Port Metro Vancouver - Terminal Two: Consideration of Consultation Input

For the past several years, I’ve been following the consultation process that Port Metro Vancouver is working through for its proposed 190 hectare Roberts Bank Terminal Two expansion which will add 2.4 million TEU of container handling capacity to the port by 2024 in South Delta.

Earlier this year, the Port released the results of its first round of public consultation on the proposed project which included feedback from participants. In most consultation processes, once input is received, it seems to go into a black hole never to be heard from again. A participant really has no idea if her or his input was used. This is why I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that Port Metro Vancouver has released a “Consideration of Consultation Input” document.

This 43-page document outlines the major concerns and questions that came up during the consultation, and shows the Port's response. The following is from the document:

Skepticism that Port Metro Vancouver is concerned about its impact on the environment

Preserving the environment is a core value for Port Metro Vancouver. Our programs work to minimize impacts of port operations as well as enhance the surrounding environment.

As the first North American port to employ a dedicated team of specialists to address issues concerning the environment, Port Metro Vancouver shares this vital responsibility with Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Metro Vancouver, and with the support of other local organizations.

We are committed to operating in a responsible manner to safeguard the environment and the health and safety of our employees, customers and the public.

The Port responded to many of the concerns brought up in the consultation by essentially saying that it may study the issues further, and could implement mitigation measures based on the results of the studies. It appears that the Port will be working on a collection of baseline condition studies on the marine environment, agricultural productivity, transportation network, light pollution, noise pollution, and air quality. The Port will use these baseline studies to model how the proposed port expansion will impact the baseline, and hopefully proposed and implement mitigation measures.

While there are few direct action items that the Port is undertaking as a result of this consultation phase, the Port does plan to do something about noise. Many residents that live in the area are concerned about the noise that the Port will produce during and after the construction of the expanded terminal. The Port plans to install noise monitors in the area.

I’m happy that the Port has decided to respond to the concerns and questions raised during the consultation, and I hope that the Port will continue to follow up in addressing the concern raise once it has finished its baseline studies.

I would like to see this kind of followup from other organizations that engage in public consultation like local governments, the Province, and TransLink.

Auto dealerships and minimum bicycling parking requirements

Last week, I posted about how the City of Langley was very excited to be getting a new auto dealership at the corner of Glover Road and the Langley Bypass. The City described the architecture of the dealership as combining “simplicity and elegance in a modernistic expression.” From how the City described this proposed auto dealership, one might assume that this is a special one-off design for our community. As it turns out, it's just the standard concept design for the auto brand. The proposed Langley dealership is an exact copy of a dealership which is being built on Terminal Avenue in Vancouver. I see it every weekday as I take the SkyTrain into work. Many municipalities try to discourage concept designs as they feel it takes away from the character of their community. For example, Surrey doesn't allow gas stations to use standard concept designs, and Fort Langley has very specific design requirements that also prevent the use of these standard designs.

There was one odd thing that I noticed when I looked at the site plan for the auto dealership last week; bicycle parking. I thought it was odd that an auto dealership would include bicycle parking, unless of course they were hoping people would arrive on bike and leave by car.

As it turns out, the City of Langley actually has minimum bicycle parking requirements, just like it has minimum car parking requirements.

For any mode of transportation to be successful, it needs to have trip terminal facilities and the actually infrastructure for travel. For SkyTrain, you need stations and a guideway; for driving, you need parking and roads; and for cycling, you need bike parking and bike lanes.

The City of Langley’s policy to require bicycle parking is meant to encourage cycling and make it a viable transportation choice. Unfortunately, many places in Langley are hostile for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users because they are design for cars and not people. I don’t know many people who would take a bike ride along the Langley Bypass.

It’s great that the City requires bicycle parking, but it also needs to build the travel infrastructure like protected bike lanes and off-street paths to truly make bicycling a viable mode of transportation. The City also needs to develop zoning that encourages walking, cycling, and transit use. As I posted about yesterday, there is work that needs to be done.

I looked into the Township of Langley’s zoning bylaw and it doesn’t appear that it has a minimum bicycling parking requirement.

