Last week a global oil emergency was declared and the response rolled out, but almost nobody noticed. The International Energy Agency (IEA) started tapping into member state’s emergency oil reserves, something that has only happened twice before. While the crisis in Libya has removed only a tiny percentage of world oil supply from the market, about 1.5 million barrels a day, IEA member countries agreed to release 2 million barrels of oil per day from their emergency stocks over the next 30 days.
 
So what was the emergency? According to the IEA media release, “the ongoing disruption of oil supplies from Libya . . . threatens to undermine the fragile global economic recovery.”
 
The “economic recovery” the IEA talks about implies the return to ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which was only briefly interrupted in 2009 by the global economic disruption following the 2007-2008 oil price spike. What they want to recover is the economic growth that has pushed greenhouse gas emissions to record levels in 2010, setting our planet on track for two real emergencies – run away global warming and economic chaos when the next major oil supply disruption happens.
 
According to a recent IEA report, energy-related carbon emissions in 2010 were 5 percent higher than the previous record set in 2008. Fatih Birol, IEA chief economist, was widely quoted ringing the alarm bells about how this means we are on the brink of exceeding 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels – the point at which many scientists believe global warming would spiral out of our control to absolutely catastrophic levels. “Our latest estimates are another wake-up call,” said Birol. “The world has edged incredibly close to the level of emissions that should not be reached until 2020 if the 2ºC target is to be attained.”
 
We need to learn to burn much less oil sooner or later, so why not take ‘bold and decisive’ action this summer? If the IEA, which represents the wealthiest countries including Canada, was serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vulnerability to oil price spikes they have a number of options. The most obvious is to blow the dust of their 2005 report Saving Oil in a Hurry which asserts that “In the case of a moderate reduction in oil supplies, a reduction in IEA transport fuel demand of even a few percent could have a substantial dampening effect on surging world oil prices.”
 
The transport sector accounts for over half of oil use in IEA countries and is expected to account for nearly all future increases in oil use. Increases in oil consumption now must come from destructive unconventional sources such as the Canadian tar sands.
 
More and more countries are admitting that major changes in transportation policy are needed to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. More and more experts are also warning that the peaking of conventional oil supplies will likely lead to a destructive roller coaster of price spikes and economic downturns. Saving Oil in a Hurry lays out measures to rapidly reduce oil demand in ways that could translate into a long-term positive response to both of these daunting challenges.
 
Some of the changes suggested are what was recently tested during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. For example, rush hour bus-only lanes were converted to 24 hour operation on many main streets including Broadway. Lower or free transit fares are also suggested in Saving Oil in a Hurry; during the Olympics many buses operated without fare boxes – offering free transit on a random basis. Increased transit service is also part of Saving Oil in a Hurry the report advocates increasing off-peak transit service including weekends and evenings to capture recreational travel and keeping older buses in service longer to increase peak service as new buses come into service – as was done during the Olympics. All of these measures have been reversed since the Olympics but transit ridership is still significantly higher than before.
 
Other measures suggested in Saving Oil in a Hurry include lowering highway speed limits to 90 km/h, introducing aggressive driving efficiency education campaigns, and converting existing general purpose lanes to high occupancy vehicle lanes.
 
All of these measures could lead into the larger changes needed over the medium and long term. But our governments and international agencies seem determined to waste this perfectly good emergency and make us more vulnerable to the next oil price spike – which could be a big one if Saudi Arabian oil extraction is disrupted.
 
What is really needed to deal with the twin crises of peak oil and global warming is a major transformation of transportation and economic policy. Ensuring that more and more oil and other resources are consumed every year is no longer a sane policy. Either one of these challenges justifies action on the scale of the mobilization for World War II, which saw civilian automobile manufacturing plants converted to military production almost overnight.
 
Transportation Transformation: Building complete communities and a zero-emission transportation system in BC, a recent report I co-authored, proposes taking many of the measures in Saving Oil in a Hurry much further. We envision transit lanes painted on almost every major arterial in BC, lower transit fares, and electricity replacing oil as the fuel for public transit. We also propose rapidly creating more complete communities with much better cycling and pedestrian facilities to reduce the need to travel by car or transit for everyday tasks such as grocery shopping. Longer distance freight and passenger service would be provided by electric trains.
 
We need a declaration of emergency to mobilize the resources needed for the transformation. One opportunity has been squandered, but the next and likely more dramatic oil price shock could be right around the corner. Our governments and institutions seem set to squander the next opportunity for change as well, unless they feel real pressure to face up to reality. You can get involved in creating the Transportation Transformation we need, start by signing up for action updates at www.StopThePave.org.

