Bike to Work Week is an annual event organized by the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition, which aims to raise the profile of cycling as a feasible transportation option. Commuters are encouraged to register and track their distance cycled, and there are prizes to be won. This year, there is even a Bike to Vote event to encourage participation in tomorrow’s provincial elections (participants are entered for a draw to win a bike).

While I am not a cyclist myself, biking-related events make me think of the transportation culture in our cities. To state that North America is built around car culture is to state the obvious. Low-density communities are widespread in many cities and suburban expansion is entirely reliant on car ownership. Perhaps the most telling is the fact that the driver’s license is the default form of ID on this continent.

However, our love affair with the automobile has become increasingly problematic over time. First, it was the air pollution generated from motor vehicles, although that was somewhat abated with the introduction of catalytic converters and cleaner burning fuels. These days, the big issue is the greenhouse gas emissions generated from transportation and their contribution to climate change.

This is reflected in much of the discussion of transportation policy in this election, which has been framed around reducing emissions. On this blog, we have argued for increased government investment in a “greener” and more sustainable transportation network, including an expansion of public transit. This is an excellent plan for the short-run, considering that we are constrained by the urban planning decisions of the past, which favoured single-use neighbourhoods (commercial, residential or industrial), and by the governments’ decision to use physical infrastructure development to stimulate the economy and create jobs in the current recession.

In the long-run, however, a big part of our transportation policy should include rethinking the way we structure our cities, and creating more pedestrian-, bicycle- and transit-friendly communities (as argued in this recent post). Walking and biking are more environmentally friendly and considerably cheaper than taking the bus, and increasing our levels of physical activity offers many health benefits to boot.

The city of Vancouver has already taken some steps in becoming more bike-friendly, as outlined in this Vancouver Sun article. Their recent decision to convert one traffic lane of the Burrard bridge for bicycles (on a six-month trial basis) is another big step forward, but much more work is necessary. The provincial government we elect tomorrow should work closely with municipalities and provide them with sufficient funding to meet their transportation needs in a sustainable way.

It’s time to put the planet before politics

May 9, 2009

In April, scientists reported that another piece of the Antarctic ice shelf, this one six times the size of Vancouver, collapsed. According to David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey, “There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming.”

We know that global warming is caused largely by a build-up of heat-trapping fossil-fuel emissions in the Earth’s atmosphere, but the emissions continue to increase. This past week, our nation received dubious international recognition for having the worst record among G8 countries when it comes to reducing global warming emissions. The costs of climate change are being felt worldwide and are mounting in terms of damage from extreme weather events.

In British Columbia, we are in the midst of an election that pundits predicted would be all about the economy. But climate change and the environment have dominated the debate. As is clear from news headlines, the issue has become incredibly polarized. We implore all parties to refrain from the divisive and polarized politics of the past and help us restore the planet to its natural function.

Scientists alone can’t solve global warming. We need political will and we need action from all citizens. For the sake of the environment and the economy, it’s time to come together on this issue with clear solutions.

Climate change affects us all and is one of the most pressing problems of our time. That’s why we, as leaders from diverse sectors of B.C. society, are joining to call on all B.C. political parties to adopt a fast-track climate action plan for British Columbia.

We believe B.C. already has a model that shows promise and that can set an example for the rest of the country. The latter point is crucial, as measures to combat climate change must be national in scope to be truly effective. But we must keep moving forward.

We pledge to all political parties that we are willing to work together to make B.C. a leader in climate change solutions — including new green jobs and investment — in a way that’s fair, cooperative and positive. Specifically, we’re calling on the next B.C. government, regardless of party stripe, to implement a number of key solutions.

We know we can build healthy communities through investing in green infrastructure. This investment can create thousands of new jobs today and improve our quality of life by reducing traffic, establishing more green spaces and parks, and creating more pedestrian-, bicycle- and transit-friendly communities.

Today, transportation accounts for 36 per cent of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions. Most B.C. communities rely on cars for transportation. This leads to more congestion and air pollution and negatively affects our health.

We need a sustainable transportation network, including faster, more frequent and more efficient transit service across the province.

We’d like to see the B.C. government invest on average $650-million a year between now and 2020 in new provincial funding for public transit to improve service with more energy-efficient buses and rapid bus and rail lines across the province.

