve with different overall densities and characters over time, but the five-minute walking distance generally defines a node’s size, with density decreasing with increased distance from the centre. In a well designed community the edges of nodes overlap, placing all residents within a five-minute walk of their daily needs.

Connecting the nodes, 200th Street is a multiway boulevard that accommodates pedestrians, cyclists, rapid transit, commuters, and goods movement within a safe and well-designed street section. Detailed articulation of the street section changes in response to surrounding context, encouraging slower traffic flow so that pedestrian crossings can occur every 200 metres within nodes.

Multi-Lane Boulevard - 200th Street

It's been five years since this study was released and not much of this vision has been translated into anything on the ground. While some on council have expressed interest in making 200th Street into a mixed-use corridor, it seems like it's turning into a 8-lane highway more than anything. I don't think that 200th Street is a complete write-off just yet, but I believe that the next council will seal the fate of the corridor as a highway or start the process transforming 200th Street into something better.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Commute to Work Time in Metro Vancouver

Last week Statistics Canada released a report on commuting to work. While the mainstream media focused on how more people drive than take transit and how transit is generally slower than driving, big surprises, they missed some important details.

According to Statistics Canada the higher density a neighbourhood is, the shorter both car and transit commutes becomes. This shows yet again how low-density, auto-oriented development is an abject failure; it’s not even better for car commuters!

Of greater concern is the data on average commute time in the region. In 1992, the average commute time in Metro Vancouver was 70 minutes, this dropped to 68 minutes in 1998, and 67 minutes in 2005. We were the only large region in Canada to see decreases in commute time. In 2010, the average commute time increased to 74 minutes. We should be asking why this happened. Is all the new road infrastructure in Metro Vancouver actually causing commute times to increase? This wouldn’t surprise me. We have been designing regions around the auto since World War 2 and now more than ever, we have data to show it is a mistake. Why are we still building freeways if we know they don’t work? Why are we building suburbs when we know that they’re bad for social cohesion, health, and the environment? It time that we go back to the basics and design our regions around people.

Friday, August 26, 2011

City of Langley has greatest potential for cycling in South of Fraser

Last weekend at the Connecting Communities: BC Youth Summit for Sustainable Transportation, I had the chance to listen to a presentation about areas with the greatest potential for increasing cycling in Metro Vancouver. When the following slide came up, the normal South of Fraser is evil came up. I should point out that the slide shows places that could attract more people to cycling. Green is bad and blue is good; the darker the better. I pointed out that 90% of the area in green is in the ALR and that it’s not shocking that those places aren’t prime location for boosting cycling mode share.

On the bright side, I noticed that the City of Langley has great potential for cycling. The problem with the City of Langley is that cycling is not a priority for council; they can’t seem to find money to improve cycling infrastructure on existing roads. To add insult to injury, there are two lane roads with huge right-of-ways that could handle parking, general traffic, and even a separated bike lane like 53rd Avenue and 203rd Street without much effort. I do not understand why the City of Langley isn’t embracing cycling. Maybe they just need to see this slide. If you think that cycling should be improved in Langley, you should check out the Greater Langley Cycling Coalition.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Chicago - BRT over LRT

The City of Chicago is looking at a massive Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that will provide the city with 10 new BRT routes, covering nearly 100 miles. The data suggests that while Light Rail Transit (LRT) would cost $35M per mile to build, BRT would cost only $13M. I'm still reading all the details and it will be interesting to see if they compared the cost of maintenance to the mix. I've always been told that after 5 years, even the BRT buses start racking up the maintenance costs and that is where LRT becomes more economical. I'm sure this discussion must take place somewhere in their technical analysis.

Lots of reading for transit geeks here. The full report can be had here, including a technical analysis of the project. As you know, our very own TranLink has been having stakeholder and public consultation sessions for the Surrey Rapid Transit study area that includes Langley City. Both LRT and BRT are some of the four options that TransLink is studying. The other two include expansion of regular bus services and another options called "Best Bus", where the bus network would be tweaked to provide more efficiency and coverage.

