Stephen Rees's blog

Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves

Town Hall on SFPR at the North Delta Firehall

with 8 comments

UPDATED October 28 with link to Eric’s speech

I was privileged to be invited to be an “expert” at a meeting last night. My assigned subject was the lack of economic rationale for the Gateway in general and the SFPR in particular. But by the time my turn came to speak both Joe Foy of the Wilderness Committee and Don Hunt of the Sunbury Residents Association had pretty much covered that ground. The Panama Canal, the North West Passage and Prince Rupert had all been mentioned.

I did start with the decline in trade from China, which has already created spare capacity at other Pacific Coast ports. But the point I think I missed is the one about railways. The SFPR is anchored on the notion that ii is somehow necessary to truck containers from Deltaport to Port Kells. But actually the CP and CNR both run double stack container trains directly from Deltaport to their shared mainlines across the Rockies. The containers that leave the port on trucks are for local distribution and mostly the goods they carry get unloaded at various warehouses and the sorted and loaded back into other containers and trailers for delivery to retail stores. I have noticed increasing numbers of CN trucks on the roads around the region, and that is because CN is increasingly a vertically integrated logistics company. I suspect that it may help the railways reduce the number of trains on the Deltaport line – which is mostly single track and runs though a lot of level crossings in Langley. The coal traffic through Deltaport is no longer solely a Canadian affair as both BNSF and UP have been running coal trains to the Roberts Bank terminal.

Guy Gentner, the organiser of the meeting, is an advocate of short sea shipping. He points out, quite correctly, the none of the alternatives like this were properly examined yet the EA certificate was issued anyway. He had a copy of a report to the Port of Vancouver which examined this subject a few years ago and found that it would be cheaper than trucks. Which is quite credible, given the number of containers that could be moved on a barge. But it still bothers me that double handling containers on and off a barge just to put them back on a train – for example at Surrey Fraser Docks – must still cost more than putting them directly onto trains at Deltaport. A few years ago there was considerable congestion in the railyard there, but that is certainly not the case now.

CN Double Stack container train at Roberts Bank October 5, 2008

CN Double Stack container train at Roberts Bank October 5, 2008

Charlie Wyse the NDP MLA for Cariboo South was in the audience and he talked about the availability of land in his constituency that lies between the CP and CN main lines and would be a much better place to store containers than farmland in Delta. It is also happens to be well located for containers from Prince Rupert as well. Though again I am not sure that containers need to be stored quite so much, as the declining dollar means exports to China and other Asian destinations are more competitive. Although typically Canadian exports to these destinations are overwhelmingly bulk commodities that are uneconomic to containerise, US ports are reporting increasing flows of loaded export containers.

Eliza Olson was, as usual, highly persuasive about the importance of Burns Bog – and the issue of the the Covenant which protects the bog and the ability of Delta Corporation to use this as a legal block to port development is likely to continue. Unfortunately the finely nuanced details of this procedure is not the sort of thing that gets much discussion at this sort of meeting, but the number of Delta Councillors present, and the imminence of local elections, suggests to me that it will continue be a very significant issue there.

Eric Doherty was quiet and measured – but dealt with the subject of P3s with considerable humour. The complexity of these deals, the shakiness of many of the institutions that promote them and the continuing credit squeeze all point to the conclusion that the Gateway is anything but a done deal. Of course while this meeting was assembling Gordon Campbell was making his announcement which includes accelerating unnamed infrastructure projects. While a number of private sector developments under construction have been halted (the developers say “temporarily”) I do not have any sense that this is yet freeing up a lot of capacity. I am still struck by the amount of imported labour and expertise that is necessary for projects that include major civil engineering works, and I am skeptical that there is much of a local multiplier if most of the money spent on bridges and tunnels actually gets sent abroad. I tend to agree with Carole James that this announcement was slapped together hastily and it shows.

The star of the evening was Corky Evans, who is not running in the next provincial election, and was therefore even more unconstrained than usual. He was at the same time funny and rabble rousing. He picked up the point about the SFPR being more about land development than transportation. There are, he said, two easy ways for capitalists to make money. “1. Add sugar 2. Change zoning” The good thing about the second one is that you do not have to even buy sugar. “Paving over what we need [to grow food] to eat is whacko”. He farms on the side of a hill and on thick sticky clay. Farmers in Delta have flat land and the best soil in Canada. But once this is paved over for container storage and big box stores it will be lost forever. He praised Guy Gentner for standing up against the Tsawassen land deal – and defying party discipline to do so. He also pointed out that the only other way to make a ninefold return quickly on invested capital is dealing heroin. And there is a strong similarity in the morals of drug dealers and property speculators.

Guy Gentner expanded on this theme, and detailed the activities of a “bunch of lawyers” who set up a company called (appropriately enough) Quick Assets. They have been active along the Sea to Sky and the SFPR purchasing land along the corridor before the final route determination. One 20 acre parcel they bought for $1.7m (an otherwise worthless piece of land due to soil contamination) which was later sold for $3.7m. He also noted that the project has not yet started expropriation but is willing to buy properties along the route that are offered. But the prices the project will pay are well below comparable properties in other parts of the region. That is because the route of the SFPR has been generally indicated for over 20 years and that has had a depressing effect on prices even before the present credit crunch. For people without mortgages accepting these offers now seems preferable to waiting longer in a declining market, but a group of owners whose homes are threatened are gathering together to try and present a united front.

The arrogance of the BC Liberals appears to be cracking. The Premier has now recalled the legislature – only a few weeks after cancelling the fall session becuase there was “nothing to talk about” and MLAs were better occupied in their constituencies. I do think this is going to be an interesting session.

Written by Stephen Rees

October 23, 2008 at 7:36 am

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I watched a video yesterday about Harry Lash and the making of the Livable Region Plan in the late 60s early 70s.

    It was one of the first times that local residents had been asked by any level of government what they would like to see happen (or not) in the Metro Vancouver region.

    Number 1 on their wish list?

    “Stop Growth”

    I suspect that for many Metro Vancouver residents, that desire has been on that list for a long, long time. The problem is, it would seem that nobody in government at any level wants to talk about such an idea… not good for the property developers who finance much of our politics and economy I guess.

    Unlike Meredith, who believes that we can accept another million or so people and remain a livable region, I think that probably another million people will come hand in hand with more projects like the SFPR, and no amount of “good planning” will change business as usual. Not when things like the EA are rubber stamps farces only designed to get a project approved.

    So maybe this call from the 1960s is something that should be restarted. After all, on a finite piece of land, it has to stop sometime. Why not stop it while there is still some pristine areas, enough farmland to feed the residents, and a few fish still in the Fraser?

    How about making this part of the world better rather than bigger?


    October 23, 2008 at 9:06 am

  2. Sorry I realize that the above is not directly related to your post, although I think there was probably some of that sentiment among those who attended last night’s meeting.


    October 23, 2008 at 9:08 am

  3. Actually the general tone adopted was that we do not want to be seen as against progress. The SFPR (and indeed the whole gateway program) is just not the right thing to do because none of the many available alternatives was looked at seriously. But also, the real agenda for the area is its conversion to industrial use, but this had not been part of the proponent’s case. It has become very apparent that is the real motive.

    There always has been a significant number of residents in any area who oppose growth. “After me no more”, “Chop up the ferry landings” – all kinds of slogans. But no real policy. So far as I am aware, it is not possible for a geographical region to prevent people moving into it from other parts of the country.

    Canadians are free to go where they please. And Greater Vancouver looks a lot more attractive than many other places. A lot of us arrived fairly recently – often in response to widely advertised job vacancies. Since 1988 I have lived in Scarborough, ON, Victoria BC and now Richmond. I do not think I would have been so mobile if Canada were better at managing the boom and bust cycles of the economy.

    Of course, if you fail to plan properly for growth the results are easily predictable. Here it took the form of a complete absence of affordable housing and a “grey market” of illegal suites. And grossly inadequate transit. Now it looks like loss of the Green Zone and an end to aims of a compact region, complete communities and more transportation choice are all part of the provincial government’s plans. They are just being a bit coy about revealing that.

    Stephen Rees

    October 23, 2008 at 9:41 am

  4. At the risk of sounding cliche, Smart Growth trumps No Growth. Trying to stop growth entirely can be seen as unfair when addressing first principles. “I’ll agree not to move in if you agree to leave.” And just what is “growth”? People have to live somewhere and meet their necessities of life.

    It’s usually residents of a particular geographic location who want to bar others, but never themselves, irrespective of their own ecological footprint.

    I believe growth is not the issue, but managing growth is.


    October 23, 2008 at 2:23 pm

  5. I would add that all policies regarding growth should be applied to all equally. If some politician seriously wanted to introduce laws to bar immigration, enact two-max child policies, and bar newcomers from existing inhabited areas, then you have a whole series of inequities that will be clobbered in court under the charter and constitution.


    October 23, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  6. […] Town hall meeting recap October 24, 2008 at 10:32 pm | In Uncategorized | The town hall meeting on Wednesday was a rousing good time. The hall was packed to standing room only and was attended by politicians from all levels of government, including recently elected MPs Sukh Dhaliwal and Dona Cadman. Panelists detailed how Gateway is far from a “done deal”, in part due to the shakiness of such grandiose P3 projects in the current economic climate. Even with an open microphone, there was no support at the forum for Gateway – residents were united in their opposition. Read Stephen Rees’ more detailed account of the meeting here. […]

  7. The town hall meeting was great. Very informative and entertaining panel. That was my first time seeing Corky Evans speak, and he more than lived up to his oratorical reputation.


    October 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm

  8. […] filled the Firehall Centre for the Arts 84th Avenue.  Rather than write another detailed report, we’ll link you to Stephen Rees’ Blog where he provides a speaker – by – speaker breakdown of the meeting.  Speakers included Don Hunt […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: