For the last several decades, the fuel consumption requirements imposed on vehicle manufacturers in Canada were the same as those applied in the US.  The premise of the Conservatives and Liberals alike has always been that Canada has no choice but to emulate the US, because Canada is part of an integrated North American market.

That line of thinking is half right. Canada is part of an integrated North American market but to date, vehicle manufacturers have gotten off easier in Canada than in the US and Canada does have option of more stringent stipulations within the North American framework.

Understanding CAFE

To put the above considerations in context, thus far, what has been the same in Canada as in the US are the obligations that each vehicle manufacturer must comply with corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards – standards which each year incrementally decrease the required average fuel consumption of vehicles sold.

These CAFE standards are sales-weighted, which is to say, that a CAFE year-specific goal represents the mandatory minimum average fuel consumption for all vehicles sold by a given manufacturer, in a given country, in a given year.  Thus, the greater the proportion of sales associated with high-energy-consuming models, the worse will be a manufacturer’s CAFE and the more difficult it will be for the manufacturer in question to comply with the CAFE standard for that year.

At least, this is the way things stand prior to 2016.

Loopholes open up for car makers

The new US CAFE legislation, which comes into effect for the 2016 to 2025 period, is written in a way that allows a corporate compliance target to be a moving target.  That is, should the manufacturer sell a “higher than expected” number of larger (higher fuel consumption) vehicles, that manufacturer would be have the “privilege” of having a higher than desired average fuel consumption compliance target.

Unfortunately, Canada has adopted the above-described new US CAFE formula, while continuing to leave more wiggle room for manufacturers under the Canadian CAFE rules than under its US counterpart.  As a result, the Canadian approach risks encouraging the dumping/marketing of the larger vehicles on the Canadian market.

By contrast, there are options for Canada to have more stringent requirements than the US, without any of the constraints associated with the integrated North American market, and  remaining consistent with the actions of 8 US states.

Canadian fuel efficiency hugely exaggerated

The fuel consumption figures used to determine a manufacturer’s compliance or non-compliance with CAFE targets are not the same in the US and Canada.  The Canadian numbers highly exaggerate what one can expect on the road, while the US numbers are not far off from what the consumer can expect under SUMMER driving conditions.

In the US, the formula for churning out the numbers is based on a combination of test results that are subject to mathematical calibrations to reflect the on the road experiences of consumers.

Furthermore, in the US, though the manufacturers are responsible for doing the testing, to keep them honest, the US Environmental Protection Agency randomly tests about 15% of the models.  This aspect of the US system seems to work quite well.

However, in Canada, the manufacturers do their own testing and their data is not verified by the Government of Canada.  This is how we end up with vehicles rated as having exceptionally better fuel economy in Canada than the very same models in the US.

The implications are: 1) the calculation of a manufacturer’s year-specific Canadian CAFE is not reliable; 2) it is easier for a manufacturer to comply with a Canadian CAFE target for the year in question than it is to comply with the identical US CAFE target for the same year; and 3) Canadian consumers are mislead as to the fuel consumption to be expected for the models on our market.

With regard to the latter point, knowing that the fuel consumption ratings claimed by the manufacturers via their advertising are not credible, Canadian consumers are discouraged from taking into account fuel consumption ratings when making a selection for a vehicle.

New US CAFE rules too complicated, weak

The US CAFE stipulations that apply to the 2016 to 2025 period, as negotiated by the Obama administration with automakers in 2010, are represented by a 1500-page agreement and new legislation that is 300 pages long.

As indicated earlier, Canada has followed down the same path as the US.  This is a pity because the US path for 2016 to 2025 is a departure from the greenhouse gas reduction principles of previous CAFE legislative models, leaving the automakers with more flexibility than ever before – which undermines the spirit of GHG reduction goals.

It has been surmised that the reason why President Obama was so accommodating to the industry was because in 2010, US-based vehicle manufacturers had just survived a near-death experience and needed breathing room for their respective recoveries.

