Dear #brampton. More of these please. #biketo

image


More #brampton problems. #biketo

image


#brampton problems. #biketo

image


A Tariff On Bicycles Makes No Sense

On March 21, 2013, Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty presented the 2013 Federal Budget. One area of this budget that both interests and concerns me is “Tariff Relief for Canadian Consumers”.

Budget 2013 proposes to permanently eliminate all tariffs on baby clothes and sports and athletic equipment (excluding bicycles). This measure will support Canadian families and encourage physical activity and healthy living by lowering the costs of importing these goods.

More details here:
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/anx2-eng.html

 

The statement above suggests to me that our Federal Conservatives aren’t really interested in addressing our problems with transportation, health, energy costs, and associated cost of living in any meaningful way. It’s no secret that in major urban centres of Canada, like Toronto and surrounding area where I live, that traffic gridlock is a problem. I would go further to say that we are experiencing a massive failure in the automotive industry. Rising insurance rates, gas prices, and maintenance costs all point to a saturated market that has built itself around the car. This problem stems from years of under-investment in other transportation options. These options of course include public transit, but I will also include active transportation options such as bike lanes and bike share programs as valid means of transportation as they have proven successful and are catching on in other areas of the world.

 

We need more options. Ontario’s MetroLynx has a plan called “The Big Move” that addresses years of under-investment in transit infrastructure. However this plan will take a generation, and billions of dollars to complete. While this project is important, I don’t believe we can wait that long for the solution. Cycling is an activity that can take advantage of the roads that are already in place.

 

What about health problems in general related to increasing calorie intake and reduced energy exertion? Cycling is a meaningful answer to that also. Overall health only improves with cycling, which translates to health care savings.

 

Finally, cycling still provides an excellent sporting or leisurely activity, which for that reason alone ought to qualify bicycles for a tariff exemption. It doesn’t make any sense to apply a 13% tariff on bicycles.

 


Active transportation isn’t supposed to be seasonal

image


The Big Move for Brampton

If you live in Brampton, you might have noticed that travelling to work has become more challenging over the last few years. Metrolinx has a plan to combat this, called “The Big Move“.

Now, I love transit—I live car-free! And I think the what Metrolinx has painstakingly put together goes a long way in depicting the problems of mobility that the GTA and Hamilton will face if nothing changes to relieve congestion. It’s just that, I don’t know… It doesn’t really have “bite”. It doesn’t push hard enough on people to second guess whether they are doing themselves justice by taking their car every day, or whether they should give transit a chance to understand its value and/or side in favour of funding this massive plan for expansion that Metrolinx has.

Before continuing, there is a lot of information on the Metrolinx “The Big Move” website. I suggest checking it out for reference. For the rest of this post, I’ll be focusing mainly on a “Conversation Kit,” distributed at a Metrolinx information session that I attended on February 2nd in Brampton. And, on the Peel Fact Sheet also at The Big Move website.

The Current Situation

Brampton Transit has seen growth for at least the last 2 years. The most recent news indicates that “More than 18 million riders relied on Brampton Transit in 2012 to connect them to work, school, shopping, family and friends – a 12 per cent increase in ridership over 2011. The national average for transit ridership growth is 4 per cent annually.”

Brampton has done a great job in promoting it’s own transit service. They realize that transit is about more than just getting to work. People use it to get to school, to go shopping: It’s a part of their everyday lives. And rightly so. For decades, cars were sold as a critical element of the North American lifestyle. Most of our current transportation infrastructure is built on this premise. But the reality now revealing itself is that this course of investment is unsustainable, and money needs to be invested elsewhere. Currently, our transit systems receive on average a little more than half the funding that other successful transit systems receive from governments worldwide. These cities include Paris, New York City, and London. As long as government funding remains this way, largely forcing transit users to fund public transit instead of funding from a common public tax base, it forces those who can least afford it to fund the improvements to the transit system, which is not a good situation. If transit doesn’t put in the effort to convincingly present itself as an equally valuable lifestyle choice, it’ll be difficult to bring in new money to fund improvements. I think that’s where the Metrolinx plan is coming up short, specifically in it’s sell to Brampton.

