Jaimie McEvoy

1.Sustainability seems to be a common word these days, but its use is often ambiguous. How do you define the word “sustainability”, and how does it relate to the job of a City Councillor or Mayor?

Sustainability is action and awareness of the impact of our actions today on the health, environment and future on ourselves and generations to come. Environmental aspects of sustainability at the civic level include land use, transportation, air quality, water, waste management, energy conservation, and biodiversity. Beyond those areas of jurisdiction is the elected official’s moral responsibility to the planet and universal well-being.

Tackling greenhouse gas emissions, rapid transit and public transit, systematic planned and safe bicycle and pedestrian transportation, reducing urban sprawl, reducing paved areas, minimizing the need for vehicular trips, zoning for local services easily accessible, and environmentally friendly waste reduction are all ways that a municipality can work towards sustainability.

My role as a city councillor has been to give these issues priority through several initiative’s tied to our city’s Green Plan. It is my view that any elected official should give sustainability a high priority, for the benefit of our planet and ourselves. Pursuing sustainable policies and environmental initiatives, allocating resources to achieve success, and monitoring the results are all important.

2.Still on the subject of sustainability, what do you see as the major successes in New Westminster during the last council term, and what were the missed opportunities?

I remember when the city had no environmental initiatives. What a change. I sincerely hope we don’t go backwards now.

As Chair of the Environment Advisory Committee, I’m proud of my work in taking the lead on many issues, and working with a progressive council to pursue those issues.

There are many accomplishments: the Sustainability Report Card, more bus shelters, lobbying for public transit, concentrating densification around Skytrain stations, promoting walking and cycling, pedestrian overpass, regulating parking requirements to promote sustainability, the Bike Route and Information Guide, the Pedestrian Charter, Corporate Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, Community Energy and Emissions Plan, solar powered pedestrian crossings, LEED requirements not only for city construction but also for renovations as well, pushing support for sustainability at the Union of BC Municipalities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Anti-Idling Bylaw, organic waste collection, the Multi-Family Recycling Pilot Project (expected to move to a full program in the next term of office), composting program, support for the Zero Waste Challenge and the banning of recyclables from the city’s garbage, Combined Sewer Overflow Management to prevent sewerage from entering natural watercourses, a Sustainable Action Plan as part of the new Downtown Community Plan, support for community gardens, incorporating habitat into new city parks, and education for our kids in our schools.

I don’t know if there were missed opportunities, but there is more that can be done. I supported the bio-mechanical engineering option in Metro Vancouver’s waste management consultation over waste-to-energy. Bio-mechanical engineering had the best environmental rating of all the options – waste-to-energy was rated higher only when cost was factored in as a priority consideration. I also support continuing to move towards zero waste policies as the discussion continues. The best sustainability choices can cost more, but hey will cost us much less in the health of our planet and our grandchildren.

3.What do you see as the major opportunities and challenges for the upcoming Council term in regards to sustainability?

In the Lower Mainland, 40% of greenhouse gas emissions are transportation related. There remains a major opportunity to address one of the most important environmental issues – the air we breathe, and in fact, our very ability to live and thrive in our climate. The city is making strong progress in these areas but we must also be careful to not become complacent and continue to push ahead.

Achieving targets for waste reduction and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a challenge that will require the city to carefully monitor progress, and respond accordingly if steps are needed to ensure progress on these important issues.

Habitat and the city’s green spaces are also an opportunity. As the city develops new parks and civic buildings, there is more of an opportunity to also plan for habitat, improving dramatically on what has been done so far in this area. The city will need to develop new expertise in this area. A major opportunity – and challenge – is to protect green areas such as Poplar Island.

Improving waste diversion rates in multi-family housing, improved recycling at apartments, condos and co-ops, is a key challenge. I pushed for steps to be taken on this issue as Chair of the Environment Advisory Committee, and hope to see it through.

4.The City will be developing a Master Transportation Plan within the next term, what would you like to see included in that plan?

Look at options to reduce traffic in New Westminster, and move away from our role as the throughway of the Lower Mainland.

City positions and a plan to pursue them on regional transportation issues and inititatives.

Review the routing and the need for Patullo Bridge, be ready to challenge TransLink when necessary, push the province to reform TransLink to be more responsive to communities, and give greater emphasis to public transit and other modes of transportation.

A solid plan, with targets, timelines, and adequate resources, to make all of our streets safe and fully accessible to all.

Enhance and promote support for walking and cycling in the city – and beyond the city, as part of our connection to regional transportation infrastructure.

