Jeff Nagel at the Surrey Leader was quick off the mark in his story on the B.C. Liberal’s idea of requiring a referendum in November 2014 on any new taxes or tolls for TransLink.
Mayor Dianne Watts quickly recognized it would turn into a Surrey-vs-Vancouver vote:
Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts warned it could divide the region, with voters in cities that already have SkyTrain lines refusing to vote for the higher taxes needed to build new lines in the remaining underserved parts of the region.
“There are going to be people who don’t want to have any expansion in the region whatsoever and that leaves the communities that are growing that have had no investment in rapid transit at a disadvantage,” Watts said.
“Surrey has paid for significant amounts of infrastructure north of the Fraser,” she said. “Now that we’re looking to expand south of the Fraser, where 70 per cent of the region’s growth is coming, we just really need to stop playing politics and get the job done.”
Richard Walton, the chair of the Mayor’s Council, delicately phrased another critical flaw: a yes-no vote is no way to craft complex policy:
Mayors’ council chair Richard Walton doesn’t reject the idea of a referendum but said he’s concerned 2014 may be too soon to have an informed public debate on a complex issue like road pricing, which could see motorists charged to drive on major routes.
That public discussion would need to address not just what residents would pay in extra charges, but what they would get for the investment and the downside if it was rejected.
“Saying no is easy,” Walton said. “But people don’t necessarily understand the repercussions of saying no.”
I was less delicate:
SFU City Program director Gordon Price said a referendum could be a disaster for the region, blocking transit upgrades needed for the livability of the growing region.
“It’s an excruciatingly bad idea,” he said, pointing to transportation funding referenda in U.S. states, where he said good policy is often sacrificed to craft an initiative that might pass.
“It just invites everything to be framed as part of a cynical political exercise that’s put through the grinder of ideology, partisanship and parochialism. It becomes what will sell. Not what’s right or how do we make the tradeoffs that need to be made.”
Price said the move reflects a continuing provincial government bias against transit and in favour of bridge and freeway projects that appeal to drivers but ultimately undercut the aim of more transit use and lower emissions.
“Why is only one part of the transportation system up for a referendum?” Price asked. “I want to vote on the [replacement of the] Massey Tunnel. And why didn’t they do that with the Port Mann Bridge?”
Price said he believes the referendum promise is designed so the Liberals can dodge responsibility for whatever deal may be struck with Metro mayors.
“Everything is framed so they have an out,” he said. “This just sounds like a way to avoid making the really tough decisions.”
And Jordan Bateman was licking his chops:
Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation B.C. director Jordan Bateman said the election promise unveiled Monday would give local voters the power to block any new revenue tool for transit expansion they decide is unjustified.
“That will really change the tenor of the discussion around TransLink,” Bateman said.
“From my point of view, that’s great. Direct democracy is always the best democracy.”
Another great chance to ‘starve the beast’ by reiterating ‘No More Taxes,’ regardless of the merits or alternatives – so long as roads, bridges and tunnels aren’t ever put on the ballot.
What’s good for the bus is good for the car. I couldn’t agree more that if transit is going to be singled out for a divisive, clumsy, dysfunctionally politicized decision-making process, so should all other major funding initiatives. See my column on this at http://www.biv.com/article/20130416/BIV0319/304169950/transportation-planning-needs-to-be-co-ordinated-accountable
Reading your blog must must have trained me well because the first thing I thought of when I saw this in the Straight was that there was no consideration of putting major road projects to a referendum. Transit-, bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly projects are treated as frills or optional extras but anything involving cars is done without question or thought.
Why are transit users still treated as a fringe special interest group?
I agree Gordon!
I vote no for the Massey Tunnel expansion. I think we can build a transit and active transportation only for the corridor. Leave the number of vehicle lanes the same. Lets stop focusing on moving hunks of plastic and steel and instead move people. All the single occupant vehicles are clogging up the roads for commercial traffic.
Where was the referendum when the $4.5 billion was spent on the current Gateway expansion with only the bridge tolled? How about the money loser $800 million Golden Ears Bridge or the $200 million Pitt River bridge?
I respectfully disagree.
If we say that there should be more regional control of translink and more autonomy to translink, they should have more control over taxation (who is going to champion road pricing, anyway?) if we give the mayor’s council/TL more control of taxation, that should come with some sort of representation or at least some electoral input.
I supported the HST and I agreed with the logic, but other people rightly or wrongly feared negative consequences for them and acted on that. even without referundum legilation, people can choose to vote out a governement in victoria. I’m not sure how that can be done now as tl exists. Munis can vote out their own mayor, but not the mayor’s council at large. God forbid if we go the route of the mega-city like toronto.