Give us a B.C. government that will provide B.C.’s cash-strapped municipalities with the money or tools to deal with their transit-funding shortfalls. For example, B.C.’s 21 Metro Vancouver municipalities need to address the existing funding gap of $150-million now and to ramp up quickly to $450-million per year by 2011.

B.C. should also provide funds to complement U.S. President Barack Obama’s $8-billion high-speed passenger rail plan, which includes a Pacific Northwest section joining B.C. to the U.S. The funds would be used to build the Canadian portion of the network.

B.C. should invest at least $100-million a year in bicycle infrastructure such as bike paths, bike lanes and traffic calming to improve cyclist safety, and increase funding for pedestrian infrastructure.

Give us a government that will offer zero-interest-rate loans to B.C. communities through the Municipal Finance Authority so that municipalities can invest in green infrastructure, such as community energy systems that will reduce emissions and improve the quality of life in our communities.

We want to see more new and affordable clean-energy solutions available to B.C. households, including energy-efficiency retrofits and innovative measures such as solar roofs and more fuel-efficient vehicles. At the same time, we want our businesses and industries to be competitive in the economy of the future by being more clean and energy-efficient. In B.C., industry accounts for about 35 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions.

We’d like to see an increase in funding for home and business energy-efficiency retrofits to $100-million yearly. This level of provincial funding, combined with an increased investment from the federal government, will green more than 400,000 homes in B.C. by 2020 — half of all B.C.’s homes.

Let us improve B.C.’s climate plan by using both the carbon tax and the cap-and-trade system to spur innovation and development of clean-energy solutions. The carbon tax and cap-and-trade system should cover all of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions and should be enhanced over time to enable B.C. to achieve or surpass its legislated emissions target.

We urge the government to increase the existing low-income carbon tax credit at the same rate as price increases on greenhouse gas emissions. We also believe a portion of carbon tax revenues should fund public transit, energy-efficiency and renewable-energy projects.

B.C. should adopt world-leading energy-efficiency standards on an on-going basis for cars, light and heavy trucks, appliances and buildings.

B.C. can provide a model for an effective nation-wide climate change plan that can show the rest of the world we’re serious about this problem. This would be good for both our economy and our environment — and for our children.

As citizens of this planet, it is our responsibility to put the planet before politics and urge the next B.C. government and federal politicians to do the same.

* Dawson Creek Mayor Mike Bernier
* Castlegar Mayor Lawrence Chernoff
* Whistler Mayor Ken Melamed
* North Vancouver Mayor Darrell Mussatto
* Prince George Mayor Dan Rogers
* Kelowna Mayor Sharon Shepherd
* Dr. Warren Bell, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
* David Boyd, Co-chair of Vancouver’s Greenest City Action Team
* Ian Bruce, David Suzuki Foundation
* Naomi Devine, Common Energy co-founder, UVic.
* David Dranchuk, Coordinator for Societal Ministry, Diocese of New Westminster
* Guujaaw, President of the Haida Nation
* Mike Harcourt, former B.C. premier
* Marc Lee, Senior Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
* David Suzuki
* Milton Wong, Chancellor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University and non-executive board chair, HSBC Investments (Canada) Ltd.

BC’s Economic Challenges and the Liberal Platform

By Marc Lee

The BC Liberal platform features many feel-good photos and proud statements taking credit for the province’s recent boom. But read between the lines, and one realizes that after eight years in power, the Liberals have effectively run out of ideas.

The platform fails to offer any vision for the future. The Campbell Liberals made some progress on climate change actions over the past couple years, but the platform offers nothing new. Meanwhile, the Climate Action Secretariat, once residing in the Premier’s office, has been relegated to the Ministry of the Environment, which recently had its budget cut.

Premier Campbell deserves credit for bringing in the carbon tax, plus a variety of other climate measures that represent the low-hanging fruit of greenhouse gas emission reductions. While the carbon tax has its shortcomings, in my view it is a positive first step, and one that carries enormous symbolic value for environmentalists.

Still, the government enters the election without a plan in place to get BC to its legislated 33 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. And there are some glaring contradictions between the climate plan and other parts of the Liberals’ platform.

One of those contradictions is the oil and gas industry. Between 2001 and 2006, oil and gas industry emissions surged by far more than the carbon tax will ever reduce come 2020. Recently, Premier Campbell was in the Northeast, promising more new investment in oil and gas extraction, which may make it virtually impossible to reach our targets. And it is not like the oil and gas patch is a huge employer – about 2,200 direct jobs in 2008 – for all that pollution.

Highway expansion and the $3-4 billion Port Mann Super-Bridge also go against the climate-action grain. This expensive mega-project will only push more unsustainable, car-oriented development further up the Fraser Valley. This threatens valuable farmland, and means that congestion will be back within a few years. No jurisdiction in the world has ever built its way out of congestion problems.

The Liberal platform offers no real vision for the economy either, now that the great boom is over. Unemployment rose rapidly through early 2009, and with housing starts down 70%, the worst is yet to come, as construction workers finish their current projects and head straight to the back of the unemployment line.

The current economic collapse is not the fault of the Liberals, but then neither was the boom their creation. BC’s economic fortunes rest on what happens outside our borders, in particular in the export markets of the US and Asia, and in Ottawa, through the Bank of Canada and the federal government.

As cheerleader-in-chief, Premier Campbell may have pumped up the home team’s confidence, but let’s face it, the cheerleaders did not win this game. Like other parts of the world, low interest rates drove a bubble in real estate, leading to a massive expansion of construction activity. And high commodity prices driven by export markets made BC’s resource industries take off.

In February’s budget, the Liberals offered little in the way of stimulus, mostly re-announcing projects already underway or relying on federal stimulus dollars. There is much more that should be done to retrofit our infrastructure to be green – like public transit and energy efficiency upgrades – and to meet long-neglected social needs, like affordable housing, addiction and mental health facilities, or residential health care.

Bad economic times mean that the small deficit projected in the budget will inevitably turn out to be much larger. The Liberal platform promises that BC will “live within its means”, but faced with a $1-2 billion deficit, will a new Liberal government pile on more spending cuts and risk making the economic picture worse, or will it accommodate a larger deficit? What does that mean for the few new promises in the platform, like all-day kindergarten or U-passes for all Vancouver post-secondary students?

In politics, as in business, marketing is everything. The BC Liberals have branded themselves as the party of good economic times, but also the party with the long-term vision to tackle climate change. At a time when families in BC are concerned about the future on both fronts, the Liberals have put forward an unambitious “devil you know” strategy to win re-election.

Even during the good times, not all British Columbians were part of the boom. Poverty rates did not drop in any meaningful way, homelessness doubled, and inequality worsened with each passing year. BC needs a plan, with targets and timelines (just like climate change) to address poverty, especially as the recession deepens its grip.

With a lack of vision and too many contradictions, the platform does not provide any sense of how Campbell the Third will govern.

The problem with this question is that it allows for two options only, framing the policy decision as a choice between the proposed government investment project or the current status-quo. Yes, spending money on a new Port Mann bridge is probably better than not investing in infrastructure at all, especially during a recession. But the real question we need to ask is what is the best use of these $3.1 billion dollars of public money (the current cost estimate on the bridge construction) and would another project serve British Columbians better.

A recent article in the Tyee highlights the fact that alternatives exist with its provocative title: Want One Port Mann Bridge, or a Light Rail Metropolis. The article reports that Professor Patrick Condon and researcher Kari Dow at the UBC Design Centre for Sustainability have calculated that the money earmarked for the Port Mann construction can pay for

… a 200-kilometre light rail network that would place a modern, European-style tram within a 10-minute walk for 80 per cent of all residents in Surrey, White Rock, Langley and the Scott Road district of Delta, while providing a rail connection from Surrey to the new Evergreen line and connecting Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge into the regional rail system.

In the end of the day, we need to balance our immediate needs for job creation with our longer-term goals, such as facing up to climate change and building a more environmentally sustainable society. Rushing to throw money at shovel-ready projects simply for the sake of increasing government spending may well be cheating us out of opportunities to restructure our infrastructure system to meet the needs of a future greener economy.

There is no substitute to carefully considering the longer-term implications of the choices we make if we want to ensure that short-term gain doesn’t leave us with long-term pain.