In theory, nevertheless, the US had adopted laudable targets, with the 2016 CAFEs set at 6.2 litres/100km for cars, and 8.2 litres/100km for trucks – and the 2025 CAFE target for cars at 4.3 litres/100km.  Pretty impressive, one might say.  But the devil is in the details of the 1500 page agreement and 300 page legislation.

Fast and loose

Under the new 2016 to 2025 US CAFE formula, distinct fuel economy targets are established for each category of vehicle.  These categories are defined in terms of footprints, as measured by multiplying the distance between the front and rear wheels (the wheelbase) by the distance between the right and left wheels (the track).

Where the new US CAFE rules depart from the spirit of the original CAFE goals is the fact that the mandatory CAFE for a given manufacturer becomes more lenient should a manufacturer sell a greater proportion of vehicles in the larger footprint, or the high energy consumption footprint categories.

Put another way, the US government “…will establish a distinct target for every automaker that is based on its footprint categories and sales.”

This means that these are not hard, defined targets at all, rather “… projections because, unlike today, when every manufacturer’s car and truck fleet must meet the same mandated corporate-wide sales-weighted fuel consumption average, the future requirements will be instead based on the size of each vehicle in a manufacturer’s fleet… calculated by averaging the footprint-based CAFE targets of each and every vehicle it sells in a given model year,” and adjusting  “the miles-per-gallon targets to match the industry’s real-world production tallies and market conditions at the end of the year.”

The result is that the CAFE goal becomes a moving target to suit the whims of auto manufacturers. Moreover, for legislation to be effective, it must be clear, reasonably succinct and minimize caveats.

As if all these “willful loopholes” are not enough to be dismayed with Obama agreement, even the US “virtual manufacturer-wide CAFE targets” are not that ambitious when compared with those of the European Union.  In the EU, the average emissions/vehicle is set at 95 grams for 2020 while the US target for 2025 works out to be 93 grams.

Time for a shift

Canada has the option adopt more stringent CAFE targets than those of the US.  Manufacturers would simply need to adjust the distribution of models made available on the Canadian market.

Since manufacturers have always had differences between the selection of models offered on the US and Canadian markets, a more stringent Canadian CAFE would merely accentuate the differences, without imposing any technological constraints on the auto industry.  As such, a more demanding Canadian CAFE would not create any undue challenges pertaining to the North American integrated market.

Moreover, Canada could join California and 7 other US states in requiring that a certain percentage of sales be zero emission vehicles and low carbon (hybrid) models, beginning in 2018.  The required percentage would incrementally rise through to 2025.

The seven other states are Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

A Made-in-Canada model

Taken together, the above information suggests it is time for a Made-in-Canada solution – which could include the following components

Back to Simpler CAFE, without Loopholes

First, and perhaps most important, a Made-in-Canada solution need not be as complicated as the US departure from the original company-wide CAFE concept – one which allows the auto industry to stray from overall manufacturer-wide CAFE targets whereby the targets are adjusted to fit with vehicles sales, rather than the other way around.  This allowance for a higher aggregate fuel consumption is, in reality, a license for manufacturers to promote higher profit models with the help of advertising images of SUVs climbing over rocks and speeding along narrow winding roads at the edge of cliffs.

A far superior model would be that of straightforward Canadian CAFE targets pertaining to the average fuel consumption for all vehicles sold by each manufacturer, for each year – without there being any footprint categories.

By taking this path, the Government of Canada would have the necessary assurance that its goals would be met.

Providing reliable information to consumers

Second, to address the built-in leniency of the current CAFE approach, new fuel economy testing methods and calculations could be introduced to be similar to the US Environmental Protection Agency’s methodology – with a number of significant differences.  To this effect, it would make sense that a Canadian testing procedure include WINTER DRIVING conditions with snow tires on and that the test results be properly calibrated to reflect on-the-road experiences.

