Monthly Archives: October 2017

All in Quebec: The clashing of the Bill 62 with the 2018 G7 Summit in Quebec

Leave a reply

The discussion on October 23rd and 24th at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue in downtown Vancouver marked the first consultation of a series with Sherpa Peter Boehm that will help shape Canada’s priorities of the G7 Summit. The G7 Summit in 2018 will be hosted in Canada in Charlevoix, Quebec. Even in a discussion about the economic growth, international trade, innovation, and climate and energy, the Canadian Government’s feminist approach to policymaking seems to have somehow dictated the conversation. 

Participants – consisting of elite policymakers, corporate directors, and public servant veterans – seem to praise Canada’s efforts to promote greater gender equality and empowerment. Pluralism, multiculturalism, tolerance, and inclusiveness are lauded strengths of the nation. However, the conversation that day has seemed to have skimmed over the boiling and highly criticized bill the Quebec National Assembly has recently passed. The controversial law, Bill 62, bans public workers and anyone receiving public services (e.g. taking the bus) from wearing the niqab or any other face covering, in the pursuit of religious neutrality. This ban will invariably be targeting the female Muslim community who are living in Quebec.

This has been a long ongoing debate within Quebec and in Canada, and has split feminists into two main camps. However, the broader question and implication of this legislation is the signal that it will project for the world. What message will the legislature send to the G7 leaders, the media outlets and the global audience groups about the consistency of Canada’s values and philosophies about feminism?

As the G7 Summit will be taking place in Quebec, it will be particularly interesting to see how the ban will or will not impact Canada’s branding and leadership as a progressive, pro-feminism nation.

The Poor Graduates: Vancouver’s Housing Challenges and the Fleeing Millennials

Leave a reply

As Vancouver creeps onto CNN’s list of “The top 10 most expensive housing markets” in third place, just under Hong Kong and Sydney, the municipal government and policymakers will need to effectively and promptly address affordability-related concerns. On top of the brewing policy challenges in areas such as transportation, urban poverty, and economic development, the City of Vancouver has been unsuccessful to address the housing unaffordability issue in Vancouver.

The Vancouver byelection yesterday is revealing the growing frustration of Vancouverites. Following the byelection results, Mayor Gregor Robertson issued the following statement:

“Tonight’s results are not what our team hoped for. We knew this by-election would be difficult. Our city faces real challenges. Vancouverites are frustrated—particularly around housing affordability—and they expect more from us. We’re working hard to deliver solutions, but tonight’s results show us there’s much more work to do. I heard that message loud and clear, and our party heard that message loud and clear.”

Vancouver seems to have a specific problem where much of its real estate is being bought by foreign buyers. Although most of these investors are mostly buying luxury housing, it has the effect of raising housing prices across the market and geographically across the city. An important consequence to consider around Vancouver’s housing challenge is its impact on migration, in particular, millennials who are driven out of the city by the unaffordable housing market. The high cost of living exacerbated by the high cost of rent or house ownership adds to the existing challenge of millennials or recent graduates facing the unwelcoming job market and paying off student debts.

If Vancouver desires to become a “home for global business” or Silicon Valley North tech and innovation hub, then it will need to be able to keep and attract both local and foreign talents (especially given it is the home to a world-class university and two of Canada’s best MBA schools), and not just a place for the wealthy and the retired.

What can Vancouver do to address one of the most intractable policy challenges it is facing to attract and retain local talents? 

Targeted subsidies is an approach to housing affordability the city could consider to address the problem of housing unaffordability that is causing millennials to leave Vancouver. For example, the government of Hong Kong has rolled out a Starter Homes scheme to give higher discounts to first-time homebuyers. Another way to provide subsidy is through social or public housing. In Singapore for example,  80% of the population live in flats built by the Housing and Development Board. Although social housing is offered by the Province of BC, there is a shortage of supply in government-assisted public housing. The program focuses on addressing homelessness, providing support for women in need, seniors and indigenous people, but does not provide focused support for young adults or recent graduates transitioning into adult roles (and who are also facing financial stress from paying back their student loans). The City of Vancouver does not have a housing board or authority, and BC Housing faces a supply shortage for affordable housing (in 2016/2017, the Province announced its commitment to creating only 2000 more new affordable housing units, which will not be sufficient to meet the demands of Vancouver alone, let alone the entire province). For public housing to be more effective, the supply of affordable housing needs to increase.

 

To drive or not to drive: A Counter-intuitive Approach to Reducing SOV Driving to Campus

Leave a reply

Source: Martin De (UBC Medical Alumni Association)

The Problem

Simply reducing the number of commuter parking spaces (as indicated on point D.2.1.5 of the UBC Transportation Plan) will not decrease the number drivers to school. In order to address the challenge of reducing Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) drivers, regulation on parking passes and effective, accessible and flexible transportation alternative options are needed.

The UBC Transportation Plan recognizes the importance of “promoting sustainable transportation options for the university community”, yet creating barriers without viable alternatives is not sufficient to discourage drivers from continuing that mode of transportation.

Why People drive to school

I drive to school. Although I am aware of the environmental impact of driving – the carbon footprint, the traffic congestions, the space I am taking up, I feel guilty about my mode of transportation, and I have to pay additional expenses for parking – I continue to make the conscious decision to drive to school. Why?

The three main reasons for my decision are reliability, punctuality, and convenience.

Where I live, it is not easy for me to get to transit. After a 10 minute walk, I have to meticulously time my travel so that I won’t miss the bus that comes every 30 minutes (and that may or may not arrive on time), which will then take me to the Bridgeport Skytrain station, where I would get off at Cambie station to take another bus to get to school. There are multiple loops I would have to jump through if I were to take the transit. And I know I am not alone – I am just lucky and have the luxury to have the choice to drive.

An unfortunate reality that many commuters have to grapple with daily is the unreliability and inefficient public transportation system, juxtaposed with the rapidly increasing population, and so, many – when given the option – would continue to embrace the habitual convenience of driving instead of shifting to alternative modes of transportation.

A Counterintuitive approach

According to the Transportation Plan, campus parking availability and pricing is one of the biggest influences on parking demand. And it is ineffective.

For evidence of this, one needs to look no further than to visit a UBC parkade after 11:30am. Ask anyone who drives to school (either via SOV or use the Car2Go or Evo services) and they will tell you the most of the parking lots are practically full by then.

UBC Parking’s vision to provide “personalized parking options” mean that permit customers could choose to purchase hourly, daily, monthly or yearly parking permits. These parking passes give unlimited access to the parkade(s) of choice, for any time and at any duration. However, this is creating a situation where parking spaces are scarce at peak hours. This leaves some cars that have parking permits without a place to park and would have to idle around until they can find a spot.

This strategy is not meeting its goal to control, regulate and reduce the SOV travel to and from campus through price regulation. In fact, it has worsened the parking situation and has been insufficiently in addressing the root causes of traffic and parking congestion.

A way to regulate the parking supply is simply to sell less parking passes to control and discourage the driving commuters. This is a quick and short-term approach to addressing the issue of transportation and traffic congestion.

However, for a longer-term and more sustainable approach, the plan would also need to target SOV drivers who are not looking for an alternative method of commute, in other words, people who will not compromise and may not be consciously or subconsciously thinking about the environmental impact they are creating:

  • People who live far away from UBC (e.g. Richmond, Surrey, North Vancouver, West Vancouver)
  • People who would rather choose to drive than to risk being disappointed by the unreliable transit system
  • People who live in areas that are difficult to access the transit system

This is a somewhat counterintuitive approach, but if the plan could target the groups of people who are not already thinking about their environmental impact and choose to drive because it is more convenient and reliable than taking the transit, then it can gain to better understand the needs and motivation for people’s decision-making processes to provide better and more targeted alternatives and framework that would guide people’s behavior.

For example, to target the group of people who live far away from campus, providing affordable housing that is on or near campus would encourage students to live closer to campus and opt for alternative methods of transportation (e.g. car sharing, bike sharing, public transit). These sharing services should also be affordable (possibly partially subsidized by the school) to further promote this model of a sharing economy.

To target the group of people who would rather drive than risk not being on time or wasting time, time becomes a main factor for the decision-making process. Therefore, making the public transit system reliable, punctual and more accessible and integrated into the city, where it becomes very convenient to opt for this option, and combined with the incentive of the cost-effective U-Pass plan would encourage more students to use this option.

Finally, to target people who live in areas with difficult accessibility to public transit, creating a single simple mobile app that integrates the different sharing services and combines routing, scheduling, and payment for all those services would make it easier for the students to choose this method instead of using SOV.

Conclusion

A people-centered approach is needed to address one of the root challenges of transportation and traffic congestion. A plan that relies solely on adding barriers (making it more difficult) to the choice to drive does not sufficiently address the challenges in a long-term and sustainable way. It does not fix the root causes of the problem: the need for UBC to work in parallel with the City of Vancouver and other stakeholders and players to build a transportation system that is punctual, reliable, safe and cost-effective. To do this, planners may consider consulting and learning lessons on transportation challenges from other cities.