Liberals’ announcement mostly wishful thinking

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 19/10/2020 (1431 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

THE old saying “If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride” applies to recent environmental funding announcements through the federal infrastructure bank (Free Press, Oct. 1, Infrastructure bank to invest $10 billion in priority areas for pandemic recovery). A bit of revision is required, however — something more like “If Liberal wish-lists were more than just talk, Canada would lead on environment.”

In moving beyond flashy announcements to actually achieving tangible outcomes, the devil is always in the details.

The program sounds grand: dramatic environmental improvements, long-term green jobs, easy funding achieved via virtually free borrowings, all allowing Canada to miraculously springboard from the COVID-19 morass. Except, of course, it is too good to be true. There is far too much recent history of grand designs not panning out — for example, the WE Charity fiasco or the International Assistance Innovation Program.

Problems in the current case are particularly evident with the significant funding portion intended to enhance implementation and infrastructure for zero-emission bus technologies at public transit systems — $1.5 billion over three years.

Most critically, the severe impacts of COVID-19 are entirely ignored.

A year ago, I authored a national report titled “Moving Forward with Transit Bus Electrification in Canada.” Practical realities, as outlined, expose myriad shortcomings with the announcements. These include: an ill-suited “one-size-fits-all-badly” program; the delivery agency exhibiting an abysmal track record of getting money out the door; an overly ambitious schedule unlikely to be met; and uncertain new application and administration procedures that, based on experience, are likely to be onerous and convoluted.

Transit agencies across Canada, indeed around the world, have been innovators. Winnipeg Transit worked with hydrogen buses in the mid 2000s, and led Canada on battery-electric buses through the 2010s. At the same time, such agencies are conservative in nature. Funded in part by ridership, they rely significantly on public money. They have no deep pockets, instead being run as “tight ships.”

Zero-emission transit is a useful idea, but even total elimination of diesel buses will never create significant national reductions. The new program recognizes that zero-emission technologies remain expensive, requiring support to match total cost of ownership with conventional diesel. Because of our falling currency, costs for alternatives are now even higher, emphasizing the need for assistance.

The new program, however, ignores an intrinsically positive aspect: even using diesel, buses still can achieve net-emission reductions, given a modal shift of people out of single-occupancy vehicles. Analysis suggests roughly equivalent reductions can be achieved either by doubling the size of a fleet of diesel buses or by converting the original smaller fleet to battery-electric. Different approaches have equal validity.

Transit buses are purpose-built, heavy-duty vehicles, owned almost entirely by public entities. Alternative refuelling or recharging infrastructure involves dedicated use, with specialized and unique protocols, translating to negligible ability to cross-share with other light-duty or heavy-duty vehicles. At the federal government announcement, Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna waxed on about expected two-to-three times leveraging via private investments.

As directly evidenced by the experience of Greyhound, the private sector has been vacating the intercity bus space, due to high costs and perilously low margins. Public transit has never been a big moneymaker, and no feasible rationale was outlined how direct private investment in buses or charging/refuelling could make sense. This does not even consider the major issue many could raise regarding private control of critical public services.

The viability of public transit, like the performing arts, hospitality, restaurant and other service industries, depends on attracting crowds. Achieving success, however, is completely incompatible with physical distancing, with transit systems having been crippled. Yet there is nothing in the new program at all to address or even consider COVID-19.

In my report last year, several points were emphasized: the need for smaller but targeted funding of around $100 million; the need for a logical target outcome; the need for a longer program time frame to better match planning cycles; and the need for simplified administration and application processes both to alleviate the burden on agencies, and to ensure fairness across the country.

The current federal government loves to talk about the environment but habitually falls short, and continues to fail. It is true, for example, that average annual national emissions under Justin Trudeau are now factually higher than under Steven Harper, and, more problematically, are on the rise.

Governments need to be judged on what they actually deliver, rather than on vague, empty promises.

Robert Parsons teaches sustainability economics and quantitative methods in the Stu Clark Graduate School at the I.H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba.