The real agenda driving Gateway is industry pressure to increase international trade – in particular, with China, which has minimal environmental or human rights regulations.
Gateway was never conceived as a way to address traffic congestion for the benefit of the region's residents. The highway infrastructure improvements are the end result of the federal Pacific Gateway Act. According to the preamble to the act, "Canada's Pacific Gateway is a multimodal network of transportation infrastructure focused on trade with Asia. It is comprised of interconnected public and privately owned assets, including ports, airports, rail and road systems."
The Pacific Gateway Act was inspired by industry lobbyists. According to the Acts debrief section "For over 10 years, committed stakeholders in the transport sector have advocated and worked toward a more integrated approach that addresses interconnections and synergies among policy and investment issues across all modes of transportation on Canada's west coast. The Pacific Gateway Strategy seeks to build on those efforts, and takes the concept even further." In other words the act was written at the behest of industry lobbyists.
This Lobby Group has now has morphed into a government agency with a multi-million dollar budget. David Emerson, the Federal Minister for the Gateway Project, is The Gateway Council's Honorary Chair. He was also responsible for this file as a Liberal when the Pacific Gateway act was first signed. This was what Emerson said about Gateway at the time: "We are taking steps to reinforce British Columbia's position as an internationally competitive transportation gateway. Working with the province, we will tackle the roadblocks that stand between us and a seamless, matchless flow of trade with China, India and other Asian countries."
It is true Gateway would generate a massive influx of quick cash and short-term jobs in certain sectors, including construction, concrete, real estate speculation, the fossil fuel sector, and automobile manufacturing. But the overall costs in health care, environmental degradation, and ultimately, more traffic gridlock would far outweigh the short-term economic gain. Similar investments in local business, renewable energy and other sectors could create long-term employment, keep money within the local economy and not have devastating long term ecological implications.
The environmental and human rights repercussions of this direction are rarely discussed. The big picture implications of this strategy cannot be separated from the local implications of highway expansion.
Even David Emerson views the twinning of the port man bridge as "not essential" to the pacific gateway strategy. He knows as well as political insiders that Falcon has grafted his pet project (PM2 and Hwy 1 Expansion) to the trade agenda. Just using the term Gateway has become a window to support for your project – The Enbridge Gateway Pipeline is a perfect example of this.
Since the overall goal is increased trade to China, this means more exports, which means more resource extraction. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has recently suggested a five-fold increase of oil extraction in Alberta would be appropriate. Much of this oil, along with other raw materials will be shipped to China, along with the United States. The gateway project is in part our way of increasingly being the source of the substances that are literally fueling climate change.
So… who really gets the gravy? Well, big business of course: not the workers, but the majority stockholders and CEO's. Increased trade does mean more short-term jobs, but the question we must ask is: couldn't we produce more gravy for everyone through smarter investments? And what will the true costs be of going down this road...will we really want to live in the world that waits at the end of it?
For more on Who Gets the Gravy see: Who is Kevin Falcon?
Increased trade is happening NOW
While I agree that the gateway projects treatment of suburban sprawl and congestion issues is pathetic, I think your missing the boat (literally) when it comes to international trade. Increased trade is happening now, and Canada's Western port of Vancouver has a limited opportunity to increase our piece of the pie in Asia Pacific trade flows before it goes off to other expanding American ports.
Why does trade automatically equate ecological destruction ? Closing off trade with China isn't going to solve any of that countries and the globes environmental problems; increased co-operation (in part through sustainable economic activity) will. A carefully considered (which Gateway certainly ain't now to be sure) inter-modal transportation network will benefit the GVRD and Western Canada tremendous, IF implemented properly. Anti-China polemics just won't work.
International trade is not the problem
I agree with the previous post. Associating the Gateway project with international trade only helps to justify it in most people's eyes. Many people care about the environment and traffic congestion but that doesn't mean everybody is anti-growth and anti-globalisation.
I am vehemently opposed to the gateway project because it will increase use of personal vehicles and won't relieve congestion. It's not a solution at all. However, if the extra highway lanes were reserved for trucks carrying international freight and more of the cost was bourne by the freight industry, I would say there might be some justification for this project. But thats not happening and I doubt whether the highway expansion will facilitate international freight at all because the extra lane capacity will be absorbed by a rebound in car use. Why not highlight that as an argument?
road bound freight
Moving freight by rail is far less environmentally destructive. Why not improve rail service? And while we're at it, improve inter-city rail passenger service too.