Local Government in BC

This week the UBCM (Union of British Columbia Municipalities) hosted its annual convention in Victoria. The UBCM was founded in 1905 and lobbies the provincial and federal government on behalf of local governments in BC. Besides lobbying, the UBCM is also responsible for disbursing funds from programs like the federal gas tax refund to local governments. The UBCM gets its direction from resolutions passed at its annual conferences. The resolution that generated the most buzz this years was to “call on appropriate government to decriminalize marijuana and research the regulation and taxation of marijuana.” The UBCM has a list of over 200 resolutions that delegates voted on this year and the list really got me thinking about the role of government in my daily life.

One of the things I’ve been noticing lately is that the further removed a government gets from the provisioning of on-the-ground services, the more likely it is to be run by ideology. I think the perfect example is the marijuana issue. The federal government has a get-tough-on-crime, prohibitionist ideology and you can see how its policies are reflective of that. The federal government is so far removed from the daily running of our cities that they can hold their ideology without dealing with the consequences. It is the provincial government that must pay for the prisons that get-tough-on-crime requires and local government that must pay for the policing costs and deal with the social fall-out. Local government must be more pragmatic than the feds and that is why they have realized that “marijuana prohibition is a failed policy which has cost millions of dollars in police, court, jail and social costs.” If we want to reduce drug usage, we need to look at other ways of doing it.

Other issues that I find important are around transportation, land-use, and the environments. Again, the federal government can hold the ideology of “drill baby, drill!”, but it is local government and its citizens that must deal with the “devastating and long lasting effects on British Columbia’s unique and diverse coast, which provides critical marine habitat and marine resources that sustain the social, cultural, environmental and economic health of coastal and First Nations communities.” When it comes to transportation and land-use, local governments know that active transportation and transit are critical for long-term sustainability and prosperity, yet provincial and federal governments continue to spend billions on highways and pennies on cycling and walking. Again it is local government that must deal with the consequence that congestion and pollution have on its citizens.

When reading over the UBCM’s Resolution Book, most of the issues deal with things that directly impact people’s daily lives and are less coloured by ideology than other levels of government. I think that is why I get excited about local government: it is relevant, impacts the daily lives of people, and deals with issues not ideology. Local government makes our lives better. If the federal government shutdown for a week you might be inconvenienced, but if local government shutdown for a week you’re world would come to a grinding halt.

Traffic Lights and Roundabouts in Langley

One of the interesting things that I’ve noticed in Langley is that people demand traffic lights in areas where they might not be warranted. There is a new set of lights at Old Yale Road and Fraser Highway in the City and other random lights on 16th Avenue in the Township. I was heading to the US with some friends the other day and we got talking about how the Township likes its random traffic lights, most of which were installed for political reasons.

The interesting thing about traffic lights is that when you signalize an intersection, you actually make it more dangerous. Peer-reviewed studies show that a safer form of intersection is actually the roundabout as it can decreases accident risk by 44%. Roundabouts also decrease GHG emissions. So the question is why are we still installing traffic lights left, right, and centre instead of installing roundabouts? In older parts of town where space is limited a signalize intersection makes sense, but installing traffic lights should be the last resort for any other intersection.

So next time someone demands a traffic light be installed, just remember that it will actually make things worse from a human health and safety standpoint.

Urban Futures Survey 2012

I received the following press release that I'd like to share. I've done the survey and invite you to do the same. Apparently not enough people from Langley has responded.

September 24, 2012 -- Vancouver, BC – Langley residents have a new way to make their voices heard on issues such as residential development at Trinity Western University through the 2012 Metro Vancouver Urban Futures Survey, the online version of a historic survey that has been instrumental in shaping the way lower mainland municipalities have managed growth.

This is the third chapter of the survey, which was first conducted in 1973. It helped set Vancouver on its path toward environmental protection, planning, protection of open space and a transit-oriented transportation system.

“The first Urban Futures Survey gave us as decision-makers the confidence to pursue policies that might have otherwise been dismissed as impractical, Utopian or too costly,” said former Vancouver mayor and former BC premier Mike Harcourt.

In 1990, the survey was updated. Once again, concerns over air and water pollution topped the list. Policy makers responded with AirCare, upgrades to wastewater treatment plants, and a doubling of our region’s park land.

To take the survey, Metro Vancouver residents must first verify their home address by registering with PlaceSpeak. The survey takes approximately 22 minutes to complete and can be found at urbanfuturessurvey.com.

Paying lip service to active transportation

With all the issues around active transportation (walking, cycling, transit) funding in Metro Vancouver, I’ve been wondering if our elected officials and their inner-circles actually believe that an active transportation network should be a key part of our transportation system.

I was at a political event two weekends ago and bumped into a road builder. We got into a chat about transportation in Metro Vancouver and he told me that the automobile would always be the dominant form of transportation in our region. I mentioned stats about places like Downtown Vancouver where active transportation is king and was told that Vancouver is different. Vancouver is different because over the last 20 years, it has focused on building an active transportation network with land-uses that complement. Any municipality in Metro Vancouver could do the same.

This brings me to last weekend were I was at another political event. I got talking about bike lanes. The person I was talking to mentioned that she’d never seen anyone on a bike lane in Abbotsford. We got into a chat and in the end both agreed that off-street and separated bike lanes were the solution to attracting more people to cycling, but she didn’t believe that cycling could be a viable form of commuting for most people. I had another chat with a different person about how, in 2010, a senior MOTI planner told me that after the Gateway Program the Ministry would essential be a public transit infrastructure delivery agency. A lot has changed since then as I was told that there were other priority now like replacing the Massey Tunnel.

While those with power to affect our transportation system give lip service to public transit and active transportation, I think that they don't truly believe that it is a viable forms of transportation for the majority of people in our region. Some politicians get it and most planners get it, but in the South of Fraser I feel like the car will be king until we get people in power that understand the link between transportation and land use, and the benefits that comes from building an active transportation network.