The biggest benefit of the Metrolinx round-table meetings is that it brings all the stakeholders together: Drivers, transit users, and even cyclists alike. We have to keep this dialogue going. That being said, here are some of my observations on plans for The Big Move in Brampton.

A 25-Year Plan

You heard that right. The context of all this planning is that it will be built over 25 years. This is something that should have started 25 years ago, and I think now everyone knows it. What I don’t see proposed in the Big Move plan is an interim solution. What can they do immediately, with GO Transit buses perhaps, to start building up a user base for the proposed routes they have in mind? Not mentioned. Perhaps they’ll deal with that on an as-needed basis, or perhaps we’re left to assume that municipal transit systems will pick up the slack until Metrolinx catches up.

Missed Marks

With all this focus on getting people relief from their commute, very little focus is on getting people to where they want to go otherwise. For example: I want to get to Hamilton. Any direct transit lines to help with that? No. Any plans for some? No.

The Union Pearson Express project is another good example of this. I can appreciate that those visiting on business might want to get downtown quickly, but what about local business people throughout the GTA wanting to get to the airport? Are there any plans on setting up Pearson as a major transit hub like other cities around the world have done? No.

Overall, I have to wonder how much of this plan is reactionary and not forward-thinking enough. My concern about the Big Move plan is whether enough thought is put into expansion as the need for transit increases, which inevitably it will.

The Missing Value Proposition

You might hear some discussion on the opportunity cost of our current congestion levels. This includes lost time with families, and money lost to businesses. What’s missing however is the value proposition of public transit. To that, I offer my experience.

When I started working in downtown Toronto, I was driving. I got to drive over icy patches in winter, squint through rain, get the sun in my eyes, contend with other drivers for available lane space downtown, look and pay for parking, it was awesome (not).

There came a day when the parking garage I frequented was going to raise their rates. I decided to find ways to save money in my budget.

The GO Train: Cheaper Than Parking

Not by much, but it was enough to get me thinking. I could spend $240 a month on average to park downtown (which is a bargain!), or about $230 to take the train. Also, during events downtown it can take forever to leave the core. I recall on some occasions seeing what would later be my train leaving as I was still stuck in traffic, and ultimately getting back to Brampton before I would. I realized that if I started taking transit, it would sometimes save me time, and it would always save me money. As I started taking the train, I found that I would arrive home more relaxed, because I had napped instead of fighting with rush-hour traffic. Eventually, I sold the car I was using to take me to work, which eliminated car payments, insurance, gas, maintenance, etc.

I have no doubt that the Big Move will be great for the GTA. But then, Metrolinx is preaching to the choir when they tell me what they have planned. The real challenge in the problem of solving congestion is in convincing people to leave their cars and find another means of getting around. And for that, I have yet to see an answer.


Who Passed The Post?

Here’s an idea to review how we approach vote count in Canada. It stems from something that has bothered me since I first saw it on T.V: The comparing of “First Past The Post” and “Proportional Representation”. The idea that a popular vote of under 50% could decide a majority government is a source of frustration for me. First Past The Post is great in a 1-on-1 election, because the candidate elected has a clear majority mandate. It’s the majority mandate that’s tricky when a popular vote is separated 5 ways, which I respect that Proportional Representation seeks to solve.

But ultimately, why can’t we use a blend of both voting systems?

The way I’ve worked this out, the way people vote would not change at all, in that it only requires one voter to submit a single vote. The difference is in how the votes are interpreted, and using a systematic majority rule to decide the counting mechanism that is most appropriate. I’ll use the 2008 Canadian General Election results in my example.

It works like this:

When the votes are counted, if a riding has a clear majority (50+%) in favour of a candidate/party, then they win the seat as per majority mandate.

If not, then the riding has failed to come to a majority decision. The seat then gets submitted to a Proportional Representation pool.

The counting could also factor voter turnout, whereby if support for one candidate/party of those who voted is 60%, but only 58.8% of the riding came out to vote (as was the national average in 2008), then the actual percentage in favour of that candidate/party would be 35%, which in that case would fail to satisfy a majority rule.

