Time for a few questions regarding the referendum the Premier is requiring for new sources of revenue for transit expansion in the TransLink region. (I’ll update the list as I get answers. Feel free to help out!)
- Who is writing the question to be put on the ballot?
- What projects have been agreed on? Is there something for everyone?
- What sources of funding – i.e. taxes – will be voted on? (Will it include ‘None of the Above’?)
- Who is mounting the ‘Yes’ campaign, and how much money have they raised?
- Will the ‘No’ campaign be funded?
- What is the role of the Mayors Council?
- What is the role of the TransLink Board?
- What is the role of the Minister of Transportation?
And perhaps the key question:
- What is the position of the Premier?
As a political strategy, the referendum looks at first glance to be a clever manoeuvre: If it passes, it’s a breakthrough for the Province and Region, without either having to take responsibility for raising taxes. If it fails, the Province can blame it on the lack of regional leadership.
But as a strategy for the future of the region – the economic engine of the province and home to most of its growth, jobs and population – a loss would be a disaster. Has the Premier thought through the consequences? Is failure – no new transit for a decade, eventual massive cutbacks – an acceptable outcome for her? If not, how much political capital will she spend to assure success of the referendum? (Without her support, why should any other leader, elected or otherwise, risk failure and have to take responsibility?)
This is Christy Clark’s referendum. For the future of this region, and for the province, she has to take ownership.
Considering the unfolding of the “double fee” surronding the COmpass card, and
– the fact that Translink feel allowed to change fare structure without seeking approval by elected official (as it is mandated by the South Coast British columbia act).
and,
-All the rubbish their media department is “inventing” to justify such extraoridnary action
(see http://voony.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/translink-the-faregate-and-the-scofflaw/)
There is very strong reason to deny any form of new revenue to such a organization under its current form
^Or you can get a compass card.
If you dislike translink as it stands, you are welcome to propose a better alternative.
IMO many of the bold initiatives that TL made were done becasue of the way TL is structured currently. (SoF bus expansion, canada line, bridge tolling). If anything, politics interfered with other TL proposals like the vehicle levy and the parking stall tax.
That was not the point Mezzanine
The point is that
1/ Translink communication around the compass card is all rubbish
-And rubbish is below the reality, they lied on the $25M as soon recognized by the Translink COO.
-They also continue to lie on the tarriff itself, it will be no cheaper to travel with a compass card, but more expensive: $2.35 vs today $2.10: that is: 12% more expensive than with the faresaver which will be discontinued (the today alternative to cash payment for casual)…and to do that:
2/ Translink acted in full disrespect with both the letter and the spirit of the law (SCBCTA) when they changed the tariiff rule.
All short term tariff change need to be agreed by the board of mayors, that is the SCBCTA law, and Jarret Walker gives us the reason why we have such a law (like in any other transit system in the western world):
Simply cutting a [..] services is a value judgment, not a technical decision. It reflects a community’s about the community’s view about why it runs transit. In an ideal democracy, making those decisions is not the task of managers or consultants. It’s what we pay elected officials for.
That is the point…
Translink has clearly crossed a red line, and that is simply unacceptable.
I don’t think it is sane to grant tax money to a monopilistic organization which can change its tariff rule out of any political control…That is my position…
Translink has just to obey the law, to be OK: and people responsible for what need to be called the “Compass Gate scandal” need to be called on it.
What can I say? You think TL made a major transgression. I don’t.
You think a service has been ‘cut’. I think the outcomes will benefit the riding public as a whole (not only TL saves money which it desperately needs, but boarding times will decrease, uptake of the compass card will be fast and TL gets a wealth of data faster to improve the network).
But what do i know? maybe i’m on the wrong side of history. maybe TL will be dismantled and something else replaces it. I am not sure if it will be better and more responsible as it is now.
—————-
And the ‘compass gate scandal’? this is a scandal:
“The cost of delivering the Presto smart card to Toronto area commuters has nearly tripled to $700 million, says the 2012 Annual Report of Ontario’s auditor general.
The auditor said the card may be among the most expensive in the world — and isn’t delivering the breezy commute that was promised to Toronto region transit riders
….
The number of riders using Presto has also grown significantly since the audit period in March 2012, McCuaig said. The auditor’s report says only 6 per cent of regional transit users had signed onto Presto by then — 18 per cent of riders once GO was factored in [mezz = that’s 18% uptake over 2 years…]”
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2012/12/12/auditor_general_says_presto_smart_card_cost_has_ballooned_to_700_million.html
Again, I don’t discuss the outcome…I just dispute the process…
The intention could be good, but the method is simply wrong. awfully wrong.
I quote Jarret Walker when I say a service has been “cut”, but yes, “free transfer for cash ticket” can be considered as a service (something once considered as a strength of Translink,…encouraging spontaneous trip to skytrain to be taken by bus rather by motor car…is one of the reason why you would like that…tomorrow it will cost you $2 to park your car at Bridegport, almost double to reach the station by bus)
I also notice, that if the narrative “Compass/faregate will save Translink money” doesn’t support a fare increase.
The most important thing about management is good outcomes. I accept that there are bad processes other than processes that lead to bad outcomes, but this isn’t one of those cases. The supposed breaches are minor and ancillary to Translink’s clear authority. And this is well below the standard of poor process that should lead to a broad indictment against transit in Vancouver.
OK I’ll bite.
