October 27, 2025 • 28 mins
'Slow down cars and save lives' sounds obvious, but how do we actually make that work on the ground? Where does funding for speed enforcement come from, and when fines are charged, where does the money actually land? New Westminster Mayor Patrick Johnstone debunks the myth of the speed-trap 'cash cow' and takes a clear-eyed look at BC’s pause on active transportation funding, the politics of 30 km/h residential limits, and why automated speed enforcement could be the fastest way to real safety gains.
***********************************************
The Bike Sense podcast with Peter Ladner is produced by the BC Cycling Coalition – your voice for safer and more accessible cycling and active transportation in British Columbia. Membership in the BCCC is now FREE! The future of this podcast depends on people like you becoming members at BCCycling.ca. Please join us.
Got feedback or ideas for future episodes? Please drop us an email at admin@bccycling.ca.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:27):
Welcome to Bike Sense, the BC Cycling
Coalition's podcast, where wetalk about all things related to
active transportation advocacyin BC.
I'm your host, Peter Ladner,Chair of the Board of the BC
Cycling Coalition.
I hope you enjoy the show.
(00:50):
My guest today is our firstrepeat guest on this podcast,
Newestminster Mayor PatrickJohnstone.
And we're bringing him backbecause he's that good and he's
sometimes outspoken on topicsthat we would like to dwell on
today, such as the BC governmentpausing active transportation
grants, bike lash locally andaround the world, the politics
(01:14):
of getting support for activetransportation, automated speed
enforcement, and the old 30kilometer per hour default
residential speed limit.
Welcome, Patrick.
SPEAKER_01 (01:27):
Thank you.
Good to see you this morning,Peter.
SPEAKER_00 (01:30):
I'm going to start you with our standard question.
Describe your last bike ride.
SPEAKER_01 (01:36):
My last bike ride was I got a little bit of time
away on uh on the holidayMonday.
Um, and I got a nice, I gotabout uh 70K in.
I got to go for a road bike ridearound Richmond and around uh
Stanley Park and back to NewWest.
It was a nice day.
It was a nice sunny day.
It was a beautiful warm day, andthere were so many people
outside enjoying that sort ofnice fall weather in in Greater
(01:58):
Vancouver.
SPEAKER_00 (01:59):
Can you just push out your front door and off you
go?
Do you have to drive tosomeplace to start your ride?
SPEAKER_01 (02:04):
No, I uh the wonderful part about riding a
bike in New Westminster is everybike ride starts with a hill
climb and every bike ride endswith a hill climb.
It's a magic thing about ourcity.
SPEAKER_00 (02:13):
I'm glad you're up to it.
Now, could you just tell us?
Let's start with the activetransportation grants.
This is a BC government program.
It's been going for a number ofyears, and it's oversubscribed
by municipalities.
Last year they gave out$24million.
Municipalities have been toldthat this year there will be no
grants.
Whether that's a pause or acancellation, um, who knows?
(02:37):
But could you tell us, thelisteners, what the impact of
those grants has been have beenin your community?
SPEAKER_01 (02:46):
Uh the pause of the grant program is a huge
disappointment and it's a bigturnaround from just uh just two
years ago when we were kind ofexcited because they were
announcing they were expandingthat grant program.
Um I think the average over thelast 10 or 15, 10 or 12 years of
the program has been about 7million a year.
They announced, I think, a yearand a half ago, that it was
going to be up to about$20million a year, maybe$24 million
(03:08):
a year.
It was really exciting.
And to find out they're pausingthat right now is really
disappointing.
In New Westminster, we havereceived those grants for a
couple of projects.
Um, the act, the Agnes StreetGreenway is a project that we've
built using, I think we only gotabout a half a million dollars
for that project.
But again, it's really goodbaseline funding to build an
(03:29):
active transportation route inour downtown.
And then we got another halfmillion dollars just recently in
the most recent cohort for aproject in our Queensboro
neighborhood to improve bothpedestrian and cycling uh safety
in the Queensboro neighborhood,connecting a new residential
neighborhood with sort of thebusiness and commercial area
that's adjacent to it.
(03:49):
Um but I don't think it'snecessarily New Westminster's
the best example.
Um I, you know, we appreciatethose grants and they really
help us.
They provide some baselinefunding for some for some active
transportation.
But the number of smallcommunities, uh, the number of
First Nations, the number oforganizations that just don't
have uh the ability to fundactive transportation in a
(04:09):
meaningful way, the theCastlegarders and the Chetwins
and the and the towns like that,uh where it can make a huge
difference to get a half milliondollars from provincial
government to support uh anactive transportation plan.
Um, the planning part or thebuilding of a new route, it's
it's it's just a huge boost tosmall communities, especially.
So um to hear that going thewrong direction is a real
(04:31):
disappointment.
SPEAKER_00 (04:33):
And what, if anything, have you done about it
or anybody that you know hasdone about it uh as far as
lobbying, pushing back, um,communicating with ministers?
SPEAKER_01 (04:44):
Yeah, I know active transportation community is
actually pushing back reallystrongly.
The cycling coalition has beendoing that, hub has been doing
it.
Um, I have reached out to ourmembers, our our members of the
legislature in New Westminster.
Um, you know, there was a lot ofconversation at the recent UBCM
meeting around this with mycohort, with the folks around
the around the province who careabout active transportation.
(05:06):
I mean, we it was we're only alittle more than a year from the
last from the activetransportation summit, where we
stood up in front of theprovince and said, look, this is
a really great program.
It needs to be funded more.
It's not, it's such a smallamount of money when it comes to
the the Ministry ofTransportation's capital budget.
The Ministry of Transportationof Transportation's capital
(05:28):
budget is in the billions everyyear.
$20 million is not enough tobuild a single freeway on-ramp
right now in act intransportation funding.
It might seem like a lot ofmoney uh to small communities,
but compared to the budget thatis spent on freeways and
highways and overpasses andthings like that in the Ministry
(05:51):
of Transportation's budget, thisis a little tiny amount of
money, and it's reallymeaningful to small communities.
SPEAKER_00 (05:57):
We calculated that it was less than 1% of their
capital budget.
Is this something that in yourcommunity you bring money to the
table as well, or do you dependentirely on the province?
SPEAKER_01 (06:07):
Oh, this is absolutely what, yeah.
This is like I don't think manyprojects are 100% funded by
this.
This is where your matchingfunds come from.
We also have access to somefunds from Translink to do sort
of last kilometer activetransportation to connections to
get people uh to SkyTrainstations and to bus stops.
And so municipalities areleveraging all of those.
(06:28):
But the thing about the activetransportation grant is it is it
is what it did provide somereally secure baseline funding
that allowed you to sort of planout a couple of years in advance
and plan out where you're gonnaget matching funds.
We're currently halfway throughbuilding an active
transportation network plan outin New Westminster.
Our goal is to build activetransportation connections to
(06:48):
within 400 meters of everyone'shome and to all the major
destinations in the city.
And it's gonna take us years.
It's gonna take us five years tobuild this out.
But having knowing that in yeartwo, in year three, and in year
four, we'll be able to apply fora little bit of grant funding
for this helps us put it in ourcapital plan.
And um again, I can't imaginehow a small community, I can't
(07:10):
imagine how a city that has Fortor Prince in its name is going
to uh is going to make up forthat loss.
SPEAKER_00 (07:17):
You mentioned the UBCM, the Union of BC
municipalities recently, aswe're recording, had a
conference in Victoria.
There was a motion that wasproposed at that conference to
enable municipalities to do ablanket default speed limit of
30 kilometers per hour on anyroad without a center line, and
(07:39):
it did not make it to the to thefloor because I gather there was
a lot of competition forresolutions needing decisions.
Uh, what is your experience withtrying to create 30 kilometer
speed limits in your citywithout the power to just decree
that all roads by default inyour municipality at least are
(08:02):
limited to 30 Ks when they don'thave a center line?
SPEAKER_01 (08:06):
Well, we're working on it.
We're working on 30 kilometersan hour in our community.
Um, we have expanded the hoursaround school zones and the
areas around school zones where30 kilometers an hour is the
default or is the speed limit.
We have also added 30 kilometersan hour to some of our
commercial areas and some other,you know, sort of higher
trafficked residential areas inthe community.
(08:28):
Um it sort of came out of a sortof a safer streets and green
streets program that we sort ofdeveloped through COVID as
people were out and walking moreand realizing that we could
actually create better spacesfor people walking through
COVID.
But it's really challenging fora municipality.
It's challenging formunicipality to put a 30
kilometer hour speed limit signon every block of every street
(08:49):
because uh the police wouldargue that in order to enforce
it, it has to be obvious toeveryone on that street and the
signage implications and thecost implications and the visual
distraction implications ofhaving to do signage like that
on every block and every streetis limits its effectiveness in a
community.
So having default 30 kilometersan hour in municipalities is
(09:09):
something we have beendiscussing with the province for
years now.
Um there were it went fairly farabout 10 years ago.
There were some deeperdiscussions with the province,
but it just never came tofruition for whatever reason.
You have to ask the provincewhy.
Um but the current, there arecurrent approaches, and I like
this idea that I think it wasSanich who brought forward.
It was the idea that if youdon't have a center line on the
(09:30):
street, then that's 30kilometers an hour.
If there's a center line, then50 is the default.
And I think the advantage, Imean, we don't want to have in
the lower mainland, for example,or in Greater Victoria, with um,
you don't want to have 21 or 13municipalities all with
different rules on the street.
It's really hard to enforce,it's hard for drivers to
understand what the rules are intheir community.
(09:51):
It's it's difficult to makethese things stick unless it's a
consistent thing across theprovince, or at least across the
region.
So um I thought that was acreative way to say, look,
that's a clear visual clue.
It already exists.
Cities can decide to put centerlines down or not to put center
lines down.
And if people are understandthat that means 30 kilometers or
it means 50 kilometers an hour,it's an easy way to get us
(10:13):
towards a place where 30kilometers an hour is the
default in residential areas.
And the data is clear that 30kilometers an hour uh saves
lives.
Um, you know, this is not anovel idea.
This isn't a radical idea.
This happens in municipalitiesaround North America, different
jurisdictions.
It does happen in across Europe,anywhere where a vision zero
(10:37):
model for traffic safety hasbeen introduced.
30 kilometers an hour seems tosit in the middle of it.
They have, I mean, 20, it's 20is plenty, is the is the saying
they have in areas where mileswhere miles per hour is the
measure they use.
But um, and again, it's reallyclear that it saves lives and it
does not reduce the throughputof vehicles, it does not create
(10:57):
traffic hassles.
Um, it it just makes sense.
And I'm I'm frustrated theprovince is reluctant to just
bring this in as quickly aspossible.
SPEAKER_00 (11:04):
Let's talk for a minute about why that is.
There seems to be a perception,again, going back to data.
I have seen data that if peopleare asked, should there be a 30K
zone in your neighborhood?
The majority, I I want to sayoverwhelming majority say yes.
And yet there's a perception,apparently, that this is somehow
(11:25):
going to cause a backlash.
And what is it about thesemeasures that causes politicians
to be so wary of bringing themin?
SPEAKER_01 (11:35):
Oh, carbrain?
I mean, and it's um Is that adisease?
Yeah, it's something.
Um I think that you you the wayyou asked that question is
interesting.
It's like, yeah, you're right.
Everybody wants 30 kilometers anhour on their street, but they
also, I think a lot of peoplewant to go 50 kilometers an hour
on other people's streets.
I think there is this issomething about how we think
(11:55):
about our relationship withautomobiles.
What is safe for us in ourcommunity is inconvenient for us
when other communities want it.
The only thing that people inNew Westminster want is for
everyone who's driving throughNew Westminster and trying to
access freeways around NewWestminster not to come through
their neighborhood.
And they want us to do that in away that they can have easy and
quick access to the freewaysaround our neighborhood.
(12:17):
So that's that's a challenge wehave.
So 30 kilometer an hour, Ithink, is very much like that.
We see that as being uhunnecessarily onerous in areas
where we want to drive, whereaswe see it as an obvious safety
advantage in our owncommunities.
And that's something that wehave some education to do
around, and some and people haveto sort of understand the nuance
(12:38):
of that.
SPEAKER_00 (12:39):
Well, they also the politicians have to get elected.
And you're a politician, youhave to get re-elected.
You must be wary of the voters'opinions on these things, and
yet you have been elected, youcontinue to do these things.
I'm assuming that you have somekind of electoral support for
this.
Why would you get it and otherpoliticians not?
SPEAKER_01 (13:00):
Um I think that the reality on the ground is
different than what we read onFacebook.
You know, I we as I talked aboutthe active transportation
network plan in New Westminster,this five-year plan to build out
these bike routes, we introducedthat before the last election
intentionally.
And, you know, I ran on anelection with that in my
(13:22):
platform in the middle of it.
We got to get this built.
And so when I am told now bypeople that, you know, we
weren't consulted on this orthat, you know, this, I'm not
gonna vote for you because yousupported this, you know,
politicians have to be boldenough to say, well, actually, I
ran on this, I said I was gonnado it, and I'd be untruthful to
the people who voted for me if Idon't move forward on this work.
(13:43):
There's also um, it's nottop-down, you know, to say that
no, I said I'm gonna do it, I'mjust doing it.
There's a there's a place to saythat I hear your concerns.
Like, how are we gonna addressyour concerns while we do this?
Uh, to say that I'm going to dosomething is uh is uh a promise
we all make during elections,and quite often we move back on
some of those promises andrealize the detail of trying to
implement those things.
(14:04):
So we have a responsibility aselected officials to continue to
talk to the community aboutthings that we've promised we're
gonna do while we're doing it,and to be truthful about um
about um the ways we can adjustthis in order to address some of
the concerns that you have, andto be truthful about when we
can't adjust it to addressconcerns that you're being that
are being raised.
Um, I don't like a bus stop inmy near my home is um is not
(14:29):
something I can address when Isaid like we need more bus
stops.
We need to build bus stops, weneed to build sheltered bus
stops in order to make transitmore accessible.
Um, you know, you have to, fromall children, have to be bold
enough to say that actually busstops are a good thing.
They they benefit society.
And I'm sorry that it's in frontof your home, that's the best
place for it, but it's not infront of your home, it's in
front of someone else's.
We live in a society and youdon't own the curb in front of
(14:52):
your home.
Uh, we live in a society and wehave to share these resources as
best we can.
People never, I mean, we rarelytalk about the cost of motordub,
the cost of automobile-centricneighborhoods.
The fact that if we don't fundactive transportation, like I
even even talking about theactive transportation fund, we
don't talk about the fact that,yeah, they're saving$20 million
(15:13):
on not giving out this grantsthis year, but what about the
$200 million they're spending tofix the 264th interchange, the
one interchange?
Like we don't talk about thecost of the alternatives because
the alternative is the statusquo.
The alternative is automobilesdominating all our space, of 90%
of our road space being used tomove and store private
(15:33):
automobiles.
We never talk about the cost ofthat because that's status quo.
That's just the way business is.
And so politicians have to do abetter job of talking about that
in a way that isn't judgmental.
I'm not judging you because youdrive a car, you you drive a car
because it fits your lifestyle.
Um, but we also have to find away that um to allow other
people who have differentlifestyles to be safe in our
(15:54):
communities.
SPEAKER_00 (15:55):
So the when you when you and I talk about this and we
have a big love-in on all theseissues, it's it sounds so
obvious and easy.
And yet it may be my impression,but it seems that this term bike
lash has boiled up, and we seepeople opposing mayors in
different cities around theworld pledging to be against
bikes, and for some weird reasonI don't understand, this has
(16:18):
seen to be or turned into apartisan issue where the left,
so-called, is for activetransportation and bikes.
Certainly we see this south ofthe border, and the right,
so-called, is uh loyal to thecars at all costs.
Why do you think this is apartisan issue?
And what could we do to make itless partisan?
SPEAKER_01 (16:39):
I mean, municipal politics don't traditionally
fall on that left-right spectrumin a way, because there are left
progressive people who are veryum concerned about density.
You know, you know, like it,like there are issues around
urbanism, around cities thatdon't fit on that spectrum
cleanly.
And I think this is one of them.
Um, I think the difference iswhat I was saying earlier:
(17:02):
status quo versus change.
This is about change.
It's about changing a little bitabout how your streetscape
looks, it changes how you movearound in our city.
Um, there's a, I mean, a runningjoke I often say is that the
only thing worse than the waythings are right now is any kind
of change.
And that's the reality we faceevery day in municipal
government.
Um, people are concerned whenthey see change in front of
(17:25):
their home that they don'trecognize or they didn't know it
was coming, or they don'tunderstand what the impact is
going to be on their life twoyears down the road of this
change.
So um, and bike lash is part ofthat.
Uh it's a response to a changeand it's a response to
uncertainty.
I think the real dichotomy isbetween status quo and change.
(17:45):
And as politicians, uh, we ourjob sometimes is to talk about
the change people want to seeactually, and to and to talk to
people who don't areuncomfortable with change about
what it actually means.
These are very, in a case of uhof bike lanes or change in our
infrastructure or our activetransportation infrastructure,
it is personal to people becauseit's right in front of their
(18:06):
home.
It's their neighborhood that'schanging, and that makes people
nervous.
They don't know what that changelooks like.
Um, they've always been able topark in front of their house.
Why can't I park in front of myhouse now?
And um we have a job to explainto people about why we're making
change and how this has impactedother communities.
I mean, Vancouver has thisexcellent example of how a lot
(18:27):
of the early bike clash was ledby the business community who
are really concerned about whatit meant to put bike lanes
downtown.
And how once they were put in,it was a there was a turnaround.
The downtown business communityis one of the strongest
supporters of the work thatVancouver did to make it more
cycling city.
So we can talk about thoseexamples from around the world,
but ultimately it's it's alsotaking the time to hear people's
(18:50):
concerns about the change andtry to understand what the root
of those concerns are.
Um and and sometimes you justneed to be bold and say, you
know, the community is asking mefor this kind of change.
And I can't say no to thecommunity because of parochial
concerns.
I have to answer to 90,000 newWestminster people, not just the
people on one street who areconcerned about a change.
(19:10):
That's why we haverepresentative politics, I
guess, in Canada.
That's the system that we rununder.
SPEAKER_00 (19:23):
One of the solid pieces of advice that I've heard
and tried to live by is don'tcome to a politician as an
advocate with a problem, bringthem a solution.
Going back to the cancellationof the AT funding from the
Ministry of Transportation andTransit, they're definitely in a
fiscal bind.
As you've pointed out, it's arelatively small amount of
(19:44):
money, but they have to startcutting back somewhere.
One of the solutions that's beenput forward is to suggest that
they increase automated speedenforcement with red light
cameras, speed cameras, and soon.
We just did a podcast with thehead of the RCMP who reminded us
that one police officer on thestreet costs about$300,000 a
(20:05):
year after salary, cars, backend, pensions, and all that are
taken into account.
For$300,000, you could buy a lotof speed cameras.
Why are we not doing that?
And using that revenue to fundAT improvements and pick up for
the lost revenue that's beencanceled.
(20:28):
I understand you've uh got youreye on some cameras, Patrick.
SPEAKER_01 (20:32):
I might have been a little cheeky on Blue Sky
suggesting that if uh if anyoneknows how to ship a bunch of
unused traffic cameras fromOntario to New Westminster, I'm
happy to receive them and putthem up here.
Uh a little cheeky because Idon't have the legal ability to
put them up here, but we've beencalling for the province to
enhance their intersection speedcamera program for years.
(20:54):
This came to a bit of a headlast year as we had two
pedestrian deaths on McBride, aroad in New Westminster that is
a provincial highway that has alot of people speeding beyond
the 50-kilometer speed limit onit.
Uh, and I'm frustrated by it.
I'm I am afraid it's only goingto get more dangerous as a road
with when the new Petulo Bridgeopens and more traffic is
funneled at a higher speed alongthe Petulo Bridge.
(21:16):
A ostensibly safer bridge and asafer route is going to make the
street in New Westminster lesssafe as a result of it.
I don't know.
I think the public is veryclearly in favor of automated
camera enforcement in BritishColumbia.
The polls are really clear aboutthat.
One of the claims I commonlyhear in my community is that
people just don't respect therules of the road anymore.
(21:37):
Um, I mean, we all see this fromour viewpoint.
I think a lot of drivers see itas the pedestrians and cyclists
don't respect the rules of theroad.
SPEAKER_00 (21:43):
Which is often the case.
SPEAKER_01 (21:44):
Which is the case, and and the pedestrians and
cyclists see it as the cars whodon't respect the rules of the
road.
I think they're all it's alltrue.
I think that um the the questionof potential harm of a
pedestrian not following therule of the road versus a
vehicle not doing it is a bitdifferent.
But uh we I think there is ageneral sense that it's it's the
Wild West out there right now onour roads.
(22:05):
And I stand, I see the provinceum reducing the requirements for
testing for new drivers.
I see them moving through ICBC,saving money by creating a
no-fault system, uh, which againtakes some of the burden off of
drivers to pay for the cost ofroad incidents, of road
violence.
So I see them going in adifferent direction than the
(22:26):
direction I'd like to see themgoing, which is making our roads
safer.
I think that automated camerasmake sense.
I think that modern technologyof automated cameras is very
different than the photo radaruh debates that we had back in
the 90s.
Um, I think that it'sdemonstrated that they make
intersections safer.
It's demonstrated that theyreduce speeds.
(22:48):
Um I don't know why we areresistant to installing them.
And I am a little concernedabout um the cash cow argument,
which is the argument that'sbeing successfully used in
Ontario right now to fight them.
And if we say that we areinstalling these in order to pay
for bike lanes and activetransportation infrastructure,
that will feed into that cashcow argument.
(23:08):
The argument here is that we aregonna save a whole bunch of
money on accidents, we're gonnasave a whole bunch of money on
health care on the healthcaresystem, we're gonna save a whole
bunch of money on policeenforcement and courts, and
we're gonna make our roadssafer.
This is a win-win for everybody.
And I guess there's a capitalcost to installing them that
maybe the province is worriedabout right now.
Maybe they're worried about abacklash and not want to deal
(23:30):
with the backlash, but bring iton.
I'm happy as a city to take onthese cameras.
Um, if they if they want to giveus the authority to install
them, that I will invest themoney to install them.
I want people in New Westminsterto know that this is a city when
you drive through it.
If you don't follow the rules ofthe road, you will get a ticket.
You will get you it will costyou because I care primarily
about people in my municipalitybeing safe getting around.
SPEAKER_00 (23:52):
Do you have the power to install speed cameras?
SPEAKER_01 (23:55):
No, we do not.
We know we're not legally ableto do that.
We're the only the province hasthat authority.
SPEAKER_00 (24:00):
And is there a uh legislated uh place where the
revenues go, or is that debatedor negotiated on every
installation?
SPEAKER_01 (24:09):
Yeah, this is one of the common thing feedbacks we
have.
People always say to me, if youjust set up a police uh at the
corner of uh, I'm looking at mywindow right now at Eighth and
Royal, they'd be able to handout tickets all day and be able
to pay for all the city'srevenue with that.
Um the reality is ticket revenuefor Motor Vehicle Act violations
goes to the province.
Um, it is largely returned tomunicipalities through grants
(24:32):
for road safety and otherthings, but it is returned back
on a per capita basis, not on uhlike you know, so if we go a
bunch more tickets here in NewWestminster, I have to pay the
police to hand those ticketsout, I have to pay the police to
go to court to make thosetickets stand, but I don't get
any benefit from a municipalityas far as my revenue from
handing out those tickets.
(24:53):
And again, a bunch of the costsavings go to the healthcare
system, the cost savings go toICBC, the cost savings go to
provincial agencies.
So yeah, we can have aconversation about that math.
I can see a reason why we don'twant every city having the
ability to hand out tickets.
We don't want to, we don't wantto be the Dukes of Hazard and
have uh boss hogg just handingout random tickets to pay for
(25:14):
the city's revenue.
That's probably not a fair wayto allocate that revenue.
And it's probably, and at somepoint, the emphasis does go
away, go to being revenuedriving instead of being to road
safety.
And we have to make sure theemphasis stays on road safety.
That's the only way people willrespect and understand and
support the political decision,is if we actually demonstrate
this isn't a cash cow.
(25:35):
This is about keeping yourchildren safe when they're
walking to school.
SPEAKER_00 (25:39):
We're gonna do a future podcast just on this
topic and the conditions underwhich people are more willing to
accept these cameras.
You know, if you give themnotification, if they're in the
right places and so on.
But I think in the interim, uhwe, and I sounds like you, would
continue to push for them.
And I think the argument of costsavings, if people want to talk
about money, then it's not justthe revenue, it's also the cost
(26:03):
savings.
And those should also be takeninto account.
SPEAKER_01 (26:06):
You know, a third of a third of my police of my fire
department's time is spentresponding to road acts.
It's a third of their time.
So there's this one otherexample you don't think of of
how a municipality like NewWestminster spends a bunch of
money on an issue that umenforcement could help with.
SPEAKER_00 (26:22):
And I'm I'm gonna guess a third or some
significant portion of yourpolice officers' time is also
spent on traffic enforcement.
SPEAKER_01 (26:30):
Yeah, traffic enforcement and responding to
accidents.
Not so much enforcement as justresponding to the incident, you
know, managing the trafficsituations around incidents,
making sure things were secure,and investigating incidents when
they happen.
Yeah, that takes a bunch of ourtime as well.
SPEAKER_00 (26:44):
And your police and fire budgets, I'm guessing,
would be more than half of yourentire budget?
SPEAKER_01 (26:50):
Uh, when you put the two together, it's almost half
of our budget.
Yeah, we're we're relativelyefficient here in New
Westminster.
We have our own policedepartment, which costs a little
more than RCMP, but we getreally good response for that.
But it is, it is definitely thefastest growing part of our
budget right now.
We're looking at a 5% or 6% taxincrease next year, but our
police department's looking atanother 10% increase after 10%
(27:13):
the year before and 10% the yearbefore.
SPEAKER_00 (27:15):
Patrick, I think we've pretty much covered it
off.
I really appreciate yourinsights and your leadership on
these things.
And uh, we're right there withyou at the BC Cycling Coalition
and other groups are eager tosupport you and other
politicians who are willing tomake those choices and make
those decisions and demonstratein the results a better city and
(27:36):
a safer city.
So thank you so much for comingon the podcast.
SPEAKER_01 (27:39):
Well, thank you for giving me the time to chat.
Yeah, nice to see you again.
SPEAKER_00 (27:48):
You've been listening to Bike Sense, an
original podcast from the BCCycling Coalition.
If you like the podcast, we'd begrateful if you could leave us a
rating on whatever platform youuse.
You can also subscribe so youdon't miss future episodes.
If you have comments orsuggestions for future episodes,
(28:09):
email me at peter.ladner atbccycling.ca.
You can help us amplify BCCycling Coalition's voice by
simply becoming a free member atbccycling.ca.
Welcome to Bike Sense, the BC Cycling
Coalition's podcast, where wetalk about all things related to
active transportation advocacyin BC.
I'm your host, Peter Ladner,Chair of the Board of the BC
Cycling Coalition.
I hope you enjoy the show.
(00:50):
My guest today is our firstrepeat guest on this podcast,
Newestminster Mayor PatrickJohnstone.
And we're bringing him backbecause he's that good and he's
sometimes outspoken on topicsthat we would like to dwell on
today, such as the BC governmentpausing active transportation
grants, bike lash locally andaround the world, the politics
(01:14):
of getting support for activetransportation, automated speed
enforcement, and the old 30kilometer per hour default
residential speed limit.
Welcome, Patrick.
SPEAKER_01 (01:27):
Thank you.
Good to see you this morning,Peter.
SPEAKER_00 (01:30):
I'm going to start you with our standard question.
Describe your last bike ride.
SPEAKER_01 (01:36):
My last bike ride was I got a little bit of time
away on uh on the holidayMonday.
Um, and I got a nice, I gotabout uh 70K in.
I got to go for a road bike ridearound Richmond and around uh
Stanley Park and back to NewWest.
It was a nice day.
It was a nice sunny day.
It was a beautiful warm day, andthere were so many people
outside enjoying that sort ofnice fall weather in in Greater
(01:58):
Vancouver.
SPEAKER_00 (01:59):
Can you just push out your front door and off you
go?
Do you have to drive tosomeplace to start your ride?
SPEAKER_01 (02:04):
No, I uh the wonderful part about riding a
bike in New Westminster is everybike ride starts with a hill
climb and every bike ride endswith a hill climb.
It's a magic thing about ourcity.
SPEAKER_00 (02:13):
I'm glad you're up to it.
Now, could you just tell us?
Let's start with the activetransportation grants.
This is a BC government program.
It's been going for a number ofyears, and it's oversubscribed
by municipalities.
Last year they gave out$24million.
Municipalities have been toldthat this year there will be no
grants.
Whether that's a pause or acancellation, um, who knows?
(02:37):
But could you tell us, thelisteners, what the impact of
those grants has been have beenin your community?
SPEAKER_01 (02:46):
Uh the pause of the grant program is a huge
disappointment and it's a bigturnaround from just uh just two
years ago when we were kind ofexcited because they were
announcing they were expandingthat grant program.
Um I think the average over thelast 10 or 15, 10 or 12 years of
the program has been about 7million a year.
They announced, I think, a yearand a half ago, that it was
going to be up to about$20million a year, maybe$24 million
(03:08):
a year.
It was really exciting.
And to find out they're pausingthat right now is really
disappointing.
In New Westminster, we havereceived those grants for a
couple of projects.
Um, the act, the Agnes StreetGreenway is a project that we've
built using, I think we only gotabout a half a million dollars
for that project.
But again, it's really goodbaseline funding to build an
(03:29):
active transportation route inour downtown.
And then we got another halfmillion dollars just recently in
the most recent cohort for aproject in our Queensboro
neighborhood to improve bothpedestrian and cycling uh safety
in the Queensboro neighborhood,connecting a new residential
neighborhood with sort of thebusiness and commercial area
that's adjacent to it.
(03:49):
Um but I don't think it'snecessarily New Westminster's
the best example.
Um I, you know, we appreciatethose grants and they really
help us.
They provide some baselinefunding for some for some active
transportation.
But the number of smallcommunities, uh, the number of
First Nations, the number oforganizations that just don't
have uh the ability to fundactive transportation in a
(04:09):
meaningful way, the theCastlegarders and the Chetwins
and the and the towns like that,uh where it can make a huge
difference to get a half milliondollars from provincial
government to support uh anactive transportation plan.
Um, the planning part or thebuilding of a new route, it's
it's it's just a huge boost tosmall communities, especially.
So um to hear that going thewrong direction is a real
(04:31):
disappointment.
SPEAKER_00 (04:33):
And what, if anything, have you done about it
or anybody that you know hasdone about it uh as far as
lobbying, pushing back, um,communicating with ministers?
SPEAKER_01 (04:44):
Yeah, I know active transportation community is
actually pushing back reallystrongly.
The cycling coalition has beendoing that, hub has been doing
it.
Um, I have reached out to ourmembers, our our members of the
legislature in New Westminster.
Um, you know, there was a lot ofconversation at the recent UBCM
meeting around this with mycohort, with the folks around
the around the province who careabout active transportation.
(05:06):
I mean, we it was we're only alittle more than a year from the
last from the activetransportation summit, where we
stood up in front of theprovince and said, look, this is
a really great program.
It needs to be funded more.
It's not, it's such a smallamount of money when it comes to
the the Ministry ofTransportation's capital budget.
The Ministry of Transportationof Transportation's capital
(05:28):
budget is in the billions everyyear.
$20 million is not enough tobuild a single freeway on-ramp
right now in act intransportation funding.
It might seem like a lot ofmoney uh to small communities,
but compared to the budget thatis spent on freeways and
highways and overpasses andthings like that in the Ministry
(05:51):
of Transportation's budget, thisis a little tiny amount of
money, and it's reallymeaningful to small communities.
SPEAKER_00 (05:57):
We calculated that it was less than 1% of their
capital budget.
Is this something that in yourcommunity you bring money to the
table as well, or do you dependentirely on the province?
SPEAKER_01 (06:07):
Oh, this is absolutely what, yeah.
This is like I don't think manyprojects are 100% funded by
this.
This is where your matchingfunds come from.
We also have access to somefunds from Translink to do sort
of last kilometer activetransportation to connections to
get people uh to SkyTrainstations and to bus stops.
And so municipalities areleveraging all of those.
(06:28):
But the thing about the activetransportation grant is it is it
is what it did provide somereally secure baseline funding
that allowed you to sort of planout a couple of years in advance
and plan out where you're gonnaget matching funds.
We're currently halfway throughbuilding an active
transportation network plan outin New Westminster.
Our goal is to build activetransportation connections to
(06:48):
within 400 meters of everyone'shome and to all the major
destinations in the city.
And it's gonna take us years.
It's gonna take us five years tobuild this out.
But having knowing that in yeartwo, in year three, and in year
four, we'll be able to apply fora little bit of grant funding
for this helps us put it in ourcapital plan.
