Cycling: Emissions still increasing in Canada, world

When I write for the Maple Ridge News, often my columns are longer than allowed, so sometimes they're pretty heavily edited. The good thing about a blog is that I can write whatever and however long I want.

So here is the original version of my November article:

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has recently published its fifth report, which sends a very dire warning to the world, including Maple Ridge. We're on track to severely and irreversibly impact the global climate and the natural world around us, endangering survival of many plant and animal species, including ourselves.

We're already seeing more heat waves, droughts, more severe rainfall and floodings. The report further warns that food security is at risk, and we'll likely see more wars as a consequence of poverty and economic shock. Some pretty alarming stuff.

Developing countries are most vulnerable to climate change, while developed and wealthier countries like Canada are among the worst carbon emitters; we don't have a particularly good reputation in the rest of the world when it comes to doing our share to reduce emissions.

Not only in Canada, but also world-wide, emissions are still going up.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says: "Leaders have to act now. Time is not on our side."

On the positive side, the report, which has been contributed to by thousands of scientists, states that it's economically affordable to take action.

Unfortunately, both at the federal and the provincial level the powers that be are single-mindedly focused on exploiting the tar sands in Alberta and LNG in BC, with little regard for the resulting rise in emissions and other environmentally damaging consequences. Are we crazy? Shouldn't we, instead of just ramping up production of non-renewables, focus our efforts on rapidly expanding alternative energy sources, while aiming to gradually phase out the use of fossil fuels where possible?

What's happening at the local level?

In 2010, all members of the previous Council in Maple Ridge, five of which are still representing our interests now, unanimously and ambitiously endorsed a target of 33 percent reduction in corporate and community emissions from 2007 levels by 2020. At the time Council felt we were doing pretty good already and little further action was required;  all the policies that were already in place at the time were thought to help us achieve the target.

I saw on Maple Ridge's old website last year that our community emissions had increased by 12% between 2007 and 2010. However, the new website now shows a reduction of 3% by 2010. Interesting. Apparently data and methodologies used are continually updated. All of a sudden we're looking much better!  Somehow, I doubt that our emissions would have gone down when our population increased by about 5 percent or almost 4,000 people during that time. Unless these and more people perhaps all found local jobs, drove EVs, walked or biked to work, school and shopping, and moved into empty basements in existing homes.

When Council discussed the 20-year Transportation Plan at the Council meeting on October 28, Councillor Masse did not get a response from the rest of a rather unambitious council when expressing his deep concerns - not for the first time - about Greenhouse Gas emissions and obviously wanting to do more through a well-thought out Transportation Plan which would cut down emissions from automobiles. Since the source of 57 percent of our community emissions is on-road transportation, it makes a lot of sense to look for ways to achieve reductions there.

Councillor Masse suggested to then look at amending the adopted target in the future, and the Transportation Plan was subsequently endorsed. Can kicked further down the road.

In 2007, with the adoption of the District's Sustainability Action Plan, the development of a community energy plan (CEP) was recommended.  This was officially added to our OCP as a "will explore" item. Now, seven years later, despite stronger calls for action from the scientific community as well as common folks around the world, and the alarming report just released by the IPCC, we still don't have a plan.

According to Laura Benson, Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning with the City, despite not having a CEP the city has worked on things like densification in the Town Core near transit and services, attracting high value local jobs and installing EV charging stations, which should definitely help.

But when it comes to planning for a truly multi-modal transportation network that will help convince more of us to choose alternative modes, safely - which will lead to lower emissions - in my view the present Transportation Plan lacks vision, and Council clearly lacks a sense of urgency.

It's great that there are some nice big ticket, multi-use items in the Plan, but we clearly need a more ambitious council, to lead us on a path to become a more modern, more livable, equitable and sustainable city to help future generations to better weather the coming storms.

The next four years should be interesting. We'll definitely see some new faces, hopefully new, creative ideas and strong, forward-thinking leadership on Council.

One thing is clear. Once the election is over, we'll start talking again about all-ages-all-abilities bike lanes!

  

Cost of suburban sprawl / questions to candidates

Another questionnaire was sent out to Maple Ridge candidates, this one being about the cost of suburban sprawl. For more information and links to the questionnaire and responses received, click here.

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!

Alex Pope, provincial Green candidate Maple Ridge/Mission

I sent an e-mail to all the provincial candidates for our region (see earlier blog post) to ask them about their views on the Cycling Strategy proposed by the BC Cycling Coalition.

Alex Pope, Green candidate for Maple Ridge/Mission, responded as follows:

"The Green Party of BC is committed to creating and supporting clean, affordable, and efficient transportation modes for all British Columbians. Greens want to limit urban sprawl while increasing cycling paths, maintaining and creating more walkable neighbourhoods, and providing affordable transit systems. Encouraging cycling is one of the ways in which Greens will contribute to a more cycle-friendly BC. The BC Greens will also provide tax breaks and funds that support cycling and other clean modes of transportation.

Funding for increased biking infrastructure will come from the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, such as road pricing, congestion pricing and parking pricing. BC Greens would also increase the carbon tax and use some of this extra revenue to fund transportation alternatives. Being dedicated to a healthy and clean lifestyle for all British Columbians, BC Greens want to see an increase in the accessibility of current biking infrastructure, while continuing to improve and expand it.

Increased cycling is sure to provide many benefits to British Columbians by decreasing health care problems that are a result of physical inactivity, increasing revenue by creating ‘green-collar’ jobs, and decreasing pollution from car emissions. Greens recognize the potential that cycling has in contributing to an overall cleaner environment. This is why the BC Greens are dedicated to providing British Columbians with easier and greater access to safe cycling infrastructure and encouraging them to live more active and healthy lifestyles.

Even with the amount of funding suggested by the BCCC, complete cycling networks will take quite a number of years to complete. I would suggest that we should prioritize those cycling projects that will provide all-ages cycling pathways that provide connectivity to schools and transit hubs.  These pathways are the most likely to see the greatest uptake in use so will provide the greatest benefit to future cyclists.

Mike Bocking, provincial NDP candidate Maple Ridge/Mission

I sent an e-mail to all the provincial candidates for our region (see earlier blog post) to ask them about their views on the Cycling Strategy proposed by the BC Cycling Coalition.

Mike Bocking, NDP candidate for Maple Ridge/Mission, was the first to respond. Here's what he replied:

I'm a big supporter of developing and expanding our cycling infrastructure and I agree with most of the points in the Cycling Strategy for BC.

I particularly agree that there needs to be some dedicated routes for bikes and separation of bikes from automobiles where possible. And the idea of developing more biking for local trips and schools is one I certainly support.

I particularly like the idea of an annual amount dedicated to bike infrastructure, so there can be long-term planning done with some certainty that resources will be available to implement them.