Since 2001, Metro Vancouver has grown by 48%, and the Tri-Cities welcomed about 84,000 new residents, most of whom settled in Coquitlam. While SkyTrain opened in 2016, much of the growth has occurred outside convenient access to transit, such as Burke Mountain. Geography, rail lines, and our location within Metro Vancouver constrain Port Moody’s road network and have generated significant through traffic on our two major routes (St. Johns and Murray), as residents of neighbouring municipalities pass through Port Moody on their commute or daily activities.

I’ve seen suggestions such as:

• adding more lanes along Murray and St Johns,
• “reconfiguring” the existing road network,
• improving left turns from eastbound (EB) Murray and St Johns onto Ioco-northbound (NB),
• synchronizing lights, and
• (re)exploring the Murray-Clarke Connector.

So what is the city doing about it? And will any of these suggestions work?

Let’s start by looking at the vehicle data and traffic modelling from past studies. The St Johns/Barnet intersection, on a typical weekday (Tuesday – Thursday), has eastbound through volume of 11,500 vehicles per day, while left turn volumes are approximately 8,450 vehicles per day. During the evening (PM) peak hour, approximately 1,100 vehicles travel through this intersection, heading east; about 800 vehicles turn left during the same time period. This is the busiest intersection in Port Moody.

The second busiest intersection in Port Moody is Guildford/Murray at Ioco.

During this term, Council has discussed and advanced three major projects aimed at improving mobility in our city:

• Guildford Way Bicycle Facility Improvements Project, September 9, 2025, CIPC, Item 4.1
• St. Johns Street Phase 2 ‐ Transportation Upgrades, April 21, 2026, CIPC, Item 4.1 with Final Technical Memo, April 13, 2026, Attachment 1
• Barnet Highway Eastbound at CPKC Bridge Widening
  • April 21, 2026, CIPC, Item 4.2
  • June 16, 2026, CIPC, Item 4.2

A. Guildford Way and Ioco Intersection

The Guildford Way project improves cyclist and pedestrian safety, with a bi-directional bike path on the north side of Guildford, tying in with the uni-directional lanes on the Coquitlam side. It also includes dual left turn lanes eastbound on Murray (turning onto Ioco northbound) to reduce left turn queuing. The project addresses safety issues at this intersection. The budgeted cost is approximately $2 million with ~$1 million from a Translink grant.

B. St. Johns Phase 2

The St. Johns Phase 2 project includes a number of immediate actions:

• Switch the existing westbound HOV lane to an eastbound HOV lane as the greatest volume of traffic occurs in the evening rush hour. Outside of peak hours, this lane would be used for parking.
• Add a bidirectional bike lane on the north side, connecting the multi-use path at Moody St to the overpass.
• Add right turn bays to maintain westbound capacity.

Traffic modelling found that the eastbound HOV lane during the evening peak may be up to two minutes faster than general purpose lanes.

As redevelopment occurs, and the city acquires more right of way (ROW), the bike lane would be moved to the boulevard (uni-directional). The full build-out with separated bike lanes will occur over a number of years, once the full 35 m ROW is secured. Next steps are for staff to finalize the design and report back with cost estimates, cost-sharing opportunities and a proposed implementation plan.

In the interim, this project will fill a gap in the cycling network, and improve the evening rush hour for commuters. This project is closely tied to the CPKC Overpass Widening project.

C. Barnet Highway/CPKC Overpass Widening

On June 16, 2026, at the City Initiatives and Planning Committee, Council voted for Option B – Variant 1, which widens the eastbound bridge by one lane, providing two left turn lanes over the length of the bridge and two through lanes with a 2 m wide path on the south side. This is the fastest to implement option, costing $2.8 million. This work will be integrated into the seismic upgrade, which has Translink funding.

This project addresses left-turning capacity. Combined with St. Johns Phase 2, this project will improve vehicle movement through Port Moody, though staff noted that the extra bridge lane could attract additional traffic, known as latent (induced) demand. The city has also made changes at the Dewdney/St. Johns intersection which have improved safety without reducing traffic capacity.