It will be interesting to see TransLink's final numbers and final recommendations. Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts and her Council traveled to Portland, OR and are advocating for LRT technology.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Real-Time Transit Info Coming to Metro Vancouver

Twenty years ago I road the buses and MRT lines (now SMRT) in the Republic of Singapore on a regular basis. Singapore runs like a Swiss watch and it was my oasis and getaway from the hustle and bustle of Bangkok, Thailand, where I lived for over 10 years. Everything I needed to get to was on an MRT line, or a short bus transfer. The system has grown tremendously since my exploration days. As a side note, check out some of these SMRT wait times by clicking the timelines here. Read them and weep!

Singapore had GPS-driven signage at most bus stops some 15 years ago. I recall moving to Vancouver in early 2001 and bringing my GSM World Phone from Bangkok to a local phone shop here. I asked the shopkeeper if I could buy a local SIM card for my World Phone. He looked at me like I had three heads. He told me that this new technology was promised in Canada and that perhaps we will see it in 3-5 years. I think it was at least 3 years before I could buy that local SIM card.

TransLink has announced that thanks to a $700K+ investment in the system, real-time data on our buses will become available this month for your iPhone and home computers. Support apps for Android or Blackberry are promised. I'll certainly download this tool and use it when I can. If all works well, this new tool in the arsenal of Metro commuters will be exceptional. I long for the day that our rapid transit system rivals the Singapore utopia I've come to love and appreciate. Until then, I can see how long that bus will take to get me on 200th Street. Frequency has definitely increased over the years!

Monday, August 22, 2011

Vancouver Transit Centre

I had the chance to attend the Connecting Communities: BC Youth Summit for Sustainable Transportation last weekend. It was an amazing time and I’ll be posting more about the conference in the next little while. One of the best parts of the conference, for a transit geek like me, was the tour of the Vancouver Transit Centre which is home to the second largest trolleybus fleeting in North America. I’ve posted picture below and I’ve also added descriptions that you can view on Flickr.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Surrey Rapid Transit Study - Phase Two Results

August seems to be the month for public consultation feedback reports. Last week TransLink released the results of the phase 2 consultation for the Surrey Rapid Transit Study. You can read more about the study on a previous post.

475 people participated in the consultation and not surprising 94% were regular transit users. 2/3rds of the participants felt that the King George Boulevard/104th Avenue and Fraser Highway alignments where bang on. I can imagine that the other 1/3rd were hoping for the use of the Interurban corridor which I think is dead-in-the-water as an alignment in Surrey and Langley now.

Question: Please indicate your priorities for how road space should be shared among uses.
What I am really concerned about is how participants allocated road space when asked “Please indicate your priorities for how road space should be shared among uses.” The priority in order of importance was: rapid transit, sidewalks, traffic lanes, bike lanes, left-turn bays, and finally boulevard plantings. Since the people that participated in the consultation were regular transit uses and therefore a bit more sustainability minded, I would have thought that bike lanes should rate higher than general traffic lanes. I can imagine that the reason that people didn’t rate cycling infrastructure as important is because there isn’t a whole lots of it right now in the South of Fraser. People don’t know what they’re missing out on. This should really be a wake-up call that municipalities need to place a higher priority on cycling infrastructure.

On the matter of the provisioning of rapid transit in the South of Fraser, the following question and answers sum things up nicely:
What advice do you have for decision-makers on what is important to you and what you would like them to consider about this evaluation?
-We need rapid transit solutions now not 30-40 years from now.
-A long term transit system built today (investment), will form future Surrey as a community, reduce pollution, reduce road building, decrease use of automobile, better access for young and old.
-Benefits to Surrey extend beyond transit in Surrey.
-Cost should be less important, urban development is very important, as well as efficient movement of people. This is an investment in the long-term future - it has to be done right, and done once.
-Cost effectiveness and the ability to move and connect as many people and areas as possible.
With September around the corner and with it the fall legislative session, I hope that transit funding finally gets sorted out or the Surrey Rapid Transit study will nothing but an exercise in paper writing.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Urban Design Kills

Our passion for the automobile, wide open roads and the wind through our hair is killing people. A recent review of fatalities and survey by Transportation for America (PDF report here) reveals that Florida is among the most dangerous places for pedestrians. Over the past decade, almost 50,000 people have died in the USA alone because of our love for the open road. 688,000 pedestrian have been injured. That equates to someone being struck by a car or truck every 7 minutes in America.

The "Dangerous by Design" report is a sad commentary on our society and the things we place value in. Recently, some friends of mine complained about the City of Vancouver's elimination of roadway and the building of bike lanes. My response was, what does our society really value?

I was totally surprised to NOT see Los Angeles in the top 10 for the most dangerous cities for pedestrians. LA was ranked 27th on the Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI). I guess LA has lots of catching up to do compared with Florida. Take a look...

Los Angeles is #2 however for the number of accidents involving pedestrians that end in death. New York/New Jersey were #1. There is no light at the end of the tunnel, as this report makes it clear that over the past 10 years, pedestrian conflicts with vehicles has increased. I'm thankful that folks like Dan Burden are out there helping to reduce these conflicts and putting our roads in "diets".

Our bad habits and focus are killing people. Our elderly are most vulnerable to this carnage. We really need to end our obsession with the automobile and find efficient mass transit solutions for our cities. I long for the day that Langley, British Columbia offers choices for mass public transit, walkability and community design that puts the emphasis on people. Read this report and you sense the sober reality of where we have placed our passion and where that has led us.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Consultation Update

Back in June, I attended a pre-consultation about Port Metro Vancouver’s proposed expansion to the Deltaport with the Roberts Bank Terminal 2. The Port recently released the results of the pre-consultation which will be used to define the terms of reference for the full public consultation process on this proposed project.

Some of the topics that people would like to be consulted on is the impacts of the project on wildlife, marine life, and agricultural land. Many of the people also wanted more details on the justification for the project considering the effect of other projects like the improved Panama Canal and Prince Rupert Port.
Of 29 respondents who provided additional comments regarding the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, the following are the most commonly mentioned themes. It should be noted that a respondent may have mentioned more than one of the themes below:

-Allow more input during the process, include all stakeholders, and keep the public informed (10 respondents)
-Concerned about the effects of the project on communities in the municipalities of -Delta, Township of Langley and City of Langley (7)
-Concerned about the effects of the project on health and quality of life for residents (6)
-Need to explain justification for the project through economic forecasting (6)
-Need to consider protection of the environment in project development (6)
-Concerned about the impacts of the project on existing road infrastructure and effect of increased traffic on communities and the environment (5)
-Interested in potential job creation from the project (5)
-Concerned about impacts of the project on wildlife (3)
-Concerned about the effects of an increase in rail traffic on existing infrastructure, such as in the Township and City of Langley and the New Westminster Rail Bridge (3)
-Interested in the relationship between ports in British Columbia, including Prince Rupert (3)
Looking over the pre-consultation report, I get the impression that people want to have meaningful input into the proposed port expansion and not just be a part of some whitewash and ultimately meaningless consultation process. It will be interesting to see what the next phase of consultation will looks like.

Monday, August 15, 2011

SFU & City of Surrey Transportation Lecture Program

I know it's a bit depressing, but there is only a few more weeks until summer is over. On the bright side, that means that you still have time to sign up for the Surrey Transportation Lecture Program

Download the registration form.

According to Gordon Price:

Disclosure: this is a course hosted by the SFU City Program, of which I’m the director. So in my completely unbiased opinion, this is a great deal for anyone interested in how their community actually works. The staff is really committed and enthusiastic about the course – and the contact you have with them and other members of the class makes it a very special opportunity.

Friday, August 12, 2011

More Drive-Thrus in Pedestrian Friendly Downtown Langley

One of the things that I don’t understand about the City of Langley is why they continue to allow drive-thrus in their downtown core and gateway areas. If you are trying to build a pedestrian-friendly core, building a drive-thru is not the way to go about it. The following are examples of drive-thrus that are in areas zoned as Downtown Commercial.