I think putting it to referrendum is an option. Remember that at least in the CoV, civic elections come with a vote on infrastructure spending, and i am unsure if they have ever been rejected. it is possible.
If there is another way to re-org TL, i’d like to hear it.
I so agree with Mr. Price. Taxpayers are generally completely short-sighted and consider only their immediate desires and needs–to heck with everybody else. Also, direct democracy has proven highly problematic in action in California, where bills that involve increasing taxes are usually defeated; the state is suffering severely as a result.
One of the reasons that Translink is in such a financial bind is that it does not have full access to federal gas taxes. Ignoring the federal excise taxes on gasoline for a moment, because I do not know how much they are, let’s just consider the federal “temporary” 10 cents/litre gas tax that the federal government collects on gasoline sales.
I read that the federal government transfers approximately $150 to $200 million per year of gas taxes to Translink. Sounds like a lot, right? But is it the right amount? I don’t know if it is. If one out of every four residents in the Lower Mainland buys gasoline (a wild guess), that is 500,000 purchasers. If they purchase 100 litres/month, 1,200 litres/year, then they pay $120 per year in temporary gas taxes. That totals $60 million per year. But I have no idea if these numbers are accurate, they are just assumptions. What about the rest ofthe excise taxes.
does anyone know the answers to these questions?
Gasoline tax is a declining revenue source, the exact opposite of what’s needed to produce stable transit funding. We need sources of revenue that rise as transit use rises so improved service helps to fund itself. We’ve seen the same stupidity with bridge tolls. As one arm of government bases financial projections on an ever growing number of users the other arm is encouraging people not to drive as much. You can’t have it both ways.
Road pricing falls into this same trap. As people drive less the revenue collected on behalf of transit drops. Unless a new source of revenue is found those stuck driving will be forced to bear an ever increasing cost to do so.
While probably impractical the only long term sustainable solution is for regional transportation authorities to be funded from general revenue on a per user basis. That way if improving bus service adds more passengers the funding for transit in that area would go up.
On a national scale there are other issues to be contended with like common carrier legislation that made trucking cheaper than moving goods by rail. The subsidy given to the trucking industry in the form of free roads is hard to understand when you consider that heavy vehicles cause over 90% of the wear and tear on roads and force every overpass and tunnel to be over-engineered to account for their weight and bulk. In an astonishing twist it is those on the right side of the spectrum who support this distorted bit of socialism that penalizes free enterprise and rewards free loaders.
“We need sources of revenue that rise as transit use rises so improved service helps to fund itself”
That is already existing, it is called transit fare.
Road pricing falls into this same trap. As people drive less the revenue collected on behalf of transit drops.
Yes but that is the real purpose to have transit: to keep the road pricing revenue as low as possible: That is eventually the problem of wrongly understood road pricing (a tool to finance transit) versus a right understanding of it (a tool to keep people and goods moving in the most efficient manner) see that for more:
http://voony.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/congestion-charge-the-case-for-vancouver/
long term sustainable solution is for regional transportation authorities to be funded from general revenue on a per user basis
No that is totally unsustainable, the main reason, is that transportation is a service which can be consumed without limit like electricity or data communication bandwidth at the difference of let say education, or medical service..
Long term solution is to internalize the cost of transportation, like it is done with electricity and data communication, in sort that the user, not the tax payer, pay the true cost of the service. (we could argue that the general tax payer can pay a minimum safety net rate, but that is pretty much it).
Three little letters: H S T. The last time the citizenry at large decided to play Finance Minister they blew 3 billion dollars on nothing right in the middle of one of the worst financial and economic crises of the last 50 years, without even a Mirabel to show for their troubles. All to ‘send a message’ to a guy who had been out of office for over a year by the time it all happened.
Or look at California to which the vast majority of its financial problems can be laid at the feet of the Byzantine rules created by public referendum on how to raise taxes. Only the recent election of a Democratic Supermajority allowed for the type of reform needed (raising taxes) and lo and behold, not only is California’s balance sheet looking better so is its economy.
Or go talk to the folks on the Seattle Transit Blog about some fool named Tim Eyman who’s managed to turn getting anti-tax measures onto the ballot into a very lucrative business venture.
Right wing crazies love this sort of stuff because it does exactly what they want, creates chaos, erodes trust in public institutions and runs up mountains of debt to which the obvious solution is always slashing services, regardless of how said debt was arrived at. We do not want this for BC.
Legislators are often incompetent and divorced from reality but they’re generally not trying to tear down society for their own gain (generally).