Also borrowing a page from the US, the Government of Canada would be wise to randomly test around 15% of the models put on the Canadian market.  In addition, the selection of vehicles for government testing could include models for which there have been a significant number of complaints or which have been identified as problematic for other reasons.

By taking this approach, Canada would have reliable data for calculating the CAFE of each manufacturer and consumers would have reliable information for comparing vehicles on the market, thus encouraging them to take fuel consumption ratings more seriously when purchasing a vehicle.

Joining leading US states on zero and low-emission vehicle goals

Finally, by adopting legislation similar to that of California and 7 other states – regarding the percentages of sales that must be zero emission vehicles and low carbon vehicles beginning in 2018 and increasing through to 2025 – Canada could surpass typical US CAFE standards without running into market integration problems

For those who might suggest that Canada cannot do this because it is part of the integrated North American market, one could remind them that California has roughly the same population as that of Canada and all 8 US states taking part in “enhanced low/zero emissions targets” are part of the North American market.  Indeed, should Canada participate in the “enhanced approach”, it would be helping automakers improve their economies of scale for meeting the requirements of the jurisdictions in question.

To sum up, Canada not only has considerable scope for having more stringent vehicle fuel consumption legislation and targets than those of the US, it can pursue such a strategy without creating havoc to the North American market. There is nothing stopping Canada from shifting to a better system.

I am a lifetime contrarian. Whatever I’m supposed to do, I rebel against. I have not changed much in my dotage.

But I’m going to vote “Yes” in the Transit Plebiscite, notwithstanding the fact that I have grave concerns about the Translink and the city councils offering their ideas about how to spend the money.

There are several reasons that I came to this conclusion.

Look at who’s leading the “No” side

To begin with, I always like to see who is lined up on each side of an argument so that I can judge a little better what the issues really are. There are a great many people who have expressed simple annoyance, deep annoyance in fact, at the way Translink has been run. I have a lot of sympathy with that but in a moment I will tell you why that is not my major consideration.

I will say this: I think that going into this plebiscite, Premier Clark ought to have got together with the various mayors and come up with a better way to administer transit in Greater Vancouver. But she didn’t and we must make our decision based on what is, not what we wish it was.

Looking at those who are leading the “No” vote, I see the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Fraser Institute – the former much more prominent, in the person of Jordan Bateman. This rings a lot of bells for me because these organizations have never seen a public institution that they didn’t want to see smashed to pieces and help in the process. They have a constitutional dislike of everything that is not run by the private sector.

As for the Fraser Institute, my eyes were opened a few years ago when I interviewed a man named Dr. Walter Block, a “fellow” of that organization, who believed in consensual slavery. If a single mom with children, unable to bear the expense, wanted to become a wealthy man’s slave, by consent, she should be free to do so!

Now I don’t for a moment suggest that that is the general view of right-wingers but Block was a “fellow”, his views are the logical extension of unrestrained libertarianism, and it’s places like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Fraser Institute where far right libertarians park themselves and erect their soapboxes.

I think it is fair to say that both of these organizations represent the far right wing in our community and don’t represent real people with real problems.

Voting “No” won’t solve our problems

Let’s get back to the question of management of Transit.

There is one fact that jumps out of all of this when you think about it. This isn’t the normal case where the “No” side says, “Let’s throw the rascals out and throw us in so that we can do a better job”. There is no such alternative mechanism ready to step in if the vote is no – we simply go into a state of limbo, fumble about, presumably try to work out a better governing arrangement, tackle the various issues piecemeal without any central direction and eventually work ourselves back to the position where we must have another plebiscite!

Being on the “No” side when you have no responsibility to do anything if you win, is pretty damn easy. It’s all very well just to say that things have been badly managed, but unless you have somebody to step in with a better idea, you’re simply protesting without a plan.

