Login / RegisterTransLink's 2012 Supplemental Plan and Outlook imparts intentional inaccuracy
TransLink’s recently released draft 2012 Supplemental Plan and Outlook includes a startling misrepresentation: the claim that building more and wider roads will reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. The document states: “Analysis indicates that restored funding levels for the Major Road Network Minor Capital Program is beneficial for the reduction of GHG emissions in the region.”
Basically, TransLink’s draft report says that it can build its way out of congestion and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by widening roads, something that has never been achieved in a growing urban area.
Most of TransLink’s highly trained planners and engineers know that this is misleading, to say the least; they know full well that the cliché “you can’t build your way out of congestion” is well supported by numerous studies and long experience. They are also well aware that roadway expansion is one of the main drivers of increasing carbon emissions, and that a shift to public transit is essential. But the TransLink bureaucracy has been pushing the idea of “balanced transportation”—more freeways and more transit—since the organization was created.
The Golden Ears Bridge, which will cost TransLink about $33 million in 2011, is the prime example of this misguided policy. And it is hard to quickly shift a big organization off its established trajectory without strong pressure from the public.
Oxford University’s Bent Flyvbjerg, who pioneered the study of “strategic misrepresentation”, quoted an unnamed traffic forecaster in a 2003 column explaining how studies get cooked: “The minister leans on his advisors, the advisors lean on the feasibility consultants and the forecasts get ‘talked up’.” The process results in employees and consultants being pressured to manufacture data to support dubious spending priorities.
The provincial government, which controls the governance of TransLink, has been misrepresenting the effect of road-building for some time. Its 2008 Climate Action Plan claims that the Gateway freeways will “reduce congestion and associated GHGs from idling vehicles”. This is a prime example of strategic misrepresentation, and a message carefully crafted to deceive. It conveys the impression of a clear and authoritative claim but actually is so vague as to be meaningless. Idling emissions might be reduced on some road segments, but idling emissions are only a small proportion of overall GHG emissions, and overall idling emissions across the region increase with traffic volume. With this ambiguity, a skilled public-relations specialist can bamboozle a busy reporter or concerned citizen without technically telling an outright lie. Strategic misrepresentation is more dangerous than simple lying because it makes misrepresentation a normal part of the job and a valued professional skill.
It takes some digging to find out that Environment Canada’s response to the Port Mann /Highway 1 environmental-assessment submission found that roadway expansion leads to a “deterioration of air quality and an increase in GHG emissions”. Health Canada responded to the province’s convoluted assertions by stating that “the misdirected focus of this assessment is inappropriate and may be misleading to the general reader.”
Some public pressure could make a big difference at TransLink right now. Recently there was a significant shift in TransLink policy after intense pressure from New Westminster residents who forced the cancellation of the proposed North Fraser Perimeter Road (NFPR) part of the Gateway Program. New Westminster residents have proved a force to be reckoned with; Mayor Wayne Wright referred to the first NFPR open house as a “donnybrook”—slang for a mass brawl.
It was this outspoken opposition that forced TransLink to back off on the United Boulevard Extension (UBE), the first phase of the NFPR in New Westminster. If it had proceeded, it would have cost us about $175 million for a short stub of freeway that would feed more traffic onto already congested New Westminster streets.
The cancellation of the full NFPR project likely saved us between $500 million and $1 billion, money that can now be used to fund transit. A second indication of the gradual change of direction at TransLink is the July cancellation of a smaller roadway widening: the $69-million Murray-Clark Connector.
But now TransLink proposes to double the budget for the Major Road Network Minor Capital Program from $10 million to $20 million per year, the level it was at before TransLink’s recent financial squeeze and the NFPR and Murray-Clark Connector projects were cancelled. As discussed above, this increase is justified with the strategic misrepresentation that wider roads will result in lower emissions.
Although $10 million a year may not seem like much compared to the billions being spent on the provincial Gateway Program freeways such as the South Fraser Perimeter Road, it would be enough to build washroom facilities at every major transit hub or to more than double the cycling budget from $6 million to $16 million.
