[Policy] [BW_Advocacy] Supporting Functional Transit to Help Prevent Freezing of Transit Subsidy - Carbon Pricing Coalition

[Mark Cohoe]

Thanks for the input everyone,

On working with Functional Transit, while I think we should be supporting
them in the push to retain the transit subsidy, It's part of a push for
overall sustainability and something that ultimately reduces traffic (which
benefits everyone). Jeremy certainly raises some good points about cuts to
transit hitting us as well in the form of fewer bike racks and bike parking
at transit stops.

I'm also very cognizant of the need to partner with them on a number of
projects that could/would be mutually beneficial, particularly on protected
bike lanes projects that will almost inevitably go along transit corridors
(East Corridor RT, Main Street, Provencher, Arlington). They have an
excellent relationship with the transit union and are realistically the
only functioning transit advocacy group in the city. Getting them on board
on some of these projects could help prevent backlash on protected bike
lanes from transit users (and I'd say that some of their members/audience
need to be swayed), and could also help us magnify our voice when pushing
for something like narrower travel lanes or the removal of parking or
traffic lanes on a roadway to provide dedicated bus and bike lanes.I also
think they could help provide some expertise that would help us in the
designs we push forward on projects. Transit priority queues come to mind
as a good example where we could collaborate, especially where they help
make a case for parking lot purchase that would also handily provide room
for proper intersection treatments of protected bike lanes at intersections.

On the carbon pricing coalition, I think Kailey's assessment of the current
state of affairs is correct, except that on the carbon tax, the federal
government has stated that the provinces will have full discretion on how
revenues raised are spent).I believe that they have made noise (if not
commitments) about putting an increased portion of federal funding into
green initiatives, but that is outside of money raised by the carbon tax.
Here are some other arguments in favour of at least involving ourselves in
the coalition:

1) From the press I saw, the carbon pricing coalition has not committed to
a revenue recycling model that promises no net tax increase or one that
promotes the creation of a green initiative fund from revenue generated by
the pricing of carbon. Being at the table and speaking with other members
of the coalition could help sway the argument. Obviously, the first model
(which is the one I'd say is preferred by the provincial government) leaves
us without any funding for AT, beyond the hope of expanded funding being
brought forward by the government. I think that would be disastrous.The
research I've seen shows that you need a much higher carbon tax than
anything that is being proposed to curb demand in anywhere near the levels
that are required. So we would be matching no funding for AT (and let's be
clear that both the previous and current provincial governments have failed
to provide funding for AT at anywhere near the level required/merited) with
a policy that fails to address climate change. Yes you can argue that tax
space would be opened up from which increased AT funding could be found,
but that's a far more difficult political sell than simply taking money
from the carbon tax and putting it into AT.

2) Unlike industries like trucking, we are not at the table with the
provincial government to lobby for funding from any carbon tax in any
meaningful way. Joining the carbon pricing coalition can help us amplify
our voice and add credibility to our requests for funding.

3) On the expertise front, I think we bring some important skills,
knowledge, and credibility to the table. It's one thing to talk about so
many dollars for AT, so many for transit, and so many for x,y,z, but if you
can translate those dollar amounts into tangible projects with projected
costs and benefits, I think you are miles ahead of the game. In fact, from
what I've seen in the articles I've read on the success/failure of carbon
pricing initiatives, it's this kind of knowledge and information that has
proven to be most important to make carbon pricing acceptable to the public.

4) The provincial government is not the only level of government that might
take notice of our actions with the climate pricing coalition. The Federal
Government will also be watching and listening, to whatever degree that
helps influence their decision making on how federal funds are allocated
(and as Kailey mentioned they are pushing for a focus on green
initiatives). Ultimately, we also need to sway the municipal government,
who probably has the most to gain from this (I can't understand why they've
been silent). Again, joining the coalition helps us push this way as well,
and here I think we can definitely contribute by showing the tangible
improvements that AT projects can bring, especially in comparison to other
projects that might be more palatable from a political standpoint (electric
cars come to mind as an often selected option that tends to reduce
emissions at a very high cost).

5) I really think that its the right thing to do, and that it fits in with
our mandate.

Cheers,
Mark

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Jeremy Hull <hull.jeremy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark's suggestion is to work with the Functional Transit group. I think
> our main contribution to this might be to identify how transit and cycling
> can best work together, focusing on things like bicycle park-and-ride
> facilities, the need for consistently available bike carriers on buses, and
> the need for separation of bicycles and buses. Our concern would be that
> cuts to transit funding will make these improvements harder to achieve, and
> will slow the development of cycling as a form of transportation.
>
> Regarding the carbon pricing coalition I'm not sure it would be
> appropriate for BW to become an organizational member of the coalition. As
> described in the video press conference the member organizations all have
> expertise on climate change policy and/or its implementation. Curt Hull
> said they are not advocating a specific policy but rather wanting to spark
> discussion of the issue, and that they want to provide their expertise on
> the hows and whys of it. I don't think BW has that kind of expertise - as
> an organization we know a lot about cycling needs but not about climate
> change. Maybe we can indicate support for the concept and comment on how
> carbon pricing might benefit cyclists without becoming a member of the
> coalition.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Charles F <c_feaver at mts.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree with the spirit of what people are saying, but;
>> - It puts us in the category of anti-MB government organizations, which
>> makes it harder to talk to the government and to attract sponsors, and
>> - Our joining them will have little or no effect.
>>
>> Better BW maintain it's non-partisan reputation to maximize our
>> effectiveness In our own domain.
>>
>> Charles
>> On Aug 17, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Ian Walker <ianwalker.wpg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I think we should support functional transit. I believe that allying
>>> ourselves with other like minded groups will make us stronger.
>>>
>>> I also agree with Mark and Kailey on joining the Manitoba carbon pricing
>>> coalition. We need those tax dollars to help fund new cycling
>>> infrastructure to get more people biking more often.
>>>
>>> Have a great day!
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 08:36 Kailey Kroeker, <kroeker.kailey at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. I definitely believe we should use simple resources (Facebook,
>>>> website, letters) to help support Functional Transit and the Manitoba
>>>> Carbon Pricing Coaltion
>>>> 2-3. I would support Bike Winnipeg joining the Coalition. From my
>>>> knowledge (and please correct me if I have misunderstood), the Federal
>>>> Government is requiring that Provincial Governments impose carbon pricing
>>>> to redirect economic focus on green infrastructure, but our current
>>>> Provincial Government in Manitoba is not acting proactively, and is instead
>>>> trying to wait it out and not impose these much needed initiatives. I
>>>> believe it fits entirely into our mission "to make cycling in Winnipeg a
>>>> safe, enjoyable, accessible and convenient transportation choice
>>>> year-round"; we are all organizations aiming to provide people with
>>>> sustainable, healthy, and varied transportation options that minimize our
>>>> reliance on carbon energy. I believe it is our organizational role to lobby
>>>> to government for anything within this realm. I also believe it is a good
>>>> chance for the many many likeminded organizations to band together; I
>>>> believe it will only help make every organization stronger.
>>>>
>>>> In my view, it is a no-brainer for Bike Winnipeg to join the Manitoba
>>>> Carbon Pricing Coalition.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Bill Newman <bill.newman at plumdee.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is all very nice and green for sure and many of us as individuals
>>>>> would be on side.  But I don't see that it aligns all that well with the
>>>>> BWin core mission (what we're here for) or core competencies (the things
>>>>> we're really good at).
>>>>>     If this money were withdrawn from transit would it be available
>>>>> for cycling support or would it be a precedent for reducing support for
>>>>> cycling too?  I have no idea.  But we really should have some idea if we
>>>>> are to wade in on this issue.
>>>>>     We would also have to be careful how much group energy we want
>>>>> allocate to this campaign.
>>>>>     That said, I can see a simple post on the website or a comment on
>>>>> Facebook urging people to look at the Functional Transit website and
>>>>> consider the issue as a move back towards private automobiles and away from
>>>>> public transit, cycling and active transit in general.  Can we spin that to
>>>>> focus on our priorities in a compelling way?
>>>>>     --Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-08-15 15:57, Mark Cohoe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> HI Everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope your summers have been going well. Sorry for the cross posting,
>>>>> but I thought it made sense for this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you may know, the provincial government is planning to end
>>>>> legislation guaranteeing provincial funding for municipal transit agencies
>>>>> in Manitoba. Essentially, the current legislation guarantees that the
>>>>> province will match municipal funding for any subsidy of transit services
>>>>> (operating expenses - revenue). This would obviously cause problems for the
>>>>> city as they would have to choose to either reduce their subsidy, raise
>>>>> taxes to cover the difference or shift funding from other
>>>>> projects/priorities to make up the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Functional Transit <http://functionaltransit.com/>, which lobbies for
>>>>> improved transit service and changes to the way that the transit service is
>>>>> run, has put together a letter writing campaign and is organizing like
>>>>> minded groups to help push for the maintenance of the existing agreement.
>>>>> I'm taking part in a meeting this Thursday, August 17th to discuss the
>>>>> strategy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking for advice/direction on three items:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Should we use our resources (Facebook, Newsletter) to promote the
>>>>> letter writing campaign and subsequent planning? I certainly think we
>>>>> should.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) I'd also like to join with them (and other like-minded
>>>>> organizations) to develop a strategy around carbon pricing and planning on
>>>>> what to do with the revenues generated from any carbon tax, with an
>>>>> emphasis on dedicating monies raised to transit and AT (both capital and
>>>>> operating) Ultimately, I think it probably makes sense to push towards
>>>>> partnering with the Manitoba Carbon Pricing Coalition
>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mbcarbonpricing/> on this, but I figure
>>>>> it's worth starting with Functional Transit to try and develop some common
>>>>> goals before advancing to the bigger group.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) From above, you can see that I think it makes sense for us to get
>>>>> involved in the Manitoba Carbon Pricing Coalition. What do others think,
>>>>> should I start the process?
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of the money that would be raised from the carbon tax, it`s
>>>>> huge. Our provincial government's decision to stay out of the pan-Canadian
>>>>> carbon pricing policy is currently holding up $66 million over 5 years,
>>>>> with a very serious threat for that money to be shifted into a general fund
>>>>> available to all provinces.  But even that is small potatoes compared with
>>>>> the money that would be generated by a carbon tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a partial list of expected carbon tax revenues in Manitoba. It
>>>>> leaves out off-road transportation (think agriculture, mining, forestry) as
>>>>> well as other agricultural emissions (mainly emitted through the use of
>>>>> fertilizer, livestock and manure management) which may end up getting
>>>>> exempted or at least dedicated back to their respective sectors.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2018
>>>>>
>>>>> 2019
>>>>>
>>>>> 2020
>>>>>
>>>>> 2021
>>>>>
>>>>> 2022
>>>>>
>>>>> Projected Revenues
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Road Transportation
>>>>>
>>>>> Gasoline
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 33.28%
>>>>>
>>>>> $34,962,982
>>>>>
>>>>> $68,085,806
>>>>>
>>>>> $99,368,474
>>>>>
>>>>> $128,810,985
>>>>>
>>>>> $156,413,339
>>>>>
>>>>> Diesel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 19.17%
>>>>>
>>>>> $20,140,292
>>>>>
>>>>> $39,220,569
>>>>>
>>>>> $57,240,830
>>>>>
>>>>> $74,201,076
>>>>>
>>>>> $90,101,306
>>>>>
>>>>> Off Road Transportation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stationary Combustion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Residential
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 11.28%
>>>>>
>>>>> $11,846,500
>>>>>
>>>>> $22,446,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $31,798,500
>>>>>
>>>>> $39,904,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $46,762,500
>>>>>
>>>>> Commercial & Institutional
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 13.26%
>>>>>
>>>>> $13,927,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $26,388,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $37,383,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $46,912,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $54,975,000
>>>>>
>>>>> Manufacturing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 11.13%
>>>>>
>>>>> $11,694,500
>>>>>
>>>>> $22,158,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $31,390,500
>>>>>
>>>>> $39,392,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $46,162,500
>>>>>
>>>>> Pipelines
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.33%
>>>>>
>>>>> $2,451,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $4,902,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $7,353,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $9,804,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $12,255,000
>>>>>
>>>>> Solid Waste
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 9.56%
>>>>>
>>>>> $10,041,500
>>>>>
>>>>> $19,026,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $26,953,500
>>>>>
>>>>> $33,824,000
>>>>>
>>>>> $39,637,500
>>>>>
>>>>> Total Revenues
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 100.00%
>>>>>
>>>>> $105,063,774
>>>>>
>>>>> $202,226,375
>>>>>
>>>>> $291,487,804
>>>>>
>>>>> $372,848,060
>>>>>
>>>>> $446,307,145
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike the $66 million, the Federal Government has promised that any
>>>>> money raised by the carbon tax will stay in the province it was raised in.
>>>>> The catch is that unless the province joins in on the Pan-Canadian pricing
>>>>> policy, the Federal government will decide how it is spent, not the
>>>>> provincial government. That may be a good thing or a bad thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Policy mailing listPolicy at lists.bikewinnipeg.cahttp://lists.bikewinnipeg.ca/listinfo.cgi/policy-bikewinnipeg.ca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>> Advocacy mailing list
>>>>> Advocacy at lists.bikewinnipeg.ca
>>>>> http://lists.bikewinnipeg.ca/listinfo.cgi/advocacy-bikewinnipeg.ca
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Advocacy mailing list
>>>> Advocacy at lists.bikewinnipeg.ca
>>>> http://lists.bikewinnipeg.ca/listinfo.cgi/advocacy-bikewinnipeg.ca
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Advocacy mailing list
>>> Advocacy at lists.bikewinnipeg.ca
>>> http://lists.bikewinnipeg.ca/listinfo.cgi/advocacy-bikewinnipeg.ca
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Advocacy mailing list
>> Advocacy at lists.bikewinnipeg.ca
>> http://lists.bikewinnipeg.ca/listinfo.cgi/advocacy-bikewinnipeg.ca
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy mailing list
> Advocacy at lists.bikewinnipeg.ca
> http://lists.bikewinnipeg.ca/listinfo.cgi/advocacy-bikewinnipeg.ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bikewinnipeg.ca/pipermail/policy-bikewinnipeg.ca/attachments/20170817/4642b4ac/attachment-0002.htm>