Parking Requirements Killing Downtown Langley and Fort Langley

When looking at the walkable places that we love in Langley, there is one thing that they have in common. They all would not meeting the minimum off-street parking requirement if these places where built today. For example, under current City of Langley minimum parking requirements, the built form of the Downtown Langley core would not be possible. If a business owner or land developer wanted to construct a new building, they would need to have the same parking requirements as the Langley Bypass.

For retails uses, the bylaw requires about 3 spaces for every 1000 square feet of retail floor space. Put another way, the City of Langley requires 713 square feet of parking for every 1000 square feet of retail floor space! The City of Langley even allows surface parking lots in its Downtown zone, so it's no surprise that we get projects like the casino which actually destroy the walkability of Downtown Langley.

The Township of Langley requires about 4.5 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet of retail floor space in all parts of the community except for Fort Langley which is 50% of the standard requirements. At 2.25 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet, the parking requirement is still onerous.

The thing about off-street parking requirements is that they are arbitrary. Why does Downtown Langley, which is on the frequent transit network and within an easy walk of higher density housing, have the same off-street parking requirements as the Langley Bypass? It makes no sense.

Do you know where the City and Township of Langley get their parking requirements from? The requirements are likely directly or indirectly from the ITE Parking Generation Manual which is based on limited samplings of parking use in auto-oriented areas. Ironically, the manual shows weak correlation between the square footage of use space and needed parking. If you look at walkable places like Fort Langley and Downtown Langley, they function because buildings do not meet the minimum off-street parking requirements.

Minimum off-street parking requirements are limiting and killing infill development opportunities and restoration projects that would improve the walkability and vitality of areas like Fort Langley, Downtown Langley, and Aldergrove. Parking spaces aren’t cheap, an underground parking spot can cost between $20,000 to $40,000. This cost limits the viability of build walkable one or two-storey retail/mixed-use buildings. A major renovation of a building in Downtown Langley could trigger the City's onerous off-street parking requirements.

In Vernon, where I grew up, the city had no off-street parking requirements in the Downtown core. The City used parking meters to regulate on-street parking.

I strongly believe that both the City and Township of Langley need to examine their minimum parking requirements in their walkable cores if they truly care about preserving and growing these special places.

Composing, Recycling, and Waste to Energy in Metro Vancouver

As I’ve posted about in the past, Metro Vancouver is responsible for the management of solid waste in our region. It has the goal of diverting 70% of all waste generated in the region from going to a landfill by 2015, and has set an 80% diversion target by 2020. These are ambitious targets, but it appears that the region is on the path to meeting them. Besides supporting recycling collection throughout the region, Metro Vancouver has just introduced organics collection regionally. Right now, most single-family homes have organic waste collected which ends up at regional composting facilities. Organics collection will be coming to multi-family housing (apartment and townhouses), commercial buildings, and institutional sites by 2015.

One the recycling front, complexity has been added to the system due to changes in Provincial regulations. In 2011, the Provincial Government changed recycling regulation to shift the responsibility of recycling product packaging and printed paper to industry. Multi-Material British Columbia is the non-profit society setup by industry to manage the program which will be fully operation by 2014. While more material will be included in this new program, there are some challenges.

Multi-Material British Columbia is hoping to sign collection agreements with local governments and pay them a fee to collect packaging and printed paper recycling at the curb side. Some local governments feel that the payment being offered does not cover the cost of collection. Also, Multi-Material British Columbia is considering not collecting glass and plastic films at the curb; only accepting them a depots. This may reduce the recycling of glass as it is currently accepted at the curb today. Also, the program also does not address commercial or industrial recycling. There are some details to be worked out, and hopefully this program will see an increase in recycling and not a decrease.

For the 20% to 30% of material that will still be landfill-bound, Metro Vancouver is looking to build a new waste-to-energy facility in the region. Right now, Metro Vancouver has short-listed ten companies that could build and manage a waste-to-energy facility. The region hopes to get more information on these companies’ plans in the fall which will help Metro Vancouver choose a provider. At the same time, Metro Vancouver is now looking for a site for the waste-to-energy facility. One on the potential sites may be in the Township of Langley. According to Metro Vancouver, waste-to-energy facilities are normally close to residential neighbourhoods in Europe, as it makes it easy to provide district energy (heating homes from the heat created by waste-to-energy). I’m sure there will be controversy surrounding any site selected in the region. Apparently a shortlist of site will be released in mid-July.