A small group of activists staged a protest in East Vancouver on Thursday against the province’s plans to widen Highway 1 and twin the Port Mann Bridge. They say the government’s $3-billion Gateway plan for an expanded highway system will mean more cars on the road and worsen air pollution in the Lower Mainland. — CBC
Just one question: why is this protest going on in East Vancouver?
The proposed project is to be built in the Burnaby/Surrey/Coquitlam area and the air quality argument seems tenuous when you consider that a) East Vancouver is still quite far from the bridge and that b) the parking lot that the number 1 highway turns into during every rush hour is probably much worse for air quality than having more cars on the road for a shorter duration.
I’ve always resisted the far right’s claim that the majority of Vancouver area protests are rigged by a clutch of uber-activists who leverage the coolness factor of protests to enlist ignorant university students and wannabes to man their leftist events. However, maybe there is some truth to the notion that Vancouver’s protests du jour are just this trite when the tepidly named Citizens Concerned with Highway Expansion can’t even motivate themselves to demonstrate either at the project site or in front of the provincial legislature.
Civic activism is a noble endeavour, but it needs to be a sincere undertaking in terms of effort and mindset to be worth a damn. I don’t like the idea that Vancouver has an activism “scene” full of protesting good-time charlies. Nonetheless, it’s getting harder to shake this growing sense that maybe Vancouver does have a sizable population of itinerant protesters and that this group has effectively lost the plot to disingenuous motives.
I think that your take on our protest is a little out of phase with reality. For us it wasn't a matter of motivation, we are on the most part East Van residents and we took the inititiative to take action out at the highway which, if expanded, will bring significantly more traffic into our neighbourhood. More than a challenge to the provincial government it was a call out to other concerned citizens to take action- we also launched our Freeway Fighter's Handbook which will help people understand alternatives to highway expansion and to take action. Highway 1 connects us all in the Lower Mainland, all of us taking action in our communities will have impact.
On Tuesday at the Gateway announcement we staged a demo which was attended by about 30 people (not bad for a Tuesday morning on short notice).
You place a lot of value upon going out to the site, it so happens that we have spent a lot of time out there. Spend some time on our website www.stophighwayexpansion.ca and you will see the traffic survey we conducted on the Port Mann throughout the month of March. We have also held a press conference there and there will be more events there in future.
I am sorry that you don't like our group name but while we have committed this small sin in the Golden Age of Branding we are intent on clearly communicating our purpose.
Please contact us at stophighways@telus.net and get on our list- we'd love to see YOU at one of our events.
Sincerely,
David Fields
Citizens Concerned with Highway Expansion
Posted by: David Fields on February 5, 2006 9:06 AM
I recall hearing on News1130 that most people who commute to work across the Port Mann actually work in Burnaby and Coquitlam, meaning they never even hit East Van. Also, I don't see why an easier commute from Langley translates to more jobs in Vancouver. I agree with the protesters that people should be given better trasportation alternatives, but as the city and its population grows, so must its arteries.
It seems to me, though, that the actual point of your article is a question of the sincerity of people who appear to hop on protest bandwagons. One thing that always ate at me was the way these groups hand out their own propaganda in order to "educate" people against "the Man's" propaganda. It's hard to choose between either side when it seems like most of the flock has been duped either way. In the end, private research is always required, and I usually end up not really liking either of the two loudest opposing groups. The trouble is there aren't really any movements like "Citizens Who Think You Both Have Good Points But You Both Need To Compromise More To Each Other's Ideals And Then Us Regular Folk Will Have Options To Choose From Instead Of Just Doing What Either The Fundies Or Radicals Suggest". If there were, it would probably be scoffed at as being soft or indecisive, as if compromising were the same as caving in or selling out or something.
Posted by: Steve on February 5, 2006 10:24 PM
And what's with getting all defensive over being "tepidly-named"? I though tepid meant luke-warm, or not hot. As in not bold, or catching, or inspiring, or just a general lack of gusto. Clarity is good, and if it's agreed that "Branding"* is unnecessary, then go ahead and have a straightforward name. But don't complain about being accurately labeled as "tepid". At least it can't be called stupid. Remember the Canadian Reform Alliance Party - CRAP? *BTW, I think the "Golden Age of Branding" was the forties, when radio ads explicitly told people to ask for "Auto-Lite Spark Plugs" and "Blue Coal (With Anthrocites!)" by name, and not to accept imitations. These days the name seems less important than how widely you can scatter it.
Posted by: Steve on February 5, 2006 10:53 PM
David Fields:
Steve's right, the problem is that protesters can be just as insincere as politicians.
Most citizens are jaded enough with politicians, but my fear is that they may also be justified in rolling their eyes at activists as well.
The majority of fraser valley commuters who crawl across the Port Mann bridge are not interested in ideology, especially not when it stems from East Vancouver dilettantes.
If BC's activist scene is so ideologically fixated and PR hungry, citizens who are not concerned with maintaining faux-militant credibility or with scoring during reading week will simply tune out the protest entirely.
In fact, the problem isn't that the CCHE doesn't have branding, it's that it seems to be buying too much into its own rhetoric via the emphasis on "Spectacle=message" in its melodramatically named Freeway Fighter's Handbook
If you're still concerned about branding though, how about: The "Citizen's Unwilling to Negotiate Transportation Strategy"
Posted by: Kavinay on February 7, 2006 8:31 PM
Comments