I’m all for tolling. Unless you are a fan of the queues inevitably created by what can only be described as our current Bolshevik approach to tranportation planning, you should know that tolls and other vehicle-related charges are essential if we are ever to have an efficient road system. Offer something valuable for free and chances are there won’t be enough to go around.

But it isn’t tolling for the sole purpose of paying for some (though interestingly not all) new bridges and roads that will bring some logic and discipline to the use of our road system. We desperately need a more systematic and fundamentally fairer approach.

The more systematic part is putting smaller, but more widely applied tolls throughout any corridor where major improvements are needed and made. It makes no sense to charge a $3 toll to cross the Port Mann and nothing to cross the neighbouring Patullo bridge. It is a sure way to ensure that the Patullo will always be overcrowded and the Port Mann relatively underused. Better to charge both bridges (and the Alex Fraser and new Golden Ears bridge) the same $1.50 or $2.00 toll during peak periods and little or nothing off-peak. The objective should be to encourage people to reduce peak period trips — not just shift trips from one bridge to another.

The fairer part is treating all corridors in the region the same. When we invest $2 billion to build the Canada Line, with the express purpose of reducing vehicular traffic and congestion in the Richmond/Vancouver corridor, we should put in tolls on the Oak, Knight and Arthur Laing bridges to pay for it (and encourage more people to take advantage of the new Line). And of course the same principle (and tolls) should be applied to Sea-to-Sky, a soon-to-be major suburban corridor thanks in large part to the excessive highway improvements that are being made there.

Marc would rightfully argue that first we should think more carefully about what new transportation infrastructure we build. The track record of this government certainly supports that. But once the decisions have been made to go ahead, there are sensible ways to finance the investments and sensible ways to pay for them. On those albeit secondary but still very important matters ,we are only half-way there.

Jeff Nagel already has a very interesting article in the Surrey Leader on the cancellation of the public private partnership. He includes the following quote from the Partnerships BC boss Larry Blain.

Critics have long said P3s bring higher finance costs because corporations must pay more interest than governments to borrow in order to offset the higher risk.

Partnerships BC CEO Larry Blain said that was a factor in the decision not to proceed.

He estimated $200 million in financing costs will be saved by switching from private to public borrowing.

So if they admit to saving taxpayers $200 million on this one, how much more could they save by cancelling the other planned P3 projects including six or seven hospitals?

The province has been unable to reach a finance-arranging deal with the consortium that was to build the new Port Mann Bridge, transportation Minister Kevin Falcon announced Friday.

The provincial government will now finance the entire $3.3 billion project, and is hoping to recoup the money through tolls.

It is a black eye for the Liberal government, which had touted P3s (public-private partnerships) as the way to build infrastructure without the government assuming any financial risks.

And so it is, as it should be – the government will build the bridge – well, except for the tolls. Why should this one bridge be subject to tolls, especially since it is the Trans-Canada Highway, and not others?

But that is beside the point: I think building this new super-bridge will be a colossal waste of money that will entrench unsustainble forms of development further up the valley, choking off more farmland just at the time when we need more local sources of food.

But, hey, there is an election on, and there are a lot of votes on the other side of that bridge.

He was saying that the bridge will be paid for by tolls but he seems to have forgotten that people who cross the bridge actually do pay taxes. For them, the toll on the bridge is just one more tax.

How much tax? Well if the Minister is correct and the toll comes in at $3.00 per crossing, it will cost $1,500 per year for someone to drive back and forth to work. That’s if the toll doesn’t come in above $3.00 and I’m not holding my breath on that one.

There is an interesting tie in here to an earlier change the government made in labour legislation. When employers called you into work they used to have to guarantee four hours. That was changed to a two hour minimum call in (one of the many reductions in BC’s employment standards made between 2002 and 2004).

So let’s say you make $10 an hour and get the minimum call in. You make $20 that day and you pay $6.00 to get back and forth to work. That’s a tax of 30%.

If you are one of BC’s 115,000 minimum wage earners, you are even worse off. After all, the toll on the bridge goes up by as much as 2.5% annually. Minimum wage workers don’t get a pay increase. The minimum wage has been frozen for eight years.