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

[Ian Walker]

Well said Mark. I totally agree with you.

Ian

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 16:05 Mark Cohoe, <mark.e.cohoe at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170818/c134ec2d/attachment-0002.htm>