And um again, I can't imaginehow a small community, I can't
(07:10):
imagine how a city that has Fortor Prince in its name is going
to uh is going to make up forthat loss.
SPEAKER_00 (07:17):
You mentioned the UBCM, the Union of BC
municipalities recently, aswe're recording, had a
conference in Victoria.
There was a motion that wasproposed at that conference to
enable municipalities to do ablanket default speed limit of
30 kilometers per hour on anyroad without a center line, and
(07:39):
it did not make it to the to thefloor because I gather there was
a lot of competition forresolutions needing decisions.
Uh, what is your experience withtrying to create 30 kilometer
speed limits in your citywithout the power to just decree
that all roads by default inyour municipality at least are
(08:02):
limited to 30 Ks when they don'thave a center line?
SPEAKER_01 (08:06):
Well, we're working on it.
We're working on 30 kilometersan hour in our community.
Um, we have expanded the hoursaround school zones and the
areas around school zones where30 kilometers an hour is the
default or is the speed limit.
We have also added 30 kilometersan hour to some of our
commercial areas and some other,you know, sort of higher
trafficked residential areas inthe community.
(08:28):
Um it sort of came out of a sortof a safer streets and green
streets program that we sort ofdeveloped through COVID as
people were out and walking moreand realizing that we could
actually create better spacesfor people walking through
COVID.
But it's really challenging fora municipality.
It's challenging formunicipality to put a 30
kilometer hour speed limit signon every block of every street
(08:49):
because uh the police wouldargue that in order to enforce
it, it has to be obvious toeveryone on that street and the
signage implications and thecost implications and the visual
distraction implications ofhaving to do signage like that
on every block and every streetis limits its effectiveness in a
community.
So having default 30 kilometersan hour in municipalities is
(09:09):
something we have beendiscussing with the province for
years now.
Um there were it went fairly farabout 10 years ago.
There were some deeperdiscussions with the province,
but it just never came tofruition for whatever reason.
You have to ask the provincewhy.
Um but the current, there arecurrent approaches, and I like
this idea that I think it wasSanich who brought forward.
It was the idea that if youdon't have a center line on the
(09:30):
street, then that's 30kilometers an hour.
If there's a center line, then50 is the default.
And I think the advantage, Imean, we don't want to have in
the lower mainland, for example,or in Greater Victoria, with um,
you don't want to have 21 or 13municipalities all with
different rules on the street.
It's really hard to enforce,it's hard for drivers to
understand what the rules are intheir community.
(09:51):
It's it's difficult to makethese things stick unless it's a
consistent thing across theprovince, or at least across the
region.
So um I thought that was acreative way to say, look,
that's a clear visual clue.
It already exists.
Cities can decide to put centerlines down or not to put center
lines down.
And if people are understandthat that means 30 kilometers or
it means 50 kilometers an hour,it's an easy way to get us
(10:13):
towards a place where 30kilometers an hour is the
default in residential areas.
And the data is clear that 30kilometers an hour uh saves
lives.
Um, you know, this is not anovel idea.
This isn't a radical idea.
This happens in municipalitiesaround North America, different
jurisdictions.
It does happen in across Europe,anywhere where a vision zero
(10:37):
model for traffic safety hasbeen introduced.
30 kilometers an hour seems tosit in the middle of it.
They have, I mean, 20, it's 20is plenty, is the is the saying
they have in areas where mileswhere miles per hour is the
measure they use.
But um, and again, it's reallyclear that it saves lives and it
does not reduce the throughputof vehicles, it does not create
(10:57):
traffic hassles.
Um, it it just makes sense.
And I'm I'm frustrated theprovince is reluctant to just
bring this in as quickly aspossible.
SPEAKER_00 (11:04):
Let's talk for a minute about why that is.
There seems to be a perception,again, going back to data.
I have seen data that if peopleare asked, should there be a 30K
zone in your neighborhood?
The majority, I I want to sayoverwhelming majority say yes.
And yet there's a perception,apparently, that this is somehow
(11:25):
going to cause a backlash.
And what is it about thesemeasures that causes politicians
to be so wary of bringing themin?
SPEAKER_01 (11:35):
Oh, carbrain?
I mean, and it's um Is that adisease?
Yeah, it's something.
Um I think that you you the wayyou asked that question is
interesting.
It's like, yeah, you're right.
Everybody wants 30 kilometers anhour on their street, but they
also, I think a lot of peoplewant to go 50 kilometers an hour
on other people's streets.
I think there is this issomething about how we think
(11:55):
about our relationship withautomobiles.
What is safe for us in ourcommunity is inconvenient for us
when other communities want it.
The only thing that people inNew Westminster want is for
everyone who's driving throughNew Westminster and trying to
access freeways around NewWestminster not to come through
their neighborhood.
And they want us to do that in away that they can have easy and
quick access to the freewaysaround our neighborhood.
(12:17):
So that's that's a challenge wehave.
So 30 kilometer an hour, Ithink, is very much like that.
We see that as being uhunnecessarily onerous in areas
where we want to drive, whereaswe see it as an obvious safety
advantage in our owncommunities.
And that's something that wehave some education to do
around, and some and people haveto sort of understand the nuance
(12:38):
of that.
SPEAKER_00 (12:39):
Well, they also the politicians have to get elected.
And you're a politician, youhave to get re-elected.
You must be wary of the voters'opinions on these things, and
yet you have been elected, youcontinue to do these things.
I'm assuming that you have somekind of electoral support for
this.
Why would you get it and otherpoliticians not?
SPEAKER_01 (13:00):
Um I think that the reality on the ground is
different than what we read onFacebook.
You know, I we as I talked aboutthe active transportation
network plan in New Westminster,this five-year plan to build out
these bike routes, we introducedthat before the last election
intentionally.
And, you know, I ran on anelection with that in my
(13:22):
platform in the middle of it.
We got to get this built.
And so when I am told now bypeople that, you know, we
weren't consulted on this orthat, you know, this, I'm not
gonna vote for you because yousupported this, you know,
politicians have to be boldenough to say, well, actually, I
ran on this, I said I was gonnado it, and I'd be untruthful to
the people who voted for me if Idon't move forward on this work.
(13:43):
There's also um, it's nottop-down, you know, to say that
no, I said I'm gonna do it, I'mjust doing it.
There's a there's a place to saythat I hear your concerns.
Like, how are we gonna addressyour concerns while we do this?
Uh, to say that I'm going to dosomething is uh is uh a promise
we all make during elections,and quite often we move back on
some of those promises andrealize the detail of trying to
implement those things.
(14:04):
So we have a responsibility aselected officials to continue to
talk to the community aboutthings that we've promised we're
gonna do while we're doing it,and to be truthful about um
about um the ways we can adjustthis in order to address some of
the concerns that you have, andto be truthful about when we
can't adjust it to addressconcerns that you're being that
are being raised.