TransLink needs to keep its major road network in good repair but should not be spending public funds to widen roads and worsen the climate crisis. Transit, walking, and cycling are the future, and there is no point spending to prepare for a past that no longer exists. Dealing with our present challenges, such as the end of cheap oil and the heating of the global environment, requires clear, honest information. Strategic misrepresentation about energy and climate issues must not be tolerated any longer.
You can comment on TransLink’s use of strategic misrepresentation, its proposal to double the roads budget, and what you would like to see the $10 million spent on by submitting feedback.
You can also contact Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Blair Lekstrom at blair.lekstrom.mla@leg.bc.ca and the TransLink Mayors’ Council (ask for your correspondence to be sent to all members) c/o shirley.shankar@translink.ca
Eric Doherty is a member of the Council of Canadians’ Vancouver-Burnaby chapter and StopThePave.org. TransLink will hold a public meeting tonight (September 8) at 6:30 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Metrotown, followed by meetings on Wednesday (September 14) at the Guildford Recreation Centre in Surrey and Thursday (September 15) at the Evergreen Cultural Centre in Coquitlam.
Here is some math:
1 car on the road = 4 tons CO2 per annum
Cars in Metro Vancouver ( ICBC ) = 1.4 million.
Cars in all of Metro Vancouver make 1.4 million x 4tons GHG.
That is 5.6 million tons per year.
A coal fired electric plant makes 10-20 million tons per year.
China brings a new coal electric plant onstream at a rate of 1 per week.
That means.. by 1 year from now... there will be 52 weeks x 10 million or 520 million tons new GHG outflow per annum in China ALONE.
Anything Translink does one way or another is inconsequential.
Make the roads as wide as they need to be. If we ever get NUCLEAR right.. we might just need them for electric cars.
The fact that there are fewer of "us" is just a circumstance of history - nothing we can be proud of accomplishing. There is no us and them when it comes to GHGs.
If we drive less we will help future members of our species survive. And we will have saved the taxes required for wider roads. A win-win.
Some of the TransLink staff were not clear about the context of the statement from their report I quoted above. So I will provide a bit more: "Studies have found that improvements to roadway operations can reduce GHG emissions per kilometre traveled. Analysis indicates that restored funding levels for the Major Road Network Minor Capital Program is beneficial for the reduction of GHG emissions in the region. These roads projects are expected to: reduce excess fuel consumed in congestion, improve traffic flow and increase the average speed per passenger vehicle, and reduce incidents of delay per roadway non-transit trip to improve travel times." pp 31 - 32
Some of the TransLink staff also made vague references to this funding going to bike lanes. On the face of it that would be very weird, there is a separate budget item in the same report for bicycle infrastructure.
Canada has some of the highest per capita ghg emissions rates in the world. BC is the one of the worst provinces when it comes to year over year changes in emissions. And transportation is one of the largest sources of emissions in our province.
We need to take responsibility for our emissions and that means making significant changes in our transportation systems.
The lobby for expanding roads is, of course, widespread and well funded since it feeds a whole range of well established corporate interests. The fact that we have been building more roads for more cars over many generations now and congestion has never improved (except for a brief honeymoon period) is always ignored by the road lobby.
Go forth and multiply if you can.
Demanding money from drivers to pay for “more transit” for you does not at all seem democratic to me.
Transit doesn’t even reduce GHG emissions if you look objectively at it and are honest about it.
transink voted themselves a bonus of 1200 for each meeting they attend
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/02/08/bc-translink....
there is more info for those who feel like doing the googling too
don't you wish you were paid 1200 for each meeting you attended ? with more than 50 meetings a year....as a bonus ?
hey i could live off that 'bonus'
translink gets no sympathy from me
to me they are a bunch of fat-cats appointed to a cushy gig
do they get free cars and expense accounts too ?
at any rate they should have to ride public transit as part of their gig
they should know what it is like to ride the buses and skytrains
they do not have the respect of the public
ask any bus rider what they think of the translink 'fat -cats'
if everyone in canada used transit, ghg emissions worldwide would drop by 0%, rounded down from 0.2%
transit is a red herring and does nothing to mitigate climate change
this aritcle is preaching to the choir and is rubbish
I thought they were just a lobby group for higher taxes so they can pay themselves obscene salaries.
