July 10/06: TheWestern Canada Wilderness Committee has just asked its membership and other concerned residents to tellStantec, a consulting company hired by the BC Government, that we need less highway expansion and more public and light rail transit instead. In a "Malahat Highway Corridor ACTION ALERT!" sent to email subscribers today, the Wilderness Commitee warns that "highway expansion threatens Greater Victoria's parks and communities."

First, a disclaimer from your author: Western Canada Wilderness Committee (WCWC) often appears as though it opposes development of any kind, which is a position Victoria City Style Council finds untenable. WCWC also wants to awaken "the little guy's" outrage and fighting spirit by conjuring a slightly modernised version of the top-hatted, cigar-smoking capitalist pig-dog robber baron of yore. Perhaps we in the new "wild west" of neo-liberal BC do suffer from a surfeit of that type of capitalist -- it would fit with some of the other anachronisms around here. But WCWC's rhetorical strategy suggests that extreme corporatism (represented by neo-liberalism in BC) should be replaced by a version of anarcho-eco-socialism more suited to the class wars of the early 1900s, not the 2000s. For example, WCWC writes that "experience with the BC government in the Lower Mainland shows that their highway expansion schemes are closely linked to private real estate and road construction interests who stand to benefit from newly expanded highways that 'supercharge suburban sprawl' in nearby communities," a wording that exemplifies what I see as a problem. One could point out that 1. if private interests did benefit, it's still not proven that elected officials actively colluded to push through highway expansion solely for the purpose of helping private industry (i.e., with no motives to "improve" traffic conditions at all); and 2. if laws were broken, WCWC should spell it out, prove it with documentation, and leave the sly innuendo out of it.

But on to the matter at hand: Stantec is charged with soliciting public input on the Malahat Corridor Study (write to them at malahat@stantec.com and cc your letter to BC's Premier, Gordon Campbell, at Premier@gov.bc.ca -- and for a detailed look at how Stantec has presented the options thus far, see the PDF at this link:
http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/malahat/open_houses/061206/Info_Boards_061406.pdf).

WCWC wisely points out the following:

The options in the Malahat Corridor Study put forth by Stantec Inc. include nine possible new highway developments. The construction of an additional highway through the Niagara Valley in the Sooke Hills Wilderness Regional Park or the widening of the existing Malahat Highway through Goldstream Provincial Park's ancient forests will cause great ecological harm. These parks protect exceptionally rare and endangered ecosystems in the Nanaimo Lowlands Ecosection, of which only 2% is protected and only 1% of the
original old growth forests remain. Magnificent ancient Douglas fir and red cedars, arbutus trees, Roosevelt elk, cougars, black bears, wolves, marbled murrelets, and numerous species at risk are found in these parks. The
highway expansion would directly destroy and fragment the old growth forests, rare ecosystems and wildlife habitat in these supposedly protected areas.

The proposed highway expansion also poses a major threat to the integrity of human communities within Greater Victoria and other island communities. If automobile capacity is increased, through either the construction of another
highway or through widening of the existing Malahat Highway, an increase in subdivisions, strip malls and other symptoms of uncontrolled, unsustainable suburban sprawl will soon follow in outlying communities, resulting in further
destruction of green spaces and native ecosystems. This is unacceptable at a time where we should be planning to reduce vehicle emissions, promote expanded public transit use, and limit urban sprawl.

A study "Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts" by Todd Littman [note: links to Ontario-focussed article, but still useful for BC(**)] of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute shows that increased vehicle traffic and road expansion has a number of both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts include the loss of essential green space and increased need for storm water drainage, while the indirect impacts include suburban sprawl, reduced accessibility and a decrease in diversity of transportation systems.

[Editorial interject: (**) Included for fairness, and not because I appreciate its libertarian bent, there's the counter-argument to Littman, namely that major population increases precede highway expansion, vs. highway expansion being an engine of increased growth & sprawl, via this article... But also: seethis website for more info on Littman's response (PDF) to the conservative think-tank,The Heritage Foundation, which argued that "lower-density development, or sprawl, is less costly than smart growth." I think it's safe to say that we at Victoria City Style Council don't agree that "lower-density" development (i.e., sprawl) is less costly in any sense. Back to WCWC:]

In the Stantec report, there are also two bridge and two ferry options that are no better than the highway expansion proposals. The increased traffic due to ferry or bridge expansion would again increase suburban sprawl and car
traffic in cities and communities. The construction of a bridge of the size suggested (up to 3.2 km long!) would harm the Saanich Inlet marine ecosystems by altering ocean currents and destroying marine habitats. One of the bridge proposals also requires a highway to be built through the rare arbutus/Douglas fir forests Gowland-Tod Provincial Park and the Highlands municipal district, while another would require a highway through the beautiful municipality of North Saanich. These communities would then be subject to
unwanted suburban sprawl. Increased ferry traffic would threaten species that have evolved in calm waters by creating regular large waves from the ferries' wake.

While virtually all of the options that Stantec has put forth threaten the integrity of local communities, parks, and marine ecosystems, a couple options have the ability to protect these values. Stantec has included in their proposals rail and transit options. As long as the rail lines are not expanded further into park lands (ie. the existing E and N railway track is used), these options have the potential to place Vancouver Island ahead as a leader in sustainable urban planning. A regular and well-run commuter rail line and enhanced local and commuter transit service will serve to limit suburban sprawl, help protect our parks and our marine ecosystems and limit vehicle traffic in our cities. These options can be combined with increased monitoring and higher penalties for reckless driving along the highway in order to further increase both safety and
reliability. An investment in this type of transportation infrastructure is an investment in both our communities and our wild spaces. [emph.added]

Public input is vital in order to establish this viable, effective transportation alternative to a network of highways. For this input process to be effective, it is
essential the process is transparent, and all studies, results and documents are made easily accessible. While the consultants at the open house stated that the environmental assessments were done, they did not make any specific results or studies available to the public. They also claimed that they were taking into consideration long term municipal plans, though none of the municipal councils were present at the original stakeholder meeting. This is not
just a transportation issue; it will also have serious consequences for ecological integrity and urban planning, and as such making the appropriate information available is essential to create effective public consultation.

In order for this to become a reality, it is vital that you write your comments to the Malahat Corridor Study by July 17th, 2006.

Most significantly for Victoria urban development, WCWC notes that "This [the proposed highway expansion] is unacceptable at a time when we should be planning to reduce vehicle emissions, expand public transit, and promote
denser, more liveable communities." Sadly, it is however the case that downtown Victoria (specifically our city government) resists greater densities and greater building heights (which would allow for greater densities in residential population) as though such a "growing up" of the city were the worst thing that could befall it.