Fraser Highway at 201 A Street

Fraser Highway at 203rd Street

Fraser Highway at 206th Street
According to the Official Community Plan Downtown Commercial zoning “is intended to accommodate a broad range of retail, office and entertainment uses in addition to social, cultural and educational services and facilities and multiple family housing consistent with the pedestrian-oriented character of the downtown core.” There is nothing pedestrian-friendly about a drive-thru.

I was on the bus yesterday and noticed that a new coffee shop will be constructed with a drive-thru on Fraser Highway right next to downtown. While the area is zoned service commercial, it doesn’t seem to fit the character of the area with the recent development of two higher density residential complexes. Sometime I wonder if the City of Langley is compromising building a pedestrian-friendly downtown for the sake of any development.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Regional Cycling Strategy

Last month TransLink released their regional cycling strategy as part of Transport 2040. The strategy is called "Cycling for Everyone - A Regional Cycling Strategy for Metro Vancouver" and has lots of interesting stats about cycling in our region.

Existing and Potential Future Major Bikeway Network. Click image to enlarge.
In the South of Fraser, it looks like many of the corridors that have been identified for rapid transit will also act as the regional cycling spine. Both the BC Parkway and Central Valley Greenway where constructed this way. This should highlight the need for building rapid transit today and not in 20 years as I doubt that regional cycling infrastructure will be installed beforehand.

Existing and Planned Cycling Network. Click image to enlarge.
One of the stats that I found most interesting about cycling in our region is that the more money you make, the more likely you are to cycle. I don't know if this has more to do with the fact that Vancouver has more cycling infrastructure than the rest of the region because it seems odd.

Only 28% of cyclist are female and that number should be closer to 50%. One of the reason that women don't cycle is because of the perceived lack of safety. Separated bike lanes are the best way to increase perceived safety and in Vancouver and New York have been show to attract more cyclist and more female cyclist.

While TransLink proposes to spend $6 million per year to help with regional cycling projects, it is still local municipalities that are responsible for the provision of cycling infrastructure and some municipality are more committed to cycling than others (especially in the South of Fraser.)

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

TransLink’s Moving Forward Investment Package

I received a draft copy of TransLink’s Moving Forward Investment Package and wanted to highlight all the things that the proposed 2 cent gas tax will pay for.

Map of proposed service improvements

Evergreen Line
11km of SkyTrain from Burnaby to Coquitlam plus an upgraded Commercial–Broadway SkyTrain station which will see the construction of a new east outboard platforms for the Expo Line.

Total Capital Cost: $1.489 billion
Annual Operating Cost: $17.8 million

Highway 1 Bus Rapid Transit Service
Provide peak period frequency of 10 minutes between Walnut Grove, Surrey Central SkyTrain, and Lougheed SkyTrain along Highway 1.

Annual Operating Cost: $7.8 million

King George Boulevard B-Line Service
New B-Line route along 104th Avenue and King George Boulevard to provide 7.5 minute service between Guildford Exchange and Newton Exchange with 15 minute service between Newton Exchange and White Rock Centre.

Total Capital Cost: $3.8 million
Annual Operating Cost: $7.2 million

White Rock to Langley Local Service
New bus route along 200th Street and 24th Avenue linking White Rock Centre and Langley with 30 minute service.

Annual Operating Cost: $1.2 million

Bus Service Hours to Meet Minimum Guidelines
Introduce more frequent bus service in the following corridors to relieve overcrowding:

-Marine Drive (West Vancouver and North Vancouver)
-Lonsdale Avenue (North Vancouver)
-Pinetree Way (Coquitlam)
-Fraser Highway (Surrey and Langley)
-104th Avenue (Surrey)
-Cambie Avenue (Richmond)
-Willingdon (Burnaby)
-East-West Corridor in Vancouver (4th, 41st, 49th)

Total Capital Cost: $5.3 million
Annual Operating Cost: $12.2 million

Bus Service Hours to Accommodate Population Growth
Introduction of additional bus service in 2013 to meet demand for transit service with the purchase of 20 new buses.

Total Capital Cost: $10.5 million
Annual Operating Cost: $8.1 million

Bus Service Hours and Infrastructure on U-Pass Routes
Improve bus service on U-Pass routes to reduce overcrowding with the purchase of 33 new buses and transit priority improvements to the road network.

