My Business in Vancouver column:
An open letter to B.C.’s minister of transportation:
At the time I write this, I don’t know who you are, what party you’re with, where you’re from or what your experience is. The voters and the next premier have yet to decide.
But from what I’ve heard so far, all the parties pretty much see transportation the same way: as a “Class B” political issue. Important, yes, but not in the first tier of concerns like health care or pipelines.
The danger is that political masters, regardless of party, eventually become captive of their servants in the Ministry of Transportation, which, regardless of name, is mostly seen as a delivery system for roads, bridges and tunnels.
“Transit,” on the other hand, is an issue that’s not nearly as much fun and not provincial in scope, seen mainly as something to fight over in the urban centres. So roads and bridges = investments with allocated budgets. Transit? More like a social service needing subsidies and new taxes.
It’s time to change that way of thinking. We’re heading into a different world – at least the next generation is. And if you, Minister, want to be seen as a leader, not a second-tier follower, here are a few things you might want to consider if you’d like to lead that next generation into that different world.
•We might have enough roads.
Yes, British Columbia builds some of the greatest roads and bridges in the world; it’s in our blood – and our budgets. But when every new addition takes billions to build, it might not all be necessary, or affordable, or needed. Because…
•Driving is changing.
The kids are certainly changing how they get around. Older people are getting by with one car. Technology and car sharing are making car-ownership optional, and technology is changing the logistics of goods movement. So there are fewer cars driving where they used to. Downtown Vancouver, for instance, is back to 1965 traffic levels. Toll bridges and tunnels aren’t getting the traffic expected. Consequently…
•We might not have enough money.
Don’t expect the revenue based on flawed growth models and declining gas taxes to cover the debt you’re expected to incur for big-buck road infrastructure. Don’t even expect the private-sector to be as enthusiastic about P3 projects unless there’s a guaranteed cash flow – usually called a tax.
Anyway, if you’re concerned about investments and jobs, you have a choice.
•Transit is the new growth engine.
Two words: Canada Line. Or three words, these by (Rennie Marketing Systems principal) Bob Rennie: “It’s no longer location, location, location [when it comes to real-estate opportunities]. It’s transit, transit, transit.”
If you want to unleash a development growth machine to generate revenue for government, go for more transit lines. And move fast, because there’s not a lot of time…
•The future of our urban regions and farmlands are at stake.
Previous governments, federal and provincial, committed themselves to a generation’s worth of road expansion in the Lower Mainland to serve the port. Now those roads and bridges will shape how we develop, and if we do nothing else, that growth will be in the form of sprawl, putting immense pressure on our agricultural lands.
If you just build more tunnels and roads south of the Fraser, the message will be clear: goodbye to big pieces of the ALR. Which is going to upset a lot of people, and you’ll have a big ugly fight on your hands.
Better instead to …
•Lead a new coalition.
Developers, unions, investors – they all back more transit. So do mayors and business leaders and community advocates. Of course, there’s division about how to pay and who goes first. But there is just as much prospect for leadership and legacy.
Ministers and premiers from all governing parties have had a regrettable habit of leading local leaders along – and then saying no to any new funding initiative at the last moment. This is your chance to lead.
Bring transit and roads together in your vision and in your budgets. Commit to a transportation strategy that reinforces the success of our regional plans and offers opportunities for jobs and growth while keeping pressure off our green spaces. Give people transportation choices that don’t assume an endless supply of cheap oil (back to those pipelines again).
And give the next generation a vision that addresses their realities and concerns while offering hope for a better future. That’s something B.C. has always been good at. We just don’t need to lay more asphalt to get there. •
Eloquent and concise. Bravo.
Well said Gordon.
The only times the road space appears inadequate is when it’s clogged by commuters. At all other times there are plenty of lanes to move people and goods around.
The commuters driving road expansion pay gas/carbon taxes, but it represents a small fraction of the cost of building/maintaining the road system. It’s probably not as big a share of the costs that transit users pay directly toward those systems. So it’s quite likely that roads require an even bigger subsidy than transit does to accomplish the same task.
I am not so certain that the commuters driving road expansion pay gas/carbon taxes, but it represents a small fraction of the cost of building/maintaining the road system, David. People seem to think that drivers are a subsidized clas of taxpayers, and that general tax revenues are used to pay for road construction and maintenance. It is just as possible that drivers are big cash cows, and that gas taxes go into general revenues and subsidize other govt expendutures.
I do not think that we know, because this stuff is not transparent. I think it is more likely that it is a wash, because in the long term, any other financial structure would not be sustainable.
Likewise, you also state: “It’s probably not as big a share of the costs that transit users pay directly toward those systems. So it’s quite likely that roads require an even bigger subsidy than transit does to accomplish the same task.”
Again, not so sure that this is true. The financing is not transparent. it appears that transit financing
is not sustainable right now, but it is hard to know because of lack of transparency. Some routes are heavily used and make money for transit providers from fairs, while others are lightly used and subsidized. All systems work that way.
Pedestrians do not pay any user charge to use sidewalks. In that snse they are entirely subsidized by general taxpayers. We accept that sidewalks must be built and maintained as a public good. Roads are the same. Maybe transit should also be treated the same way.
I always like a wild-eyed dreamer.
Remember that support for transit is still not a political slam dunk. Remember the arguments about the canada line? Strong opposition from the BIA and just as strong opposition from other civic politicians. the ProvGovt at the time did take an initial hit in the run-up to the opening.
“”There is no rational reason why we should risk the entire public-transit system–80 percent of which is buses–on an expenditure where there is dubious assurance that the ridership will arrive,” (ex CoV councillor David) Cadman told the Straight.
…..
“TransLink bears 100 percent of the cost of ridership shortfalls. [Pitt meadows mayor at-the-time] MacLean told the Straight that he questions RAVCo’s claim that the number of transit passengers in the Vancouver-Richmond corridor will have increased from 40,000 to 100,000 per day by the time the RAV line opens in 2009.
“If people were going to move in those numbers, you would have seen them on the 98-B [bus] line,” MacLean said. “It didn’t happen.””
http://www.straight.com/article/translink-directors-flexible-on-rav-costs