Shifting spending from freeways to transit will not only reduce BC’s greenhouse gas emissions, but lead to healthier, safer communities for all British Columbians. This is the conclusion of a new study which I co-authored with Patrick Condon, Kari Dow, Marc Lee and Gordon Price.

Transportation Transformation: Building Complete Communities and a Zero-Emission Transportation System in BC, co-published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Wilderness Committee, sets out key strategies for urban, suburban and rural areas that will improve transportation and quality of life at the same time.

“Instead of allocating billions of precious tax dollars on wider roads and bigger bridges, like we’re doing now, we need to build a province-wide zero-carbon public transportation system,” says co-author Patrick Condon, UBC chair in Landscape and Livable Environments and a leading figure in sustainable design.

The study proposes an annual investment of $2 billion over the next ten years, much of it re-allocated from roadway expansion, with the goal of creating a zero-emission transportation system by 2040. As we point out, “Spending public funds on highway expansion and low carbon transportation is analogous to applying a car’s accelerator and brake at the same time.” The likely result, whether for a car or society, is a breakdown.

In our report, we argue that investments in electric public transit need to lead land use changes to create complete communities. Changes in transportation systems can be made quickly, while land use changes often take longer and are largely determined by transportation spending decisions. You can’t create true transit oriented development without good transit service.

To get to zero emissions, the study envisions a province of “complete communities” – in which residents do not have to travel far to meet their day-to-day needs. Instead, they would be able to walk, bike or use electric public transit for most trips, and use shared electric vehicles. Complete communities have a mix of housing types (including affordable options), decent jobs, public services, parks and other public spaces, and commercial districts with restaurants, offices and retail outlets. The exact mix of transportation modes will depend on whether a community is urban, suburban or rural.

Economist Marc Lee, a co-author of the study, points out that transportation of people and goods accounts for about 40 per cent of BC’s greenhouse gas emissions. He proposes that transforming transportation is the logical next step in BC’s climate action agenda.

“If we think of the carbon tax as the stick, then a new transportation system is the carrot,” says Lee. “Many British Columbians who live in suburban and rural areas resent paying the carbon tax, and with good reason: they’ve been penalized for driving, but they aren’t provided with any alternatives. And that’s what we’re laying out here: an effective, doable alternative.”

Ben West, the Wilderness Committee’s lead climate campaigner, is not waiting long to translate this new report into action. He is helping a youth group to organize an Earth Day Parade, concert and info fair this Friday, April 22 – a central message of this event is the need to shift transportation spending from roads to transit. The Earth Day Parade starts at 11am at the Broadway and Commercial SkyTrain station.

Other groups are not waiting either. Lower Mainland Council of Canadians chapters have teamed up with StopThePave.org for an Earth Day Mass Direct Action to stop freeway expansion and shift funding to transit. The action starts at 2pm at the Annieville Supermarket in North Delta, 10996 River Road, Delta. People can go to both events: at the end of the Earth Day Parade a group bicycle ride will leave for the Delta action. People who want to stay at the concert and info fair longer can take free buses directly to the action, starting at about 2pm. More details can be found at StopThePave.org.

This is one report that is not gathering any dust. In the Lower Mainland, the Transportation Transformation starts this Friday.

So get out there and take part if you can – it’s the perfect way to celebrate Earth Day.

The full report is available from www.policyalternatives.ca/transportationtransformation. A slide show based on the report will be available at the same web page soon.

With the price of oil soaring in recent weeks, politicians around the world are scrambling to react. The price of the benchmark 'Brent' crude oil has increased by almost 90% in just 12 months, to around $115 a barrel. Now some speculators are betting that the price is headed towards $200 a barrel, which would spell global economic chaos.

In Spain, the government has already moved to reduce the highway speed limit and lower train fares to save fuel. In the UK, the Conservative coalition government was proposing to increase the speed limit but is now suddenly reversing course and looking to take sudden action to cut oil consumption. According to the Observer, UK energy secretary, Chris Huhne, says they don't have much choice. "Getting off the oil hook is made all the more urgent by the crisis in the Middle East. We cannot afford to go on relying on such a volatile source of energy." The problem for the UK government is that they were counting on cheap oil, and made no preparation for anything else.

The fact is that our governments were warned about the potential for a destructive cycle of oil price spikes and economic crashes years ago. For example in the wake of the 2004 oil price spike, the US Department of Energy's 'Hirsch Report' warned of exactly this likelihood. Hirsch recommended an immediate crash program to reduce US dependence on oil, noting that even 20 years would be a tight time frame to make the necessary changes.