Um, I don't like a bus stop inmy near my home is um is not
(14:29):
something I can address when Isaid like we need more bus
stops.
We need to build bus stops, weneed to build sheltered bus
stops in order to make transitmore accessible.
Um, you know, you have to, fromall children, have to be bold
enough to say that actually busstops are a good thing.
They they benefit society.
And I'm sorry that it's in frontof your home, that's the best
place for it, but it's not infront of your home, it's in
front of someone else's.
We live in a society and youdon't own the curb in front of
(14:52):
your home.
Uh, we live in a society and wehave to share these resources as
best we can.
People never, I mean, we rarelytalk about the cost of motordub,
the cost of automobile-centricneighborhoods.
The fact that if we don't fundactive transportation, like I
even even talking about theactive transportation fund, we
don't talk about the fact that,yeah, they're saving$20 million
(15:13):
on not giving out this grantsthis year, but what about the
$200 million they're spending tofix the 264th interchange, the
one interchange?
Like we don't talk about thecost of the alternatives because
the alternative is the statusquo.
The alternative is automobilesdominating all our space, of 90%
of our road space being used tomove and store private
(15:33):
automobiles.
We never talk about the cost ofthat because that's status quo.
That's just the way business is.
And so politicians have to do abetter job of talking about that
in a way that isn't judgmental.
I'm not judging you because youdrive a car, you you drive a car
because it fits your lifestyle.
Um, but we also have to find away that um to allow other
people who have differentlifestyles to be safe in our
(15:54):
communities.
SPEAKER_00 (15:55):
So the when you when you and I talk about this and we
have a big love-in on all theseissues, it's it sounds so
obvious and easy.
And yet it may be my impression,but it seems that this term bike
lash has boiled up, and we seepeople opposing mayors in
different cities around theworld pledging to be against
bikes, and for some weird reasonI don't understand, this has
(16:18):
seen to be or turned into apartisan issue where the left,
so-called, is for activetransportation and bikes.
Certainly we see this south ofthe border, and the right,
so-called, is uh loyal to thecars at all costs.
Why do you think this is apartisan issue?
And what could we do to make itless partisan?
SPEAKER_01 (16:39):
I mean, municipal politics don't traditionally
fall on that left-right spectrumin a way, because there are left
progressive people who are veryum concerned about density.
You know, you know, like it,like there are issues around
urbanism, around cities thatdon't fit on that spectrum
cleanly.
And I think this is one of them.
Um, I think the difference iswhat I was saying earlier:
(17:02):
status quo versus change.
This is about change.
It's about changing a little bitabout how your streetscape
looks, it changes how you movearound in our city.
Um, there's a, I mean, a runningjoke I often say is that the
only thing worse than the waythings are right now is any kind
of change.
And that's the reality we faceevery day in municipal
government.
Um, people are concerned whenthey see change in front of
(17:25):
their home that they don'trecognize or they didn't know it
was coming, or they don'tunderstand what the impact is
going to be on their life twoyears down the road of this
change.
So um, and bike lash is part ofthat.
Uh it's a response to a changeand it's a response to
uncertainty.
I think the real dichotomy isbetween status quo and change.
(17:45):
And as politicians, uh, we ourjob sometimes is to talk about
the change people want to seeactually, and to and to talk to
people who don't areuncomfortable with change about
what it actually means.
These are very, in a case of uhof bike lanes or change in our
infrastructure or our activetransportation infrastructure,
it is personal to people becauseit's right in front of their
(18:06):
home.
It's their neighborhood that'schanging, and that makes people
nervous.
They don't know what that changelooks like.
Um, they've always been able topark in front of their house.
Why can't I park in front of myhouse now?
And um we have a job to explainto people about why we're making
change and how this has impactedother communities.
I mean, Vancouver has thisexcellent example of how a lot
(18:27):
of the early bike clash was ledby the business community who
are really concerned about whatit meant to put bike lanes
downtown.
And how once they were put in,it was a there was a turnaround.
The downtown business communityis one of the strongest
supporters of the work thatVancouver did to make it more
cycling city.
So we can talk about thoseexamples from around the world,
but ultimately it's it's alsotaking the time to hear people's
(18:50):
concerns about the change andtry to understand what the root
of those concerns are.
Um and and sometimes you justneed to be bold and say, you
know, the community is asking mefor this kind of change.
And I can't say no to thecommunity because of parochial
concerns.
I have to answer to 90,000 newWestminster people, not just the
people on one street who areconcerned about a change.
(19:10):
That's why we haverepresentative politics, I
guess, in Canada.
That's the system that we rununder.
SPEAKER_00 (19:23):
One of the solid pieces of advice that I've heard
and tried to live by is don'tcome to a politician as an
advocate with a problem, bringthem a solution.
Going back to the cancellationof the AT funding from the
Ministry of Transportation andTransit, they're definitely in a
fiscal bind.
As you've pointed out, it's arelatively small amount of
(19:44):
money, but they have to startcutting back somewhere.
One of the solutions that's beenput forward is to suggest that
they increase automated speedenforcement with red light
cameras, speed cameras, and soon.
We just did a podcast with thehead of the RCMP who reminded us
that one police officer on thestreet costs about$300,000 a
(20:05):
year after salary, cars, backend, pensions, and all that are
taken into account.
For$300,000, you could buy a lotof speed cameras.
Why are we not doing that?
And using that revenue to fundAT improvements and pick up for
the lost revenue that's beencanceled.
(20:28):
I understand you've uh got youreye on some cameras, Patrick.
SPEAKER_01 (20:32):
I might have been a little cheeky on Blue Sky
suggesting that if uh if anyoneknows how to ship a bunch of
unused traffic cameras fromOntario to New Westminster, I'm
happy to receive them and putthem up here.
Uh a little cheeky because Idon't have the legal ability to
put them up here, but we've beencalling for the province to
enhance their intersection speedcamera program for years.
(20:54):
This came to a bit of a headlast year as we had two
pedestrian deaths on McBride, aroad in New Westminster that is
a provincial highway that has alot of people speeding beyond
the 50-kilometer speed limit onit.
Uh, and I'm frustrated by it.
I'm I am afraid it's only goingto get more dangerous as a road
with when the new Petulo Bridgeopens and more traffic is
funneled at a higher speed alongthe Petulo Bridge.
(21:16):
A ostensibly safer bridge and asafer route is going to make the
street in New Westminster lesssafe as a result of it.
I don't know.
I think the public is veryclearly in favor of automated
camera enforcement in BritishColumbia.
The polls are really clear aboutthat.
One of the claims I commonlyhear in my community is that
people just don't respect therules of the road anymore.
(21:37):
Um, I mean, we all see this fromour viewpoint.
I think a lot of drivers see itas the pedestrians and cyclists
don't respect the rules of theroad.