D. Traffic Cameras for Adaptive Signal Timing

In 2025, the city completed the first phase of the St Johns Corridor Video Detection upgrade. This project modernizes traffic management with advanced video detection technology, replacing the traditional in-ground loop sensors. Video detection enables remote monitoring of intersections, among other benefits. Once complete, the traffic cameras will allow for adaptive signal timing, meaning the system will dynamically adjust to real-time conditions and will help reduce delays and improve travel time.

Summary

The Murray-Clarke Connector is not a near-term solution. It has been explored many times over the past decades, but senior levels of government declined to provide funding. Adding capacity without addressing regional demand is likely to induce more vehicles to use this route through Port Moody without corresponding benefit.

This term, Council has chosen to focus on projects that more specifically benefit our taxpayers. These projects are feasible, funded in part by Translink grants, and can be delivered in the near term.

So those are the projects currently in process, each one a step towards better mobility. Looking ahead, I’ll continue to advocate for #ungapthemapcurrently: connecting our bike routes within Port Moody and to neighbouring routes so that people of all ages and abilities can safely walk and roll across our city.  

St Johns Phase 2 project will close a major gap, but we still have work to do – along Ioco (some improvements will be made during utility upgrades), the route to Sasamat, and linking Suter Brook and Klahanie more directly. These connections aren’t just nice-to-haves; they are essential for giving people more choice in how to move throughout our city. 

Learn more about city transportation initiatives here:

• Traffic Calming and Safety
• Road Work and Construction
• TranPort Moody – our master transportation plan

I saw that some questions on Permissive Tax Exemptions had been posed to candidates in a Facebook post. Since comments can get lost, I am choosing to answer here so anyone looking can easily find my answers again. I’ve also added a section below my answers with some context and background on exemptions and other imposed constraints on revenue generation.

Q1: Will you support an explicit verification audit to ensure religious institutions receiving tax relief do not discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or belief?

Yes. While council cannot change statutory exemptions for places of worship or the hospital, we can verify that permissive exemptions comply with the “accessible to all” principle. I support a risk-based verification model, verifying new applicants, significant application changes, or upon complaint, rather than expensive annual audits for all 29 organizations. Applications currently require financial statements to be submitted, though these do not need to be independently audited.

Places of worship receive statutory exemptions, over which council has no say. However, if portions of the property are used for other services, those services “must be accessible to all members of the public, and Port Moody residents must be the primary beneficiaries of the organization’s services.” To me, “must be accessible to all members of the public” means that everyone is welcome regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or belief.

For permissive exemptions, I support verifying the declaration on the application form, but I recognize that audits can take up staff time and can be expensive for the organization. I would want to understand the staff time required before setting a specific frequency or deciding upon a specific verification model.

Q2: If an audit reveals a tax-exempt group restricts public access or promotes discriminatory doctrines, will you vote to immediately rescind their exemption and shift that tax capacity back to local homeowners?

The existing form and bylaw provide an explicit answer: “Per Community Charter S.224(7), if a bylaw under this section ceases to apply to property, the use or ownership of which no longer conforms to the conditions necessary to qualify for exemption, the property is liable to be taxed.“

And: “Should the British Columbia Assessment Authority deem a property ineligible for a permissive tax exemption and not provide an exemption on the property tax roll, the property is liable to taxation.“

It appears that a council vote would not be required in this event, but if it did need Council approval, then my answer is yes.

Q3: Port Moody policy states tax relief shouldn’t apply to commercial revenue. How will you ensure church-run parking lots, venue rentals, and leased properties are strictly taxed so regular taxpayers aren’t subsidizing businesses?

The current form does have a question about whether a portion of the property is used for profit activities or commercial activities, and requires financial statements to be submitted. I know that Finance staff review the financial statements, and Council receives a report annually.

To strengthen oversight, I would ask staff to include a summary of commercial revenue declarations as part of the annual report, so Council can proactively monitor.

Q4: Will you mandate that the city’s tax exemption questionnaire require independently audited financial statements detailing exactly how much non-exempt revenue is generated on these lands?

I appreciate the intent behind the question, which I interpret as: how do we ensure fairness in taxation and honesty on the application form? As stated in Q1, I would support independent risk-based audits. I would not support mandating annual independent audits as the cost would likely outweigh the tax benefit to the organization.