Total Capital Cost: $30 million
Annual Operating Cost: $8.7 million

Main Street Station Upgrades
Enable the installation of fare gates and improve accessibility.

Total Capital Costs $30 million
Annual Operating Cost: $400,000

Metrotown Station Upgrades
Enable the installation of fare gates and improve accessibility.

Total Capital Costs $30 million
Annual Operating Cost: $400,000

Surrey Central Station Upgrades
Enable the installation of fare gates, improve accessibility, and new B-Line service. Also moves the current off-street bus exchange to an on-street transit couplet road to support Surrey’s Downtown plan.

Total Capital Cost: $10 million
Annual Operating Cost: $400,000

New Westminster Station Upgrade
Upgrade and replaces station infrastructure at end of useful life and fully integrate with adjacent new development.

Total Capital Cost: $10 million
Annual Operating Cost: $100,000

Lonsdale Quay Upgrade
Upgrade the bus exchange to improve operating efficiency.

Total Capital Cost: $5 million

Restores the Bike Capital Program at $3 million annually

Restore the Major Road Network Minor Capital Program to $20 million annually

TransLink's proposed plan goes along way to improve transit in the South of Fraser and this plan shows that gas tax revenue is not coming from South of Fraser residents to pay for everyone else's transit.

On another note, I find it interesting that fare gates basically cost $400k per station which further proves that they do not have a return on investment.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Support of Increased Gas Tax and Other Funding Measures for TransLink

The following letter was sent to the Mayors’ Council and Christy Clark.

We are very pleased that you have voted to contribute to the Evergreen Line and additional transit upgrades through a gas tax increase of 2 cents, along with the possibility of other measures such as a vehicle registration fee and road pricing.

The Sustainable Transportation Coalition fully supports you in your bold initiative to develop a range of funding sources to allow TransLink to complete the 2040 plan and create a truly sustainable transportation system for our region. We are also committed to creating a positive vision for our region’s transportation future and to building public support for the forward-thinking transportation policies needed to achieve that vision.

On May 18th we held an interactive transit funding workshop with over 50 key participants from transportation-related business and community organizations across the region, to envision potential funding sources for the 2040 plan. The consensus of the group was that decisive action by the province was necessary to move forward. The top three choices for funding options were: 1) Post-2012 Carbon Tax revenue, 2) A vehicle registration fee, and 3) Road and bridge pricing. Overwhelmingly, participants felt that using existing carbon tax revenue was “saleable” in the region, followed by strong support for a vehicle registration fee and for smart road and bridge pricing.

We thank you for taking the lead on this issue. We pledge to help mobilize public opinion in support of a diverse range of options for long-term, sustainable funding transit in the region.


Sustainable Transportation Coalition

Peter Ladner
Fellow, Centre for Dialogue, Simon Fraser University; Former board member, TransLink

Gordon Price
Director, City Program, Simon Fraser University

Tanya Paz
Business Development Director, Modo The Car Co-op

Jack Becker
President, Third Wave Cycling Group

Kevin Washbrook
Director, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change

Richard Campbell
Richard Campbell, Vice President, VeloWorks Cycling Society

John Calimente
Transportation Planner; Columnist for Spacing Vancouver Magazine

Margaret Mahan
Executive Director, BEST Better Environmentally Sound Transportation

Wayne De Angelis
Regional Director, BC & the Yukon, Architecture Canada

Brent Elliott
Chair, South Coast Chapter, Planning Institute of BC

Matt Horne
Director, B.C. Energy Solutions, Pembina Institute

Nathan Pachal
Director, South Fraser OnTrax Transportation Advocacy Society

Friday, August 5, 2011

The Township of Langley, TransLink, and Gas Tax

Nobody likes paying taxes. Every election cycle politicians promise to keep taxes low while improving services and it’s really sad that people fall for this time and time again. In the South of Fraser, everyone complains about the lack of transit and that we should have better service. In both Surrey and the City of Langley, the mayor’s support a gas tax increase to pay for improving service. While gas tax may not be the best solution to pay for transit, it’s what the majority of the region’s mayors seem to accept. In the Township of Langley, the majority of council pandered to the “no tax, increased service” crowd by passing a resolution asking TransLink’s mayor council to reconsider the gas tax. Of course they didn’t provide an alternative solution to increasing service and if you talk to any of the councillors that supported this motion, they'll jump up and down and say that we need more transit service. The fact is that the gas tax will also go to improve service in the South of Fraser.

