Ok, bear with me; working through an idea.
The @CityofEdmonton has identified that to institute the #biketransportation infrastructure needed to meet climate crisis, human well-being & municipal tax affordability goals, will cost ~ $200M. But only $100M was budgeted. /1st
The @CityofEdmonton has identified that to institute the #biketransportation infrastructure needed to meet climate crisis, human well-being & municipal tax affordability goals, will cost ~ $200M. But only $100M was budgeted. /1st
So we have a shortfall of $100M over the next budget cycle (2023-26).
Car-dedicated infrastructure (lanes, parking, parking lots) is pricey to the municipal budget, & is always inadequate: it induces demand & increases risk, noise, pollution rather than easing congestion, etc. /2
Car-dedicated infrastructure (lanes, parking, parking lots) is pricey to the municipal budget, & is always inadequate: it induces demand & increases risk, noise, pollution rather than easing congestion, etc. /2
Bicycle infrastructure is cheaper to maintain, & induced demand makes for reduced risk, noise, pollution.
So it's in the city budget's best interest to increase bicycle use while reducing car use.
But by what mechanisms? /3
So it's in the city budget's best interest to increase bicycle use while reducing car use.
But by what mechanisms? /3
In Canada, cities basically have property taxes, bylaws & zoning as their tools. Pretty limited options. Eg., municipalities may not impose extra tax ($£€¥) on drivers using certain areas, the way UK & EU cities have, to reduce cars & increase public transit or bike use. /4
So here's where I need some #yegcc & urban budget & planning acumen.
WHAT IF the city assessed a special Climate Crisis Levy on commercial properties dedicated to activities that *enable* car-use, & dedicated all revenues from the extra levy to meeting the $100M shortfall? /5
WHAT IF the city assessed a special Climate Crisis Levy on commercial properties dedicated to activities that *enable* car-use, & dedicated all revenues from the extra levy to meeting the $100M shortfall? /5
What kind of commercial properties? Gas stations & car dealerships, automotive repairs, auto body shops, tire-sellers, etc.
Of course, the property owners would kvetch, then pass on the levy-cost to the commercial operators on those properties, who would raise their prices. /6
Of course, the property owners would kvetch, then pass on the levy-cost to the commercial operators on those properties, who would raise their prices. /6
The raised prices for fuel, repairs, etc, would create disincentive pressure on car use, whilst simultaneously ensuring the polluters pay for the costs they impose on the municipal budget, & building the piggy bank for the climate crisis fighting infrastructure we need. /7
* & public transit use.
City council could vote to make such a Special Assessment temporary - eg, until the bike network/active transportation infrastructure project is completed & paid for. Or not. They might, for example, dedicate any surplus to neighbourhood renewal, or parks, or e-bike subsidies /8
It would require a #courageous council, ready to incur the kvetchers' temporary wrath. But also #visionary leaders, willing to work with the businesses to be impacted (some might decide to change their business model--which is probably inevitable), for the greater good. /9 #yegcc
What say you, #yegcc?
Does the muni have the legislated power for this? If so, does this council & admin have the chutzpah, guts, vision?
@AmarjeetSohiYEG
@edmonton_anne
@AaronWardDene
@AndrewKnack
@AshleyASalvador
@Erinforanirniq
@joannewrightyeg
@michaeljanz
@_TimCartmell /10
Does the muni have the legislated power for this? If so, does this council & admin have the chutzpah, guts, vision?
@AmarjeetSohiYEG
@edmonton_anne
@AaronWardDene
@AndrewKnack
@AshleyASalvador
@Erinforanirniq
@joannewrightyeg
@michaeljanz
@_TimCartmell /10
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