I do support a robust, staff-led verification process, as is happening currently, with targeted audits when staff identify any red flags or concerns. I would also be interested in knowing if there have been any instances of fraud or non-compliance.

Q5: Every exempted dollar shifts the burden onto regular homeowners. Would you support placing a hard percentage cap on Port Moody’s total permissive exemptions, and prioritize secular non-profits (like arts, environment, and food banks) over religious properties?

No, I do not support a cap on permissive exemptions. It is an arbitrary tool that could prevent exemptions for worthy, secular non-profits if their numbers grow. As mentioned before, I support periodic review to ensure compliance.

That said, the current data reflects the intent behind the question: permissive tax exemption for religious properties is estimated at approximately $14,000 in 2026 for four properties while 19 secular, non-profit organizations receive about $176,929 in exemptions (about 74% of all permissive exemptions). Most permissive exemptions already go to secular organizations providing housing, daycare, environmental education programs and food support.

We should discuss permissive exemptions for parking lots.

Overall, the total dollar amount of permissive exemptions is much less than the exemptions that the Province and Federal government have forced upon us, with very little compensation, for the benefit of Canadians (in the case of the Port), and our neighbours (hospital).

Background information
The main revenue generator for most cities is property taxation. However, as some may recall, I have been calling out the inequities in the revenue generation opportunities and property taxation available to our city. There are several ways that senior levels of government constrain revenue generation:

• Gaming facilities: Cities that host gaming facilities like casinos receive 10% of the net revenue from the facility, along with property taxes generated from that use as well. If your city doesn’t host a casino, then you won’t get any revenue, regardless of how much your citizens spend at gaming facilities elsewhere.
• Port lands: Port Moody is one of ten cities that host port properties that are subject to the Ports Competitive Initiative, legislation that caps taxes on select port properties at a maximum $27.50/$1,000 assessed value. The Port Competitiveness Grant was intended to offset the impact, but it has not kept pace, resulting in a real dollar impact to host cities’ bottom line, resulting in an estimated $14M shortfall by 2025, despite adjustments. While the city doesn’t directly forego revenue, the burden is shifted to other ratepayers – mainly within Class 4.
• Utility Mill Rate Cap: Cities are also not permitted to increase the Utility Mill Rate above $40/$1,000 assessed value – another way the Provincial government restricts revenue generation by municipalities while not providing grants or other contributions to revenue. This year, Council increased the Class 2 (Utility) to the maximum allowable to offset the financial impact of BC Hydro’s Burrard Thermal appeal. Cllr Knowles has written about this on her Facebook page extensively.
• Burrard Thermal: When Burrard Thermal was closed, we lost a significant portion of the grant-in-lieu (GIL) that BC Hydro paid to Port Moody. The city can’t control what businesses come and go, or the broader economic environment, but the Burrard Thermal land in the control of BC Hydro, and by extension, the Province. This land is still under-utilized – it has a deep water port, rail access and is connected to transmission lines. The GIL is less than if we had an active utility or other industrial operation there, so those lands represent an ongoing tax impact that is within the control of the Province.
• Statutory and Permissive Exemptions: Statutory exemptions (hospitals, places of worship) are not within Council’s control. Permissive tax exemptions are, and applicants must demonstrate community benefit. The city has a form that the applicants must complete to apply for the permissive exemption, and financial statements must be attached.

The 2026 statutory exemptions consisted of five places of worship and one health facility, estimated to be $891,674. The health facility statutory exemption is 98% of the total. In comparison, permissive exemptions were estimated to be $237,824, with the vast majority allocated to non-profit organizations that provide a service to the community. Permissive tax exemptions for religious organizations were estimated to be $14,076, or 6% of the total. The remaining 94% of the exemptions were for uses like daycare, supportive and affordable housing, programming to support environmental education, and more.

Permissive tax exemptions: $237,824 (6% religious institutions)
Statutory tax exemptions: $891,674 (98% hospital, 2% religious institutions)

Overall, the statutory exemption for the hospital, the lost revenue from Burrard Thermal and the ongoing shortfall from the Port property tax cap have a far greater impact on our revenue generation than permissive tax exemptions.

Report outlining reasons for permissive exemptions:

• https://pub-portmoody.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=26257
• https://pub-portmoody.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=26259
• https://pub-portmoody.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=27854