By Andre Fajardo

Edited by Sydney Grad and Ifrah Ikram

An earlier article I wrote for the Public Policy and Governance Review focused on ‘zero-emission vehicles’ (ZEVs) – more generally known as electric vehicles or EVs – and their role in meeting Canada’s emissions reduction goals. In brief, it urged great caution regarding how Canada should integrate ZEVs into its low-carbon transition strategy, offering three main points of consideration.

Firstly, while ZEVs are greener in their daily operation and have a smaller environmental impact over their full life cycle, the initial carbon footprint of manufacturing an electric vehicle is actually larger than that of an equivalent gasoline-powered model. Secondly, EV technologies, including many other ‘green’ technologies, rely on what the Canadian government calls ‘critical minerals,’ such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Each of these minerals can only be produced by a handful of countries, so Canada will have to carefully think through its ZEV strategy and its consequences for its international partnerships. Lastly, it has been continually proven that to best achieve our environmental and sustainability goals, is to focus on developing Canadian public transportation, rather than ZEVs and ‘clean energy goods,’ which will still likely be manufactured through energy- and carbon-intensive processes.

The focus of this article is on the final point, and it is essential to emphasize the facts once again: focusing on public transportation, if done properly, will help Canada and the world meet its climate goals much better than focusing solely on electrifying passenger vehicles.

It is worth reiterating that the debate on ZEVs versus public transit is not a zero-sum game. A mixed transportation solution is the best way to achieve impact and equity of outcomes, However, a heavy focus on electric vehicles, especially at the federal level, will harm ongoing efforts to support and implement public transit and urban renewal projects. Why could this be the case?

Within the sphere of transportation policy, two interconnected points arise when discussing ZEVs against public transit as the primary focus of a Canadian transportation policy. Firstly, like with many other parts of the low-carbon transition, the level of funding and political willpower available is not free-flowing. If EVs dominate the attention of policymakers, it can drown out the advocacy efforts of those pushing for funding and support for public transit projects. With the current state of Canadian public transit – functional, but reeling from the consequences of COVID-19 and grossly inadequate for the level of demand – a genuine push towards sustainability has to equate to a full level of buy-in and attention into public transit.

Secondly, and possibly more consequentially, the wholesale adoption of ZEVs represents another entrenchment of private passenger vehicles as the future of transportation solutions in Canada. As a trend, this has to be contained. Public transit generates smart returns on investments and helps to spur economic growth and productivity, especially over the long run. Moreover, it clearly alleviates congestion and all of the messy side effects that come with urban gridlock. Overall, a shift away from car-focused transportation will help push Canadians to rethink and support initiatives for greater urban sustainability.

This is not a call to abandon ZEV adoption or, as might be inferred, to push aggressively toward a car-free Canada. That would be an unnecessarily messy way to go about politicking, especially for urban areas that are forecasted to see population growth disproportionately. There are smart and innovative ways that cities can push through sustainable urban design that works in tandem with ZEV adoption. Being smart about ZEVs and how they could be integrated into existing or novel urban sustainability solutions requires very little in the way of sacrifice.

As an example, the electric charging infrastructure for EVs, unlike gasoline pumps, is intrinsically more integrable with existing city and urban infrastructure. They can be readily installed in, and transform, a wide range of settings, including both ground-level, multi-storey, and underground parking lots, on sidewalks and in side streets or alleyways with less traffic, and around green and recreational areas, like parks or playgrounds. Even being able to increase passenger and foot traffic through urban areas by targeting and/or concentrating EV infrastructure could be dramatic for neighbourhood businesses and/or urban revitalization projects.

On the other hand, the smart combination of EV infrastructure and urban sustainability objectives could also help to control urban sprawl or better promote long-term planning attitudes. For example, EV policy is likely (though not certain) to increase the total number of vehicles on the road, which will necessarily incentivize building new parking lots or car-based transit infrastructure on the outskirts of urbanized areas. An innovative way to situate ZEV infrastructure within meaningful urban revitalization efforts could be to more fully integrate and tie new parking lots and thoroughfares with existing or new transit hubs (such as train stations served by either GO Transit or TTC lines in Toronto). This could also be the case for parks, playgrounds, community centers and hiking trails. Physically joining electric vehicle charging with public transit and recreational space could help to keep Canadians conscious of the need for urban sustainability.

Carsharing has also seen increased attention as a way to bridge the convenience of on-demand private passenger cars with the flexibility of reduced car ownership, congestion, and traffic demands. Through public-private partnerships, dedicated charging stations and parking lots could be assigned for carsharing fleets, which would give flexibility to urban transit choices whilst minimizing unnecessary growth in vehicle ownership.

Ultimately, our low-carbon transition is, in many ways, about trying to be smart and ingenious when we need to be. A middle ground here is as smart as it is necessary.

Andre Fajardo is a second-year student in the Master of Global Affairs program at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy and a Senior Editor with the Public Policy and Governance Review (PPGR). His policy interests include Technology, Urban, and Innovation Policy, and his wider academic interests include political philosophy and the role of technologies on our politics and democratic norms. Andre is exploring a career in research or the private sector, as well as further studies at the doctorate level.