SPEAKER_00 (21:43):
Which is often the case.
SPEAKER_01 (21:44):
Which is the case, and and the pedestrians and
cyclists see it as the cars whodon't respect the rules of the
road.
I think they're all it's alltrue.
I think that um the the questionof potential harm of a
pedestrian not following therule of the road versus a
vehicle not doing it is a bitdifferent.
But uh we I think there is ageneral sense that it's it's the
Wild West out there right now onour roads.
(22:05):
And I stand, I see the provinceum reducing the requirements for
testing for new drivers.
I see them moving through ICBC,saving money by creating a
no-fault system, uh, which againtakes some of the burden off of
drivers to pay for the cost ofroad incidents, of road
violence.
So I see them going in adifferent direction than the
(22:26):
direction I'd like to see themgoing, which is making our roads
safer.
I think that automated camerasmake sense.
I think that modern technologyof automated cameras is very
different than the photo radaruh debates that we had back in
the 90s.
Um, I think that it'sdemonstrated that they make
intersections safer.
It's demonstrated that theyreduce speeds.
(22:48):
Um I don't know why we areresistant to installing them.
And I am a little concernedabout um the cash cow argument,
which is the argument that'sbeing successfully used in
Ontario right now to fight them.
And if we say that we areinstalling these in order to pay
for bike lanes and activetransportation infrastructure,
that will feed into that cashcow argument.
(23:08):
The argument here is that we aregonna save a whole bunch of
money on accidents, we're gonnasave a whole bunch of money on
health care on the healthcaresystem, we're gonna save a whole
bunch of money on policeenforcement and courts, and
we're gonna make our roadssafer.
This is a win-win for everybody.
And I guess there's a capitalcost to installing them that
maybe the province is worriedabout right now.
Maybe they're worried about abacklash and not want to deal
(23:30):
with the backlash, but bring iton.
I'm happy as a city to take onthese cameras.
Um, if they if they want to giveus the authority to install
them, that I will invest themoney to install them.
I want people in New Westminsterto know that this is a city when
you drive through it.
If you don't follow the rules ofthe road, you will get a ticket.
You will get you it will costyou because I care primarily
about people in my municipalitybeing safe getting around.
SPEAKER_00 (23:52):
Do you have the power to install speed cameras?
SPEAKER_01 (23:55):
No, we do not.
We know we're not legally ableto do that.
We're the only the province hasthat authority.
SPEAKER_00 (24:00):
And is there a uh legislated uh place where the
revenues go, or is that debatedor negotiated on every
installation?
SPEAKER_01 (24:09):
Yeah, this is one of the common thing feedbacks we
have.
People always say to me, if youjust set up a police uh at the
corner of uh, I'm looking at mywindow right now at Eighth and
Royal, they'd be able to handout tickets all day and be able
to pay for all the city'srevenue with that.
Um the reality is ticket revenuefor Motor Vehicle Act violations
goes to the province.
Um, it is largely returned tomunicipalities through grants
(24:32):
for road safety and otherthings, but it is returned back
on a per capita basis, not on uhlike you know, so if we go a
bunch more tickets here in NewWestminster, I have to pay the
police to hand those ticketsout, I have to pay the police to
go to court to make thosetickets stand, but I don't get
any benefit from a municipalityas far as my revenue from
handing out those tickets.
(24:53):
And again, a bunch of the costsavings go to the healthcare
system, the cost savings go toICBC, the cost savings go to
provincial agencies.
So yeah, we can have aconversation about that math.
I can see a reason why we don'twant every city having the
ability to hand out tickets.
We don't want to, we don't wantto be the Dukes of Hazard and
have uh boss hogg just handingout random tickets to pay for
(25:14):
the city's revenue.
That's probably not a fair wayto allocate that revenue.
And it's probably, and at somepoint, the emphasis does go
away, go to being revenuedriving instead of being to road
safety.
And we have to make sure theemphasis stays on road safety.
That's the only way people willrespect and understand and
support the political decision,is if we actually demonstrate
this isn't a cash cow.
(25:35):
This is about keeping yourchildren safe when they're
walking to school.
SPEAKER_00 (25:39):
We're gonna do a future podcast just on this
topic and the conditions underwhich people are more willing to
accept these cameras.
You know, if you give themnotification, if they're in the
right places and so on.
But I think in the interim, uhwe, and I sounds like you, would
continue to push for them.
And I think the argument of costsavings, if people want to talk
about money, then it's not justthe revenue, it's also the cost
(26:03):
savings.
And those should also be takeninto account.
SPEAKER_01 (26:06):
You know, a third of a third of my police of my fire
department's time is spentresponding to road acts.
It's a third of their time.
So there's this one otherexample you don't think of of
how a municipality like NewWestminster spends a bunch of
money on an issue that umenforcement could help with.
SPEAKER_00 (26:22):
And I'm I'm gonna guess a third or some
significant portion of yourpolice officers' time is also
spent on traffic enforcement.
SPEAKER_01 (26:30):
Yeah, traffic enforcement and responding to
accidents.
Not so much enforcement as justresponding to the incident, you
know, managing the trafficsituations around incidents,
making sure things were secure,and investigating incidents when
they happen.
Yeah, that takes a bunch of ourtime as well.
SPEAKER_00 (26:44):
And your police and fire budgets, I'm guessing,
would be more than half of yourentire budget?
SPEAKER_01 (26:50):
Uh, when you put the two together, it's almost half
of our budget.
Yeah, we're we're relativelyefficient here in New
Westminster.
We have our own policedepartment, which costs a little
more than RCMP, but we getreally good response for that.
But it is, it is definitely thefastest growing part of our
budget right now.
We're looking at a 5% or 6% taxincrease next year, but our
police department's looking atanother 10% increase after 10%
(27:13):
the year before and 10% the yearbefore.
SPEAKER_00 (27:15):
Patrick, I think we've pretty much covered it
off.
I really appreciate yourinsights and your leadership on
these things.
And uh, we're right there withyou at the BC Cycling Coalition
and other groups are eager tosupport you and other
politicians who are willing tomake those choices and make
those decisions and demonstratein the results a better city and
(27:36):
a safer city.
So thank you so much for comingon the podcast.
SPEAKER_01 (27:39):
Well, thank you for giving me the time to chat.
Yeah, nice to see you again.
SPEAKER_00 (27:48):
You've been listening to Bike Sense, an
original podcast from the BCCycling Coalition.
If you like the podcast, we'd begrateful if you could leave us a
rating on whatever platform youuse.
You can also subscribe so youdon't miss future episodes.
If you have comments orsuggestions for future episodes,
(28:09):
email me at peter.ladner atbccycling.ca.
You can help us amplify BCCycling Coalition's voice by
simply becoming a free member atbccycling.ca.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.