Health authories have serious concerns about Port Metro Vancouver's coal export study

Port Metro Vancouver and Fraser Surrey Docks are looking to expand US coal exports from our region. Metro Vancouver, municipalities, health authorities, and many citizens have concerns about the global and local environmental impact from the increased exporting, and therefor increased usage of coal which is one of the dirtiest and most greenhouse gas emission intense energy sources on the planet.

Besides the impact to the environment, there are serious concerns that coal dust and increased diesel emission from coal trains will have profound impact to human health in the region leading to conditions like asthma in our children and the premature death of seniors.

Fraser Health Authority and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority have called for a health impact assessment due to these serious concerns. The City of Surrey, White Rock, City of Langley, and others have called for a health impact assessment as well. The Port agreed to complete an environmental and health impact assessment for the proposed increase to coal exports. The new study was quietly released on October 24. It appears that our region’s health authorities were not impressed. According to a joint November 13th letter from Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health Authorities:

1. The SNC-Lavalin report is primarily a repackaging of work previously done by other consultants, primarily Levelton Consultants Inc., with limited additional analyses to address concerns raised by ourselves, the public and local governments.

2. Most of the conclusions in the report about potential environmental and health impacts rely upon modeling work done by Levelton i.e. “Air Quality Assessment”. We are concerned about the underlying assumptions that informed that model, which were not assessed critically by SNC-Lavelin.

3. The assessment of potential health impacts is particularly disappointing, and receives minimal attention in the document. Of note, much greater consideration is given to the potential effects of the project on plants, fish and wildlife than to people. The report does not meet even the most basic requirements of a health impact assessment. SNC-Lavalin has included a 4-page summary describing general air toxins and their known health effects, but no link to this project. The appendix includes a short letter written by a toxicologist, Dr. Leonard Ritter, with his opinion about the potential health impacts of coal dust. The letter is based on the assumption that the Levelton model is accurate, and includes only a single reference pertaining to the potential health impacts of coal dust. No discussion is included of any other potential health impacts. This single toxicologist’s opinion does not meet the standards of a health impact assessment.

4. The report does not deal with the full scope of the project, from the time coal crosses the Canadian border to its transport and loading at Texada Island.

Based on these shortfalls, this report adds little to the information we require to determine the potential health impacts of the project and does not allow us to address legitimate concerns raised by members of the public and local governments.

It is worth reading the full eight page letter.

Because of the lack of transparency for the proposed increase in coal exports from Fraser Surrey Docks, various citizen groups have setup the website RealPortHearings.org which provide information on the environmental assessment processes and provides a way to send your comments to the Port. As it turn out, there are only 12 days left to submit feedback on the EIA. I recommend that you send feedback as the Port needs to do more studies on the impacts to the health and quality of life in our region due to increased coal exports.

Surrey's ENERGYShift: Creating a 21st Century City

As I posted about in October, the City of Surrey has been busy working on their climate change adaptation and energy use/GHG emissions reduction plans, together called ENERGYShift. The goal of these plans is to “establish Surrey as a model community in the areas of energy supply, reliability, sustainability and climate responsibility.”

Last week these plans were approved by Surrey Council. If these plans are implemented, Surrey will be transformed into a sustainable city that will provide a diversity of housing options, transportation options, and job opportunities. As the second largest city in BC (and not Vancouver), it will be look at by other municipality as an example of what can be done.

Surrey's Community Energy & Emission Plan notes that reducing energy usage is imperative to its success and long-term viability. It notes that energy spending is projected to rise 7% per year. We see this today with the rising cost of fuel and hydro. Without rethinking how we build communities, family financing will be pushed to the limit. Climate change will also have a large impact on the economic prosperity of Surrey and indeed the world. As noted in the plan, former Wold Bank Chief Economist Nicholas Stern “estimated the cost of reducing green house gas emissions to a safe level to be one percent of global GDP; compared to a loss of up to 20% of global GDP if nothing is done.”

In Surrey, the number one user of energy and the highest GHG emissions are from personal transportation. The second high user of energy and GHG emissions are from residential buildings.

With this in mind, Surrey plans to focus growth in mixed-use town centres and along multi-modal transportation corridors. The plan also commit to creating a community with a diversity of housing choices including more live/work units.

As land-use and transportation are linked at the hips, walk, cycling, and transit play a critical role in supporting the reduction of GHG emissions and energy use. Today 50% of Surrey’s population is within a 5 minute walk of frequent transit. Surrey wants that number to be 61% by 2020, and 75% by 2040. Transit plays a key role in Surrey’s plan, but walking and cycling also play key roles. By 2040, Surrey wants to have the community blanketed with walking and cycling routes which includes an extensive greenway system. This plan could save a typical family $230 per month in fuel cost by 2020 and $880 per month by 2040. With the reduced need to own an additional vehicle, saving could be higher.

Surrey’s plan is highly dependant on light rail being built in the community and a frequent bus network, so the potential failure of the upcoming transit referendum will have a devastation effect on Surrey’s success.

To further reduce energy usage and emission, the City of Surrey is committed to district energy. Wikipedia has a great article on this topic.

Surrey's plan also discusses the steps that need to be taken to adapt to climate change that is happening today. You can read more about their climate adaptation plan, but protects of floodplains and preservation of wildlife habitat in Surrey are a key parts of the mitigation strategy.

While I’m excited about the future of Surrey, one of the challenges will be to adapt this vision into some of the newer neighbourhood plans that are not due for review for some time. It would be a shame to see auto-oriented projects still being approved in future transit corridors or town centres. I hope Surrey tweaks these plans to account for its ENERGYShift policy.