A streetcar I desire

Most of all I recognize that if the “No” votes wins we’ll be in the transit wilderness for years to come. That really doesn’t affect me personally as I am old and I live in Lions Bay, which is extremely well-served and stands to gain or lose very little in this exercise.

On the other hand, I am a native Vancouverite and have lived here most of my life. I go back to the days of the streetcar – I wish we could in fact go back to those days. I’ve seen my City grow from about a quarter of a million when I was a boy to 2,000,000-plus today. I’ve been through the debate which saw us reject freeways for better transit without coming up with the transit.

I’ve used public transit systems all over the world and I’ve never seen one where people didn’t bitch about it. It goes with the territory.

A lot of work to be done

A “Yes” vote scarcely guarantees that all will be peachy from here on. What it does guarantee is that there will be a plan, money to fulfill it, pursued by people who are very close to the voters, namely mayors and counsels.

No doubt there are better ways somewhere but given our history and situation in Greater Vancouver, this is the best we can expect and is certainly better than the chaos that will result from a “No” vote.

So the old contrarian is asking his fellow citizens to overlook the fact that they’re not pleased with the system as they see it but know that the best way to deal with that is not to ignore it and hope, as Mr. Micawber did, that “something will turn up”.

Many people think of Canada as a landscape of forests, mountains, water and ice, but the Canadian experience is fast becoming focused on glass and concrete. Our 2011 census revealed that 81 per cent of us now live in cities. And despite taking up less land space, our environmental impact continues to grow. As the UN notes, cities cover only two per cent of the world’s land area but produce 60 per cent of CO2 emissions — including a significant proportion from urban transportation, as people commute to school and work on increasingly crowded roads and transit networks.

Transit drives healthy cities

Changing the way we move through cities is a critical step in reducing carbon emissions. The most direct way to accomplish this is to provide urbanites with reliable alternatives to automobile travel. By investing in walkways, cycling networks and efficient public transportation — including rapid rail and bus systems — cities can promote healthy lifestyles while protecting the environment. A two-car household that replaces one vehicle with alternative transportation can cut its annual emissions by 10 per cent.

Building balanced transportation systems and improving transit reduces reliance on private vehicles, cuts traffic congestion and leads to better public health by keeping pollutants linked to asthma and cardiovascular disease out of the air. It can also help curb North America’s obesity epidemic, which is leading to diseases like diabetes and sending health care costs skyrocketing.

Cut the cars, cut the fat

Recent research on the relationship between health and transit use in Metro Vancouver by University of British Columbia urban planning and public health professor Lawrence Frank and two health authorities reveals that residents of areas with above average public transportation use are 26 per cent less likely to be obese and 49 per cent more likely to walk for at least 30 minutes a day than people living in low transit use areas.

Plebiscite puts transit support to test

Vancouver is a good case study for the future of Canadian urban public transit. Metro residents are voting on a plebiscite to fund regional transit and transportation expansion with a 0.5 per cent provincial sales tax increase. Many groups in the region — including business, labour, environmental, health and student — are setting aside political differences and joining the Better Transit and Transportation Coalition to support it.

Cities left to solve transit problems

With only eight cents of every tax dollar going to Canadian municipalities, cities across the country are looking for ways to fund infrastructure maintenance and improvements. Canada is also the only major industrialized country without a national transit funding strategy. Provincial governments, such as Ontario’s, have had some success in securing funding for transit improvements, but across the country the issue is largely in the hands of local leaders.

Although Metro Vancouver’s transit ridership has increased dramatically in recent years, road congestion is still a problem, costing the regional economy up to $1.2 billion per year. To combat similar issues, cities around the world, including London, Milan and Stockholm, have introduced congestion charges for drivers who use city streets during peak hours, funnelling monies raised to into transit improvements. By comparison, a Vancouver sales tax increase would spread the cost out to include transit users, cyclists, walkers and visitors.