In the final count, the ridings that have won seats by clear majority are subtracted by the total number of seats in the House of Commons. Those total number of seats assigned to the Proportional Representation pool get split up according to popular vote, and assigned to ridings in order of preference for who voted most in favour of that party.

It might sound a bit complicated, but I don’t think it is. Perhaps now is a good time to show an…

Example

Of the 308 electoral districts in 2008, 118 seats would have qualified for majority rule, that is, where the candidate in a riding received 50+% of the votes and would have rightfully won a seat via a clear majority.

Bloc Québécois 13
Conservative 80
Independant 1
Liberal 17
NDP 7

That leaves 190 pooled seats to be delegated by Proportional Representation. The first question that should be asked is how to decide which party is awarded seats first? It would make sense to delegate in order of popular vote ratio.

I’ve pulled some data from ThreeHundredEight.com to help calculate the popular vote.

Party Popular Vote Pooled Seats Awarded
Bloc Québécois 10.00% 19
Conservative 37.60% 71
Green Party 6.80% 13
Liberal 26.20% 50
NDP 18.20% 35

Per popular vote, the pooled seats would be delegated in order national popular vote (Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc Québécois, Green Party), and then in the order of the ridings that favoured each party most, determined by popular vote per riding. For example, because the Conservatives have the highest national popular vote in this scenario, their seats would be delegated first, in the order of the ridings that favoured them the most.

Under “Who Passed The Post”, the results would have been:

Bloc Québécois 32
Conservative 151
Green Party 13
Independant 1
Liberal 67
NDP 42

Note: The total number of seats filled in this outcome is only 306, which is 2 short. This is probably because the count of the Popular Vote percentages only totals 98.8%. Clearly, there are counts not taken into consideration on ThreeHundredEight.com.

I think this system would respect a riding’s preference where there is a clear winner determined by majority rule, while respecting the growing desire for representation of other parties in ridings that were unable to select a clear winner. All the while, this system does not change how people already vote, so there’s no learning curve in changing how to vote.

As always, please feel free to send me your comments!


Waste Management: Cyclists Need Not Participate

I recently had an awkward experience while dropping off my electronic and hazardous waste at the Brampton Recycling Centre, so much so that I wanted to share to get your opinions on it.

I approached the ramp to sort out my electronic waste, when a sign caught my eye that said that no bicycles or pedestrians are allowed up the ramp. Problem: I rode my bike to drop off my waste.

Fortunately, there was an understanding staff member who agreed to take my waste and sort it for me. But this was clearly an unusual situation for us both.

While I expect an argument could be made that this policy is for safety reasons, I have to ask this: If safety is a concern, why did I not see a sign that also bans motorcycles and e-bikes? These are also vehicles that leave their operators equally exposed, yet seem to be permitted.

The Recycling Centre in Brampton is the most comprehensive and convenient means of dropping off items that cannot be left for curb pickup. Yet it seems that there is an unfair bias to exclude cyclists or transit users from participating in drop-offs. There is also a certain irony in the thought of requiring the private burning of gasoline to take part in a program that’s meant to help save the environment.

And I have to ask why? Does this situation reflect an antiquated policy, or an exclusivity that Ford Nation would be proud of which favours cars only?


Social Capitalism? Neat!


Is government policy a design problem?

I want to say first that I think Michael Moore is a genius. I don’t always agree with his views entirely, but I love how he at least gets me thinking about government policy and society.

I recently finished watching “Capitalism: A Love Story“, and one particular moment caught my attention. It was a clip of former U.S. president Roosevelt in his State Of The Union address of 1944, regarding the need for a second Bill or Rights.

You can read a summary of what it was about on WikiPedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

In it, Roosevelt declared an “economic bill of rights” which would guarantee:

  • Employment, with a living wage
  • Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
  • Housing
  • Medical care
  • Education
  • Social security

I was floored. This was amazing to me. I’ve never known of any leader of the U.S. in the 20th century to be so… socialist? From my perspective, Canada has had these programs to some capacity for a while, but we have been witnessing the erosion of these programs over many years.

The clip got me thinking about how operating these programs as a state level, guaranteed to all, would work as a design problem. How do you make certain of these “economic guarantees” for all people, while maintaining free market conditions?