Bright Past, Bleak Future: TransLink Commissioner Report

Since TransLink took over transit delivery in Metro Vancouver in 1999, it has lurched forward from one funding crisis to the next because the province never fully funding the organization. TransLink was always meant to have a vehicle levy to fully fund the organization. The vehicle levy is permitted in TransLink’s legislation, but both the NDP and BC Liberal have refused to allow ICBC to implement the levy. TransLink has also endured multiply rounds of structural changes and efficiency reviews by the province, creating uncertainly.

Even as a crippled organization, TransLink has built a world leading transit system. In 2001, 11.5% of people choice to take transit to/from work, 16.5% in 2006, and 19.7% in 2011. By all accounting this is a success that should be celebrated!

The transit system was meeting both the Provincial Transit Plan and Metro Vancouver’s goal of creating a livable region.

Sadly TransLink still had a structural revenue problem, but instead of helping, the province put the brakes on public transit in Metro Vancouver. It called for a referendum on transit funding. Unfortunately neither the province nor regional politicians have championed winning the referendum. This lack of leadership scares me.

The region is not blameless either. Metro Vancouver’s board is thinking about taking away the federal gas tax that TransLink uses to fund capital programs like bus replacement. With this revenue gone, TransLink would be in even worse shape. Last Friday, the independent TransLink Commissioner release his outlook of TransLink and transit in Metro Vancouver; the future is bleak.

According to the report, ridership will flat line and transit service levels will return to 2004 level. This means more congested buses and trains, and no improvement to service for growing places like Langley and Surrey. It also means more congested roads as people will not have transportation options. To make matters worse, TransLink has been forced to pull a BC Hydro by selling property and getting into debt to reduce the likelihood of service cuts. In fact TransLink’s debt will “rise from its current level of $2.8 billion to within $46 million of its approved $3.5 billion by the end of 2023.”

The Commission again points out that the sale of assets to support operations is not prudent fiscal policy, while recognizing that the only other recourse for TransLink would be fare increases or service reductions in the absence of additional funding sources.

The commissioner note that on its current course, TransLink will not meet the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy which seeks to expand rapid transit, the frequent bus network, lower the share of single-occupancy vehicle usage, and reduce pollution. TransLink will also not be able to meet the Provincial Transit Plan goals of building UBC and Surrey/Langley rapid transit lines.

With this sobering news from the commissioner, the province and Metro Vancouver need to get their collective acts together if they want to ensure a bright future for our region.

Must Read Books: Urban Street Design Guide

When it comes to urban design, transportation, and land-use, I’ve read my fair share of books. While most of them are good, some have the ability to transform your thought. For me, those books are Jane Jacob’s “The Death and Life of the Great American City” and Donald Shoup’s “The High Cost of Free Parking”.

Jacob’s book explores the complex fabric of city life. In her book, she spends a good amount of time talking about how urban renewal in the mid-twenty century and the prioritization of the automobile destroys that fabric.

Shoup’s book also explores the complex fabric of cities, and zeros-in on “free” parking and on-site minimum parking requirement as one of the most destructive forces on a city’s fabric. He talks about how minimum parking requirements came to be, and discredits the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s “Parking Generation” where most minimum parking requirements in North American cities are sourced from. He also gives some practical advice on using free-market economics to manage on-street parking, so that on-site minimum parking requirements can be reduced or eliminated. He also uses case studies to show how managing on-street parking can successfully revitalization communities.

While Jacob’s book covers high level land-use and the importance of city streets as public space, she doesn’t give practical examples of how to transform auto-oriented streets into public space and multimodal transportation corridors. This is where the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ “Urban Street Design Guide” comes into play.

This book –which was released in October– is a highly graphical, paint-by-numbers guide to designing streets for 21st century cities. While the NACTO has the same content available as a website, it is much easier to read as a book.

The book is divided into sections that address street design, intersection design, and design controls. Design controls include design speeds, safety, and performance measures of streets. Each topic shows a typical example of an existing design based on mid-twenty century ideas, then gives redesign recommendations based on street as public space and multimodal corridors.

Typical lane width on urban streets.

Recommended lane width on urban streets from Urban Street Design Guide.

For example, the topic of “Major Intersection” notes that “channelized right turns and other features create unsafe, high-speed turns”. One recommendation is to “use leading pedestrian intervals to give pedestrians a head start entering the crosswalk. Add pedestrian safety island where possible and eliminate channelized right-turn lane to slow turn speeds and create self-enforcing yield to pedestrians.”

The design guide cover everything from how to design a boulevard to storm water management. It also has a resource section in the back which links the recommendations with research. One of the best parts of the guide is on interim design strategies which shows how to cost-effectively redesign space. The interim strategies can be used for either trails to get public support, or while waiting for capital funding to be secured for a full redesign.

When some of the design recommendation are being applied in Metro Vancouver, many of the best practices have not. For example, while many municipalities in Metro Vancouver talk about how designing for pedestrians is the number one goal, sidewalks remain full of obstructions and intersection still contain unmarked crosswalks.

This book should be on the desk of every city planner and transportation engineer. Since the book is easy to digest, anyone who cares about creating great urban space should also read this book, as should local politicians. I think the BC Ministry of Transportation needs to read this book too.

“Urban Street Design Guide” now stand with Shoup’s and Jacob’s book as my recommended must reads for how to building thriving 21st century cities.