For starters, the seminal study by Bent Flyvberg that examined results of major transportation projects found a clear pattern of consistent deviation from planned results ONLY in public transit projects. In public transit projects Prof. Flyvberg found that projected utilization was consistently higher than achieved and that projected actual budgets were consistently higher than presented to the public for approval. As to highway projects, sometimes the projects were over budget, sometimes under budget; utilization was sometimes higher than projected, sometimes lower. There was no clear pattern. The results for transit projects were so clearly suggestive of deception that Prof. Flyvberg concluded they could only be explained as lies. And Flyvberg is not the only respected academic to find a pattern of deception in transit planning. Martin Wachs is another who comes to mind and there are others.
Doherty asserts that congestion reduction by "widening roads [is] something that has never been achieved in a growing urban area." That cliche is so far from truth as to be almost not worth comment. But I will give a (literally) concrete counter example. The pre-Olympics freeway improvements in Salt Lake County have dramatically reduced congestion on I-15, I-80, I-215 and our major urban arterials. I can reach the SLC airport at almost any time of day from anywhere in the Salt Lake County in about 20 to 22 minutes. Furthermore, automobile transport from any point to any point in the Salt Lake County urban area is rarely more than 25 minutes. Compare that with any transit paradise you care identify.
On Doherty's assertion, "...that a shift to public transit is essential." I will challenge him to provide even one solid example where a major public transit system has resolved transportation congestion in a major urban area.
Perhaps a bigger road budget would be in keeping with better transit given that buses have to "share" the road with the million plus cars each working day. Perhaps widening of major arterial roadways for bus only lanes would be a better way of spending road money.
Not all roads are bad Eric, after all you must live on one or near one and use it daily.
The current focus on new bridges and wider freeways is to allow another 1 million people to live in the region which is what land developers want. They can't sell houses and apartments in the burbs without the road infrastructure.
Had we invested in 3000 more buses so that all major arterial roadways in the region had a B line type system we would have been much better off than continuing to build expensive urban iron horse lines like the Canada Line.
Quatitatively, the Canada Line, mainly being used by previous transit users, can carry only 6500 people per hour whereas 3000 buses for the same cost would have been able to carry 150,000 people during the same hour. What has the best potential to get people out of their cars?
But in a way Translink does have serious faults in that they rely on an annual increase of revenue from car users who purchase gas in the region. Hardly a sign of optimism from a so-called public agency who spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on transit.
William Bowen from Salt Lake County wrote about being convinced that traffic congestion has been solved by building wider freeways (so he can get to the airport quicker). But improperly edits my quote to eliminate mention of GHGs "build its way out of congestion and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by widening roads, something that has never been achieved in a growing urban area." William - have all these freeway widening projects reduced GHG emissions? Does making it quicker to get to the airport reduce GHG emissions?
As for your earlier comment you seem to be misreading the Translink documentation because in your quote it clearly states one thing and you are arguing something completely different. As you quote: "improvements to roadway operations can reduce GHG emissions per kilometre traveled..." This quotation is completely correct. You are arguing about total GHG emissions but Translink is arguing GHG/KM. Needless to say both you and Translink are correct (and thus oddly enough you are incorrect in claiming that Translink is misleading the public). By widening the roads you will see a smoothing of traffic flow (the modelling of two lanes over one demonstrates the effect) with resulting reductions in per KM GHG emissions. Once you increase the average speed you will subsequently induce more traffic with can eventually resul in increases in overall GHG emissions. That being said even with some induced traffic the simple act of widening the road to avoid idling will initially result in reduced overall GHG emissions even with more cars (more cars operating efficiently use less fuel than fewer cars running inefficiently). Whether the induced traffic will ovewhelm the per/KM increase in efficiency is the long-term question.
You can build your way out of congestion in the short term?!? Keep spinning Mein, but don't get too dizzy.
It is time for clear and honest communications from our public servants, not convoluted rationales for misrepresentation.
Pages