In 2005, the International Energy Agency published Saving Oil in a Hurry which focused on emergency measures that could be taken to rapidly reduce transportation oil consumption with some advance preparation. Recommended measures include having plans to quickly create networks of bus and cycling lanes. But it seems that most governments are not prepared, and are now flailing about instead of implementing plans.

In BC, governments are still acting as if oil was going to be cheap and plentiful forever. Instead of taking logical steps to reduce oil dependency and protect families from oil price shocks, the Campbell administration has spent more and more on road and freeway expansions. For example, according to Transport Canada, in 2008/2009 the BC provincial government spent over $2.2 billion on roads and Bridges, up from $1.2 billion in 2001/2002. Much of this was spent on roadway expansions. In contrast, the provincial government reported spending only $660 million on transit and nothing on BC railways.

Some of these roadway expansion projects, such as the Golden Ears and Port Mann freeway bridges, are supposed to be paid for by tolls. But even before the most recent oil price spike, traffic and toll revenue was far below what is needed to break even on the Golden Ears Bridge so TransLink funds have been diverted from transit to pay for a mostly empty freeway bridge. The new Port Mann Bridge and freeway expansion represents $3.1 billion dollars that could have been invested in transportation for the future such as electric trains, light rail and trolley buses.

The Port Authority recently restarted plans to build another container terminal on the environmentally sensitive Roberts Bank in Delta, on the assumption that international trade will increase drastically in the coming decades. Our ports have a large amount of excess capacity after Port Metro Vancouver recently increased capacity at Deltaport by 50 percent and a new container port was opened in Prince Rupert. The director of SFU's urban studies program, Anthony Perl, maintains that with increasing oil prices long-distance trade will decline in the future rather than increase.

It is time to admit that the age of cheap and easily accessible oil is over. The remaining oil and petroleum gas is largely 'unconventional' supplies such as the tar sands. The cost of production of these sources is high, but the environmental and social costs are even greater concerns. For example, much of the gasoline and diesel we burn in BC is now produced from tar sands bitumen - a process that uses huge amounts of petroleum gas. Much of the gas burned in the tar sands comes from BC and is extracted by hydraulic fracturing or 'fracking' which result in widespread water contamination.

The problem is not only that our politicians are not prepared to make the changes needed to overcome our excessive oil dependence. It is also that as soon as the oil price roller coaster heads down hill again, they will once again try to convince themselves that nothing significant has changed.

Like with global warming, our leaders are mainly not prepared to lead. Ordinary people are going to have to propose real solutions and oppose the most destructive megaprojects our politicians dream up - such as the North and South Fraser Perimeter Road freeways.

Recently I went to the first TransLink open house on their proposal to spend $150 to $175 million dollars on a freeway overpass in New Westminster. The intention is that this overpass will become part of the North Fraser Perimeter Road (NFPR) freeway through New Westminster, which is part of the Gateway freeway megaproject.

The C3 bus to the open house was eleven minutes late, which is apparently typical for this route. I was told by one C3 rider that it is impossible for the drivers to keep on schedule and they even have to skip parts of the route to save time.

This example of poor transit service is one of the results of TransLink not having a clear mandate to increase transit ridership, and reduce automobile dependency. Instead, when TransLink was created by the NDP provincial government in 1998 it was given the mandate to balance roads and transit investments, not a clear directive to put transit first.

The TransLink staff at the open house were at a loss to explain what this project is meant to achieve. It seems like this project is being driven by Gordon Campbell's TransLink board, and has little support from TransLink staff. After a while I had to ask who I could talk to who really thought that the project was a good idea. Then I got the spin that the NFPR freeway is about moving trucks. When I asked about what the same amount of money would achieve if invested in short sea shipping (which is like transit for goods movement with one tug and barge carrying as many containers as 100 trucks), the story was that it might be a good idea but it is not TransLink's job to find efficient ways of moving goods.

Thanks to the organizing efforts of New West Environmental Partners and others, hundreds of New Westminster residents flooded TransLink's open house, along with a few like me from around the region. People's dissatisfaction with the idea of our transit agency bulldozing homes for a freeway was very strong. The 'open house' format with very limited opportunity for members of the public to speak out also attracted a lot of criticism, and before the evening was over TransLink staff announced that a town hall-style meeting would be held in New Westminster. That meeting, which they promised would include a chance for members of the public to speak to the whole audience, is now scheduled for Tuesday December 7, 2010 - 6 to 8:30 p.m. at the Justice Institute of British Columbia, at 715 McBride Boulevard New Westminster. (If you plan to get there on the C3 bus allow extra time - it will probably be late.)

TransLink's road building division may have missed the irony, but Tuesday December 7 is the Global Day of Action for Climate Justice, timed to coincide with the UN talks on global warming in Cancun, Mexico. This day of action is an initiative of Via Campesina, the global organization of small family farm owners and farm workers, who have called for creating '1000 Cancuns' around the globe to support the Mexican farmers who will be in Cancun calling for real action on global warming. On the same evening the first Metro Vancouver People's Assembly on Climate Justice will be held at SFU Harbour Centre, with the aim of building a broad Climate Justice movement in the Lower Mainland.

Considering that the official Cancun negotiations are expected to be a fiasco, perhaps it is fitting that TransLink's road builders have chosen this day to promote the Gateway freeway fiasco. The Gateway freeways are one of the greatest threats to farmland in the Lower Mainland, and roadway expansion is one of the main drivers of increasing greenhouse gas emissions in BC and globally. While governments talk about cutting carbon emissions and confronting the climate crisis, the reality is that they are spending our money to increase emissions and the consumption of Alberta Tar Sands oil.

TransLink was never given the mandate needed to turn around our transportation system to deal with the twin challenges of global warming and peak oil. Instead, it was intended to improve the delivery of the same old 'balanced transportation' model that has been common since the freeway revolts of the early 1970s made freeway building controversial. 'Balanced transportation' usually means expanding roadways and promising to improve transit at the same time, and is often used to greenwash urban freeway building. For example, in 2008 former BC Transportation Minister Falcon justified the Gateway freeway expansion megaproject by claiming "transit alone is not the solution... ensuring that we have a balanced approach to improving transportation infrastructure will take us into the future in a manner that is environmentally and economically sustainable."¹

The fact is that building transit and freeways at the same time increases overall travel by automobile; and greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption increase along with automobile travel.

Continuing with the 'balanced transportation' approach of the last four decades is not any kind of solution. TransLink needs a clear mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil dependence by focusing on transit improvements.

If you can't make it out to TransLink's meeting on Tuesday, they have a feedback form where you can let them know that you want better transit not freeways. If you live in New Westminster, contacting City Council is the best way to stop the NFPR freeway - they can veto the whole project.

1 www.gov.bc.ca/fortherecord/investments/tran_oe_gateway_june_4_final.pdf

The US-based Transportation Equity Network (TEN) recently released a common sense proposal for creating jobs in the report More Transit = More Jobs. They look at what would happen if about half of the US urban freeway budget was invested in public transit. Their answer is more jobs for the same money.

TEN emphasizes that public transit investment creates more jobs per dollar than urban freeways and other roads. But they also propose focusing more on immediate improvements to transit service rather than resource intensive capital investments such as subway construction as a way of boosting job creation: "Transit operations generate more jobs per dollar spent than transit capital spending because transit operations are more labor-intensive and do not involve significant non-labor inputs, such as land acquisition or materials." This is a very important consideration here in BC, where operating funds are so tight that Translink had to tie up one of our three Sea Buses.

The TEN study analyzed 20 US metropolitan areas and concluded that shifting half of their highway funds to transit would result in a net gain of 180, 000 jobs over five years - with no new spending. TEN allies focus on the benefits of transit service, rather than just the jobs, in promoting the plan to shift money away from urban freeways.

More jobs and improved transit for the same money sounds good, but there are other much more important reasons to shift spending from roads to transit. In Canada, transportation is the largest and fastest growing source of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Unemployment may be a serious problem, but the climate crisis threatens the very future of human society. As the old bumper sticker puts it there are 'No Jobs on a Dead Planet'. Perhaps it should be updated to 'No Jobs on a Cooked Planet'.

The end of cheap oil is also a compelling reason to shift resources from freeways to transit. The present economic crisis and resulting unemployment was partly triggered by the sharp peak in oil prices in 2007 - 2008. But this could just be the start of an oil price roller coaster as oil supplies peak and go into decline. In the near future, oil dependence could well be a recipe for economic ruin.

Perhaps the biggest fault with the TEN study is that you could read it and think that unemployment is the biggest threat to society, and that peak oil and global warming are just additional reasons to support a smart job creation strategy. The fact is that we will make big changes, or circumstance will impose much harsher choices on us.

Given the end of cheap oil and climate crisis, it is time for an end to urban roadway expansion. Most of the existing roadway infrastructure should be kept and maintained well, but the public money now spent on roadway expansions must be reallocated to transit.

