The Gateway project as currently contemplated is a future “stranded asset” - that is, even if the project itself is actually finished (which skyrocketing costs of oil, steel, cement and asphalt might prevent), billions will have been wasted on an outdated scenario of increased traffic volume. In reality, traffic volume is now falling because of increasing gas prices, and the money currently budgeted for Gateway needs to go into mass transit and changes in our pattern of community.

The VPO — in partnership with SPEC, the Dynamic Cities Project, and the Western Wilderness Committee — is proposing that the Gateway project be refashioned so that the money will be spent preparing for the future we’re actually going to have. This reconfiguration, called “Gateway 2.0″, will also resolve the conflict between BC’s attempt to reduce global warming emissions, and its plan to build bigger highways and twin bridges, so as to accommodate more and more cars.

Specifically, the premise of 2.0 is that the current project (what we call Gateway 1.0) is outdated, and needs to be transformed into a different version of Gateway (2.0) that will serve the needs of the future but still allow everyone to make money. (That is, we want to use judo rather than say it’s evil or try to stop it altogether.)

The central strategy we’re pursuing is to write up a brief (5 page) version for 3 different audiences:
• For the private partners, to show them that – even if they’re just contractors who will make money regardless of whether Gateway is useful or a boondoggle – that they STILL stand to lose because the province could break their contracts (after signature) because of the Green Plan, financial crisis, mass protests, etc. So they need to work with us on a different version that’s both financially and environmentally sound.
• For the provincial government, to show them (particularly Transportation Minister Falcon & Premier Campbell) that a modified version of Gateway (focusing more on electrified rail and buses, river transportation, etc.) will not only a) end the charges of hypocrisy against them for pursuing something so flagrantly in violation of the principles of the Green Plan, but will also b) allow their developer friends in the Fraser Valley to make money on the real estate deals that are the real driver behind Gateway (by developing around mass transit nodes, instead of suburban sprawl), c) allow them to avoid alienating their corporate friends by later being forced to renege on contracts they can’t afford or justify, and d) actually deliver a transportation system that will meet the needs of the Lower Mainland in a low-oil/low-carbon future.
• For the public, to show them that the current version will not meet their needs when oil makes its inevitable climb back to $200 and beyond, and that they can have a better transportation for much less money that doesn’t destroy the planet or unnecessarily fatten the wallets of the corporate and developer friends of Campbell and Falcon.

None of this is a secret – it’s first and foremost a PR strategy, because we anticipate that getting in to see the corporate partners may be even harder than getting to meet face to face with Campbell and Falcon, so we’re perfectly willing to have them hear about it through the media, and then sit down with them. But having said that, we’re not seeking to demonize anyone – the Lower Mainland needs a low-oil mass transit system and a different pattern of community that will handle the millions of in-migrants we’re likely to see over the next decade or so. We don’t object to people making money, or becoming politically popular, building it. We are non-partisan. But we also hold a big hammer behind our backs, in terms of the protests and political embarrassment that SPEC and other organizations will muster if things continue as they are.

NGO’s interested in joining the 2.0 initiative should contact Jon.

Relevant links to explore on this issue:

o US road traffic already declining
o People driving on surface streets to avoid tolls
o Current energy outlook
o Global oil peak past or imminent
o Burnaby report questions TransLink analysis of peak oil (gives median date for Peak Oil as 2014)
o Actual Burnaby comments on plan
o Gateway plan based on $0.80/litre price for gas
o Steel prices high and rising
o Construction costs rising
o Asphalt prices rising
o Cost of building new bridge doubles
o Rail saves energy vs. cars
o Gateway in conflict with Liberal climate plan
o Concerns about costs to Burnaby of increased traffic from toll-avoiders
o Concerns about increased fatalities on the Patullo Bridge
o Dynamic Cities Project powerpoint on peak oil+climate+transport
o Stu Ramsay presentations on peak oil & transport
o Gilbert & Perl audio link re “Transport Revolutions”
o Gateway site
o Climate Action Plan site
o Fraser River works as transport route
o CIBC June 2008 peak oil report forecasting decreasing traffic volume 15% due to $7/gallon gas by 2010
o U.S. miles driven in June down 12.2 billion: govt