Call for improvements to Skytrain and the five stations in New Westminster, and expanded hours of service. Skytrain should be safe, be clean, and be well maintained.

Citizen involvement – a very good program of consultation with citizens, stakeholder groups, and neighbourhoods.

Return Front Street and the waterfront to the people, and restore the natural environment on the waterfront and the heritage buildings on Front Street, by finding parking alternatives to the parkade so that it can be at least partially removed.

Undertake initiatives to support electric vehicles and small personal transportation in the city.
Improve bike and pedestrian pathways by removing obstacles.

5.Translink continues to mull a replacement for the Pattullo Bridge. Would you rather see the bridge repaired, replaced with a 4-lane structure, or replaced with a larger structure? Would you support tolling the bridge to pay for its replacement? If you don’t support replacement, would you support tolling the existing bridge?

Patullo Bridge as it currently exists if fundamentally unsafe. It does not adequately accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. It was closed for a time because part of it is actually made of wood and it caught fire.

And when it was closed, life continued. The traffic disaster that resulted adjusted after a couple of days.

In my view, it never made a lot of sense to connect a 1930s bridge to a residential street system initially designed for the horse and buggy. It makes less sense to add two more lanes of traffic to a small city where people have to drive through those residential areas before connecting with major roadways.
Two-thirds of the bridge’s traffic is not local at all to New Westminster or North Surrey, but is just passing through to somewhere else. A new Pattullo Bridge could route through North Surrey, and connect with Highway 1 and North Road in Coquitlam. It’s an only an idea, but an idea worth considering.

Any decision on the bridge should not occur before complete environmental and impact assessments on the options, and fair consideration of all of the options.

On the matter of tolling, I’m less certain. If other bridges are tolled and a new Pattullo was not, that would encourage more vehicles into New Westminster. I would like to see tolling, but with a low toll or none at all for local residents, promoting the idea of a local bridge for local traffic, which is only one-third of the bridge’s actual total now.

As a Skytrain rider and transit user myself, it occurs to me that I do pay a toll every time I use public transit. Skytrain and buses are just as much a part of the transit system our taxes paid for as roads, yet there is a specific toll each and every time. This disincentive to use transit should be eliminated. Public transit is just a way of getting around, just like roads and bridges, and should be free and equally paid for through our taxes.

6.Do you support a Tree Bylaw to regulate the removal of nuisance trees on private property?

Tree bylaws, like most new environmental initiatives, are easily misunderstood and misrepresented.
I support a tree bylaw, and would also like to see a heritage tree program.  The city currently has plans as well to develop and Urban Forest Policy.

Tree bylaws in the Lower Mainland are diverse in offering protection, from community’s that take no action at all to those that have limited restrictions to those that have specific conditions. Generally, a tree that is dangerous or diseased can be removed in most communities with a tree bylaw, or those that are undermining structural integrity and where no alternative method is feasible.

The City of Coquitlam tree bylaw also protects against activities that damage trees. I would like to see this in New Westminster. http://www.portcoquitlam.ca/Dynamic/Page5845.aspx

City’s like Coquitlam also have brochures and conduct public education on their tree bylaws. http://www.portcoquitlam.ca/__shared/assets/Tree_Bylaw_brochure9467.pdf

Port Moody’s Tree Retention Bylaw allows tree removal for development, but requires that each tree removed be replaced by two others. http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?page=318

The city has passed a motion directing staff to investigate a tree bylaw. I will follow up on the implementation of that motion.

7.Now that Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Management Plan is approved, would you support the location of a Waste-to-Energy plant in New Westminster?

No. While there are some countries that require each municipality to deal with their own waste, it’s another matter entirely to deal with the region’s waste. With only 2.7% of the region’s population, only seven square miles, and already accommodating 450,000 vehicles a day in traffic, it would be unfair to ask New Westminster to take on another large regional challenge such as this. This is a matter about which the community has clearly expressed its concern. As we go forward in dealing with waste issues in the future, it is important to fully involve individual citizens and neighbourhoods at the beginning.
I asked Metro to come to New Westminster to hold one of their public consultations, and I was happy when they agreed. People who attended wanted to find solutions to waste, were open to hearing good information, but were also concerned about possible impacts. Unfortunately, Metro Vancouver focused on one recommendation in its consultation, with other options, such as bio-mechanical engineering, identified but having little information available about them.

As the City of Coquitlam recently passed a motion asking the provincial government to relocate Royal Columbian Hospital to help them figure out the future of the Riverview lands, which seems unlikely, perhaps instead this would be a solution to their land use problem and Coquitlam could host the waste management plant.

Comments are closed.