If you agree that public funds should be shifted from urban freeways to transit, please consider attending the 10/10/10 Dig in for Climate Justice on Sunday October 10, 2010.

About 15 years ago one of the hot topics in the Vancouver papers was the plan for an at-grade light rail line from Coquitlam to UBC that would have taken up two lanes on Broadway and the Lougheed Highway. The plan was that rapid transit would connect Coquitlam and central Broadway within a few years. Shortly thereafter, the provincial government suddenly switched to a much more expensive - and never completed - SkyTrain line: today’s Millennium Line. Both Coquitlam and UBC are still waiting for rapid transit, and they may wait for decades, given the estimated $4.2 billion needed to connect both with SkyTrain on elevated guideways and subway tunnels.

The long-promised Evergreen Line SkyTrain branch to Coquitlam and the Northeast Sector is estimated at $1.4-billion but only $800 million has been committed by senior governments, leaving a $600 million gap. Translink is so strapped for cash that it was forced to mothball one of its three Sea Buses to reduce operating costs. The $2.8 billion estimated cost of extending the Millennium line to UBC is so daunting that it makes this funding gap insignificant.

In New York, the squeeze on the transit system is more intense. As transit ridership is growing rapidly, the aging subway system needs billions in upgrades, and even a modest extension to one line would cost billions they don’t have. But instead of crying about the expense of new subways, New York is putting rapid transit on the street with Bus Rapid Transit.

Bus Rapid Transit is a simple concept – you give buses a dramatic makeover that makes the rider experience much like rapid transit on rails but with a much lower capital cost. The main elements are dedicated lanes with enforcement to keep cars out, signal priority so buses seldom have to stop at traffic lights, and all-door boarding to reduce the time spent at stops. In Europe, many transit agencies no longer differentiate between Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail lines. Bus Rapid transit is typically a bit faster than light rail, and has about the same maximum capacity. It can also greatly reduce operating costs as faster and larger buses carry more passengers per hour.

The first full-featured Bus Rapid Transit lines were built in Curitiba, Brazil in the late 1970s, along rights of ways previously designated for freeways. But there are now hundreds of BRT lines around the world, including dozens in Europe and China. Los Angeles was an early adopter in North America with the Orange Line BRT. Ottawa also started a BRT line, but never completed the essential section into downtown because of reluctance to re-allocate street space to transit.

Now New York is now leading the way in North America. The city is creating bus lanes on city streets for what they call Select Bus Service (SBS). The Bx12 line is the prime example, with the whole lane painted red to make it crystal clear that cars are not welcome. In June, the New York State Assembly passed a bill authorizing the transit agency to install digital video cameras on the front of BRT buses to photograph and ticket vehicles that intrude into bus lanes. Soon, every SBS bus driver will be able to document anything that gets in their lane, a powerful incentive for drivers to stay out of transit lanes.

The next step for New York is the 34^th Avenue Transitway, with physically separated bus lanes, scheduled to open in 2012. But this line is not designed to be particularly rapid; it will stop far more frequently than a typical rail rapid transit line.

This is where Metro Vancouver could easily outdo New York. Our transit system is renowned for the B-line express buses that run on the same streets as local buses, but only stop every kilometre or so. ‘Rapid transit’ can only be rapid if it has widely spaced stops. Vancouver also has one of the largest fleets of electric trolley buses in the world, so upgrading to electric BRT would be easy and cost effective – we already have the trained technicians and maintenance equipment. On Hastings Street in Vancouver there is already a double set of wires in place, ready for express trolley buses.

Translink’s 2006 cost estimate for high end Bus Rapid Transit on the Evergreen Line route was $384 million, less than a third of the cost of SkyTrain technology and less then half of the $800 million senior governments have already put on the table. SkyTrain would be perhaps five minutes faster, but could leave riders waiting for another 15 years or longer to get the financing in place.

The same applies to all the rapid transit proposals around the province. The Broadway-UBC line in Vancouver, King George line in Surrey, and the Victoria to West Shore Line are all stalled for lack of funding. With electric Bus Rapid Transit, all of these lines could be operating within two years for a very reasonable cost. The provincial government plans to spend more money on one dubious urban freeway project than it would cost to build all these BRT lines. Cancelling the controversial South Fraser Perimeter Road freeway through Surrey and Delta would save about $2 billion. The rationale for the SFPR truck freeway - growing container imports from China - disappeared when container volumes dropped 19% in 2009.

What are we waiting for?