Denver Seattle failed before passing transit referenda

North American cities often have a more difficult time than European municipalities convincing residents to support transit funding. Denver, Colorado, has had two transit funding referendums, one that failed and a more recent one that passed. In 2014, Seattle residents took part in two votes, agreeing to a 0.1 per cent sales tax increase and a $60 vehicle levy to improve transit only after bus service faced severe cuts following a “No” vote on transit funding earlier in the year.

Metro vote raises important questions

Canadians aren’t often invited to directly participate in policy-making. The vote in Metro Vancouver is the first of its kind nationally and will likely set off a heated debate about how transportation funding is discussed in this country. While the outcome remains uncertain, one thing is clear: People with realistic transit options have a daily choice to support or degrade the environment. When faced with that choice, history has shown more people opt to leave their cars in the garage. We need to think seriously about how we keep our cities moving into the future.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Climate and Clean Energy Communications and Research Specialist Steve Kux.

The following is a letter to the editor from Malcolm Johnston of Rail for the Valley.

One has to shake one’s head with the ‘Metro Vancouver congestion improvement tax’ referendum, as clearly the Metro mayors haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

The name, Metro Vancouver congestion improvement tax is false advertising, as the only way to reduce road congestion and associated gridlock is by reducing road space for cars and this is not being done.

Subways don’t reduce congestion and are only built to accommodate high ridership on routes which demand long trains and large stations. Traffic flows along Broadway come nowhere close to justifying a multi-billion dollar subway which, if built, will drag TransLink into a financial morass as it has done in other cities. The ill-planned LRT for Surrey, which is being planned as a poor man’s SkyTrain, will do little in alleviating congestion.

Don’t Metro mayors realize that after investing over $9 billion in ‘rapid transit’, mode share by auto has remained at 57% for over 20 years?

The one mode with a proven record of alleviating congestion is modern LRT because it uses road space for its route, thus modern LRT reduces road space for cars while at the same time offering a convenient and attractive transit alternative. It’s why LRT is built around the world and SkyTrain is not.

So instead of the oxymoronic, ‘Metro Vancouver congestion tax’, a more accurate name would be; “Let’s do the same thing over again and hope for different results” tax.

Oh, excuse me, that’s the definition for insanity.

The container ship that struck the dock at a Vancouver port early yesterday morning is undergoing repairs to its damaged hull. The vessel, “CMA CGM Attila”, will likely remain moored at Vancouver’s Centerm container facility until at least Sunday while the work is carried out, according to sources at the port.

The website MarineTraffic.com reports that the ship arrived at 4:52 AM local time Wednesday, at which time it collided with the dock.

According to the Canadian Press, the Transportation Safety Board dispatched two officers to investigate the incident yesterday.

The Centerm container terminal, operated by DP World, is located off Vancouver’s Crab Park, adjacent to the Vancouver Harbour Heliport and Seabus terminal.

The 321 metre-long vessel was constructed in 2011 and flies a Maltese flag out of the port of Valletta. It travelled to Vancouver from Seattle this morning. Prior to that, the ship had been in China and Hong Kong.

More information on the CMA CGM Attila can be found at MarineTraffic.com.

A large container ship, the “CMA CGM Attila”, struck the dock at Vancouver’s Centerm container port early this morning.

The website MarineTraffic.com reports that the ship arrived at 4:52 AM local time.

According to the Canadian Press, the Transportation Safety Board has dispatched two officers to investigate the incident, noting that at this point, “the extent of any damage is unknown.”

Centerm container terminal, operated by DP World, is located off Vancouver’s Crab Park, adjacent to the Vancouver Harbour Heliport and Seabus terminal.

The 321 metre-long vessel was constructed in 2011 and flies a Maltese flag out of the port of Valletta. It travelled to Vancouver from Seattle this morning. Prior to that, the ship had been in China and Hong Kong.

More information on the CMA CGM Attila can be found at MarineTraffic.com.