Whereas a two cent per litre gas tax and a car levy to fund the Coquitlam Evergreen Line is unfair to residents of Langley Township;

Therefore be it resolved that Council ask the TransLink Mayors Council to reconsider their decision to saddle residents south of the Fraser with both an increased gas tax and a car levy to fund transit improvements that won’t benefit them.

Some of these councillors would suggest that the South of Fraser or even Langley go-it-alone. The Township of Langley commissioned a survey a few years ago and found that it was basically getting what it paid for into transit service. With that piece of knowledge to increase service, money would still need to come from somewhere. Abbotsford is an example of going-it-alone and they have the worst transit service in the South Coast. The Township would not do better as I have a feeling that the Township’s “no tax, improve service” councillors would not increase property tax by 25% to pay for improving transit.

While it’s true that transit service sucks in the South of Fraser, the only way it can be improved it by paying to improve it. While grandstanding and passing motions may get you re-elected, it will not improve transit.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

More Fort Langley IGA Renders

As I posted about earlier, the Fort Langley IGA is in the process of being rebuilt. The following new renders are from the Township of Langley's July 25 regular council meeting agenda package. You'll notice that the parking is hidden behind the buildings which is how it should be done everywhere in Langley to make a more pedestrian friendly environment.

Retail from the Corner of Glover Road and Mavis Steet. Click Image to Enlarge.

IGA from Mavis Street. Click Image to Enlarge.

Site Plan. Click Image to Enlarge.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Rural News in the Township of Langley

With the August Civic Holiday behind us, things at municipal halls across BC will slowdown until September. I was looking at the July 25th council agenda for the Township of Langley and came across some interesting items that will affect the rural area in Langley.

Back when the Agricultural Land Reserve was formed, a provision was added which allows the pre-ALR owner of the land the right to subdivide a lot allowing the retention of the land around a house while allowing for the sale of the remainder of the land. It is meant as a means to provide compensation for the original land owner, but one of the side-effects is the fragmentation of agricultural land. Two Homesite Severance applications came before Township council.

The subdivision of a 6.1 ha (15.0 acres) parcel located at 2145 – 272 Street to create a 0.86 ha (2.13 acres) homesite lot and a 5.21 ha (12.87 acres) remnant lot.

The subdivision of a 6.8 ha (16.9 acres) parcel located at 4017 – 224 Street to create a 0.81 ha (2.00 acres) homesite lot and a 6.02 ha (14.88 acres) remnant lot.

As the ALR continues to fragment, I have to wonder if there is another way to protect actual farmland in the region because right now the most important roll of the ALR seems to be as a de facto urban growth boundary.

In other rural business, the Salmon River Uplands area in the Township is not in the ALR but has not been allowed to develop. The following Notices of Motion was presented at the July 25th afternoon meeting by Councillor Richter.
1. Zoning over the Salmon River Uplands/Hopington Aquifer Area (the “Area”) has been in place for in excess of 40 years;
2. Previous attempts to rezone the Area to provide for less density in 1998 and 2005 were not endorsed by Council;
3. The prohibition of rezoning and subdivision of the Area is required due to environmental concerns in accordance with the 1995 moratorium enacted by Council.

Now therefore be it resolved:
That Council seek a legal opinion as to how the 1995 resolution can be enshrined and have the same force and effect of a bylaw so as to prevent future rezoning and subdivision in the area until such time as the original environmental issues leading to the 1995 moratorium, including water quality and quantity, have been resolved.

Dark Gray is Salmon River Uplands. Click Map to Enlarge.
When the 1995 moratorium is lifted, there will be huge pressure to see this area urbanized and you can bet that an election will be fought over this area.