Latest column: What about closer to home?

My latest column in the Maple Ridge News. Unedited version below:

"The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members" - Ghandi

It's a 'no'. The people have spoken. Loud and clear.

In Maple Ridge, more people (77%) voted against the proposed 0.5% increase in sales tax to pay for transit, road and bike improvements than anywhere else in Metro Vancouver. Would that have anything to do with the fact that we rely more on our cars than anywhere else in Metro Vancouver? It's quite possible. 72% of Pitt residents voted against.

Voter turn-out for the plebiscite in Maple Ridge was 51%, Pitt Meadows 49%. Compare that to the significantly lower 2014 municipal election turn-out of 31% in both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

Whatever message people felt they needed to give, whether to Translink, to the BC Liberal Government, or to their Mayors, or all of the above, this vote was obviously extremely important to them. There's been an abundance of smug post-victory facebook posts about this great achievement, and many people apparently have been doing happy-dances.

Great. So the no-side won. And now what?

The real problems - worsening congestion, lack of transit options for many and poor cycling infrastructure - are now even farther from being solved, and seem to be on track to make our commuting lives more miserable in years to come. Call me negative. I call it being realistic.

On to the next referendum? Forget that!

Let's also consider this: while many blame Translink for all that's bad in the transit world, how can Translink be blamed for the way Maple Ridge has made many rather unwise land-use decisions in the past that now make it pretty darn difficult for Translink to provide cost- and time-effective transit for all in our area?

Somehow the powers that be should, hopefully, come up with a new funding source, eventually. Despite the no-side's victory, fought for with so much passion and dedication, many won't be so happy in the end, 'cause they're gonna get stuck in traffic, big time.  After all, even though many thought this was just about teaching Translink a lesson or two, we just chose the car as our solution to carmageddon, make no mistake about it.

In the meantime, we cycling advocates will continue to give our feedback when road construction is being planned. Life goes on.

I just want to say this. I am convinced that the only way a city can be successful is by being inclusive. A city should work for all. It should be inclusive of people who take transit, people who walk and people on bikes. It should be inclusive of the young and the elderly, many of whom don't drive. It should also be inclusive of those on a low income, many of whom can't afford a car.

A successful city should even be inclusive of street people, many of whom tend to get around by bike. Do you honestly think that if we just don't build bike lanes and install bike racks for them, they'll eventually just magically evaporate from our streets? Just like they need a place to live, they need to be able to get around safely, cheaply and efficiently, if those who are able to work are ever going to be able to get and hold a job.

Cycling facilities should not be seen as optional, as they often still seem to be today in Maple Ridge.

When a brand new, massive intersection appears such as the one at 112th/Kanaka Way and 240th, or so-called 'road improvements' are implemented at 240th by Albion Elementary, we're told we'll just have to wait for our bike lanes until the entire area is built out, which can be many years from now. Until then, we'll have to be content to be biking with the sharks, or stay on the sidewalks. So much for the pride our city takes in its so-called 'multi-modal' transportation system that supposedly works for all.

Seeing so many people speak up in this plebiscite, with such passion, about whatever it is that they felt was so important to them, makes me wish that those same people would speak up with the same passion when it comes to their vision of the kind of city that they want to live in.

Although, you have to wonder, what is their vision of the ideal city?

Many people just seem to want to get from point A to point B fast, and how their speedy, and often noisy and dangerous travel affects others and our city in general seems of no concern to them.

Through our car addiction, we've created a lot of places that apparently aren't worth caring about. The way a lot of drivers speed through our neighbourhoods attests to that. They drive through them as if they don't care about them and the people that live in them.

In the end, it all depends on what we, the people, want. Here's hoping that the many people that cared so much about Translink's governance problems and wasted tax dollars, will start caring enough about our streets and our neighbourhoods, about our kids and their future, and about our seniors, our poor, and our street people, to start demanding proper funding for transit and bike lanes! Call me naive. I guess I am.  

The cost of sprawl: election issue?

Election time is upon us; much is at stake. Which will be the main issues on the table? We'll probably once again see the same old discussions about shopping, garbage, council and staff salaries, and our ever rising property taxes, none of which ever seem to get resolved to our satisfaction.

Metro Vancouver is facing significant challenges, as a region and as individual municipalities.

The experts are telling us we will see continued population growth for the next 30 years in Metro Vancouver, with the expected addition of a million more people and 600,000 more jobs. We'll have more than our fair share happening in Maple Ridge and to a lesser extent in Pitt Meadows. After that, population  growth is expected to level off.

That means that how we grow and develop our cities over the next 30 years will determine for a large part how we will live for the next few hundred years.

If Maple Ridge decides, with our present land use pattern and with our soon to be adopted Transportation Plan, that we will continue to allow a significant amount of hopscotch, sprawling, inefficient greenfield and largely residential development instead of opting for contiguous, more compact and mixed-use smart growth, then an ever increasing number of residents will be car-dependent for a very long time to come indeed. That's a scary thought!

The threat of the real possibility of a failing transit referendum next Spring means that we may not be able to look forward to any significant expansion of transit and increased spending on cycling to improve the balance of options we have in our area.

In Maple Ridge we're not doing much to reduce our community Greenhouse Gas Emissions, even though the majority of present Council members a few years ago committed our City to the goal of 33% reduction from 2007 levels by 2020.

There are so many other reasons why we need to get serious about getting people out of their cars and onto transit, and walking and biking for shorter trips. Growing smarter, more efficient, is one of the most important things we can do to help convince more people to look for options in the way they get around for at least some of their trips.

There's another urgent reason why we can't keep growing the way we do: the "Infrastructure Deficit".

It's a significant and complex problem, not unique to Maple Ridge, that past and present Council members have so far not wanted to address.

Mr. Gill, our diligent penny counter at the City of Maple Ridge, has tried to warn us earlier this year. The article 'For every 'burb built, Maple Ridge pays' by Phil Melnychuk in The News seemed to generate a lot of interest. I added my two cents about it in "We need to stop Suburban Sprawl"As explained, other communities that have done the math have realized they can save many millions of dollars and significantly reduce their infrastructure deficit by growing smarter.

Why is Council still not talking about this? Is it because their constituents are still not concerned?

I think they should be, so I would like to raise the issue again, hoping that the average voter will understand we have a variety of more important things to worry about than not having some big box shopping in our community, which seemed to be the main determinant of the outcome of our last municipal election.

What's the problem? Well, when a new development gets built, the developer builds the infrastructure within the development - roads, sewer, water - and also pays Development Cost Charges to the City to pay for some of the necessary upgrades of surrounding infrastructure that are impacted by the development. Sounds good, right?

Development cost charges are provincially legislated and can only be used for things like roads, water, sewer, drainage and parks, but not for things like a new fire hall or added police services and community halls.

If you've ever taken a look at where our tax money is spent, you'll know that RCMP and fire services together make up a whopping 40% of all municipal expenses. When we approve more development and another fire hall is needed, all tax payers, including existing ones, are paying for that. Every time we build a new fire hall, if we need additional police services or we need to expand our library, all tax payers are on the hook. The more spread out and disconnected the development patterns, the more these services cost per household.

The infrastructure that's paid for by the developer is handed over to the city as soon as it's built. So now it's ours. Nice, eh?

Maybe not quite so nice once you realize that about 80% of the cost of infrastructure is in the operational budget. In other words, all tax payers pay for about 80% of the cost of the infrastructure over its lifetime. So on the one hand, it's nice that we get this gift from the developer, but on the other hand, it's a gift that keeps on taking, from all of us tax payers.

So it's essential that the long-term cost of any development application is carefully considered, in the interest of existing tax payers, but also and especially future tax payers: our kids.

Right now, the infrastructure items that appear on the municipal books as "assets" are valued at over $1.5 billion. The maintenance cost as estimated in 2006, when we had about $1.3 billion worth of infrastructure, was about $30 million per year. Of course the cost of maintenance goes up over time as more infrastructure gets built and also the cost of material and labour goes up. Looks like these "assets" are more like "liabilities"!

So are we actually paying the required $30+ million per year to maintain these assets? No, not by a long shot. We have been spending roughly one tenth of that. The good news is that, since 2008, a 1% annual cumulative tax increase is being set aside to start dealing with this Infrastructure Deficit. If we keep raising our property taxes in this manner, by 2031 we should have cut our infrastructure deficit in half. That means, in the best case scenario, it's highly unlikely that most of us would see the problem resolved within our lifetime, but if we're principled enough, we can make a significant dent in it.

However, because of our low tolerance for ever increasing property taxes, Council already caved in and reduced this increase by half last year and it'll probably be at least a few more years before we should be back to being charged the full 1% increase. To make up for some of the difference until then, we're using some of the gaming revenues.

The question is, are tax payers going to tolerate these cumulative annual increases for the next 20+ years or so, and are the increases even keeping up with the infrastructure added during that time?

What happens if we don't put enough money aside to pay for maintenance and eventual replacement? Well, roads start to crumble, and bridges will start to collapse. We've seen that for example in Montreal, and many cities in the U.S. offer frightening examples.

Like Mr. Gill says: "pay me now, or pay me much more later". If we don't look after the infrastructure now, it's going to be much more costly to fix things when they start to crumble.

My take-aways from this:

• We need to start tackling the problem at the source: we need to stop inefficient, hopscotch sprawling development that makes more of us more car dependent and that we simply can't afford; 
• Our new Council will need to work with other BC municipalities, through the Union of BC Municipalities, to appeal to the Province for changes in the legislative framework of Development Cost Charges and property taxes, to ensure that new development pays for the full cost, and that smart development does not unfairly end up subsidizing new dumb development, of course recognizing that the unfairness in the way existing development is taxed cannot be simply undone from one day to the next.
• BC Municipalities can't tackle the problem on their own. Both the federal and provincial governments will need to share more of their tax revenues with municipalities as more responsibilities get downloaded by higher levels of government to municipalities. Municipalities need to band together through the UBCM to get reliable long-term funding from the province and the federal government to help pay for maintenance of the infrastructure that's the backbone of our cities and economy.

So this should give you some ideas as to questions you can ask your mayoral and council candidates!

Introduction to Cycle Touring, July 8

I just received this info about a fun event organized by Metro Vancouver Regional Parks

in Pitt Meadows, Tuesday July 8, 7 - 9 pm

Learn the ups and downs of cycle-touring from an experienced tourer in SE Asia, India and Cuba.

Enjoy a laid back ride in a gorgeous park, stop along the way to learn how to pack, change your tire on-the-fly and more about the beauty of two-wheeled travel.  Must be able to ride 7 to 10 kilometres of level, crushed gravel trails. PLEASE REGISTER FOR EXACT MEETING LOCATION.

Here is the location on Metro Vancouver's website (or just go to www.metrovancouver.org  then Regional Parks then events):

Or call to register Mon. – Fri. 8- 4 pm 604-432-6359

ACTION ALERT: support investments in cycling

Tell Your Mayor You Want Metro Vancouver's Transportation & Funding Plan to Support Investments in Cycling. For more info, click here.

Metro Vancouver wants bulging gas tax fund to aid cycling

By Jeff Nagel - Surrey North Delta Leader

More than $280 million in federal gas tax that is supposed to flow to TransLink is sitting unused and Metro Vancouver politicians now want some of it to go to building bike lanes.

Since 2005, Ottawa has handed back to TransLink at least half of the 10 cents a litre of gas tax it collects within the Metro region and the money has helped finance hundreds of new and replacement buses and SkyTrain cars.

But TransLink is only allowed to spend the resulting fund on certain types of projects – mainly vehicles – and with its capital spending constrained, the transferred federal gas tax money is stacking up faster than it can be spent.

An extra $122 million will flow in this year, lifting the total to more than $400 million.

"We want to be able to spend that money reducing our carbon footprints with cycling infrastructure around the region," Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said.

But the federal government two years ago removed bike-related projects as an allowed use of the gas tax transfers.

Metro's regional planning committee voted Friday to urge area cities to lobby Ottawa to reinstate that use.

"It's more consistent with the green agenda for the gas tax dollars," Corrigan said.

TransLink strategic planning and public affairs vice-president Bob Paddon said it was unfortunate the federal government disallowed cycling spending.

But he rejected suggestions the gas tax money will go to waste, noting it is carried over each year and TransLink has more eligible spending in the works.

This year TransLink is applying to use $123 million from the fund to replace hundreds of older buses, community shuttles and HandyDarts over the next three years.

The federal gas tax transfer is separate from the 17 cents a litre in tax that TransLink directly levies on each litre of fuel sold in Metro Vancouver.

TransLink's currently proposed three-year base plan would pare back the amount of money going to cycling upgrades around the region.