A. Who is writing the question to be put on the ballot? This ought to be done by Translink in conjunction with a mayors’ council. Can’t be a Translink only operations or it will be tarnished with everything Translink. Plus, part of my scheme below includes several large non-Translink items.
B. What projects have been agreed on? Is there something for everyone? Well I’ve come up with a big list:
1. Golden Ears Bridge 1b
2. Port Mann Bridge and Hwy 3.5b
2. Pattullo Bridge 1b
3. Massey Tunnel 1b
4. Expo Line extension to Langley 1.5b
5. Millennium Line extension to UBC 2.5b (Some cost control here)
6. Harbour Line 1b (Extension of either Canada or Expo Line under Harbour and under Lonsdale to Queen. Feel like Judas replacing Seabus, but this would offer huge service advantage and ability to rationalize and improve North Shore Bus Service.)
7. Hastings Line 3b (Connect with Evergreen at Port Moody, under Burnaby Mountain with elevator access station to SFU, under Hastings to Victory Square, Downtown, Burrard & Davie, Granville & 4th, and Granville and Broadway and connect to Millennium Line. Hastings is the next busy bus corridor that could do with improvements, and plenty of development potential here. This would end up replacing much of the West Coast Express.)
Price Tag 14.5b
Tolling infrastructure 1b (This is probably an exaggeration, but doubtless it will be expensive to do this right.)
Total Price Tag 15.5b
Annual Translink Funding of 1.5b (Increase from expenditures of 1.35b. This also has cost control built in, as Translink will have to get more efficient per passenger.)
C. What sources of funding – i.e. taxes – will be voted on? (Will it include ‘None of the Above’?) – This should just be a yes or no on the package unless very simple things can be traded off against each other. My proposed funding package is as follows:
Feds 3b (At a minimum over next 25 years)
Prov 2b (Provincial budget already stressed by healthcare and will become more so)
Casino 1b (This is surely very controversial, but a large destination casino could support 1b in construction costs with tax revenue. It would also get support from people who would want the economic boost. If this were put in Vancouver – I suggest on a pier east of Canada Place as part of a new development there – it would help justify Vancouver getting a big chunk of new projects)
Leaving 9.5 billion to be funded by borrowing. At 4% interest, 30 year am, this requires 540m per year, so total funding requirement is 2.04b per year from taxes, tolls and fares.
Propose keeping property tax at 290m per year, and scrapping the fuel tax and hydro tax. This means 1.75b per year from tolls and fares. Thinking of tolls and fares together makes tolls seem more fair as drivers realize that transit users also face per use charges.
According to Translink trip survey, there are around 5,000,000 mechanized trips per day or 1.825 billion per year. Assuming that half of them will be too short to effectively toll (or charge an additional transit fare) that leaves around 900m chargeable trips per year. With a 2$ average toll/fare, that would generate 1.75b required to pay for plan.
Obviously a variable toll structure is highly desirable as a congestion fighting mechanism. Should be an economic analysis of just this aspect.
D. Who is mounting the ‘Yes’ campaign, and how much money have they raised? Some consortium of Mayor’s Council and Ministry of Transport should probably run this. But too aggressive or disingenuous pitch will turn people off. It is a plan, and it’s the people’s choice on what to do about it.
E. Will the ‘No’ campaign be funded? Yes, by subscribers of The Province.
F. What is the role of the Mayors Council? Public face of campaign.
G. What is the role of the TransLink Board? Nothing formal, but technical assistance for sure.
H. What is the role of the Minister of Transportation? Co-proponent, and also technical assistance in coordinating the plan.
Also, need to make this clear that this isn’t a once and for all referendum. If it fails, which is quite possible, just scale it back and see if something smaller will fly.
Combining this with big road projects is important because the Pattullo and Massey have a constituency. (Just to be clear, I support a Pattullo rebuild with six lanes, but the Burrard Street Bridge should be the model. No loopy access ramps, and no plan to accommodate any more traffic than now.) And rolling the currently tolled structures, and the future tolled structures into one big regional toll will also have a constituency because some south of Fraser folks will actually pay less under new plan.
A transit wet dream.
I think it’s already ambitious enough to seek LRT in Surrey and Skytrain to UBC, and that alone. As much as I’d love to see the Canada Line to North Van and a elevator connecting SFU to a super-subterranean skytrain line, I doubt I’ll see that in my lifetime. We’ll see Elon Musk’s hyperloops across the country before we see that stuff.
This is ambitious, but not absurdly so. And although I doubt that anything is going to go forward on the first iteration – things will get chopped – it is still useful to lay out a broad vision for the region.
As a way to gauge the scale of the ambition, here is a list of 30 years’ of rapid transit projects with a crude index showing difficulty and expense of the project:
Expo 1.5
Evergreen 0.5
Canada 1
Millennium 0.5
Total 3.5
Surrey 0.5
Broadway 1
Harbour 0.5
Hastings 2
Total 4
The transit project wish list means only a slight acceleration over the current pace of implementation. A Broadway Line and light rail in Surrey isn’t ambitious at all. It’s almost an abdication of ambition. (And who wants LRT in Surrey anyway? The latest study showed that LRT offers next to nothing over BRT except a big price tag. Makes far more sense to build BRT and upgrade to a metro line over time.)
I don’t agree with the details of yvrlutyens’ proposal, but agree wholeheartedly on the need for a grand vision of the future. There should be a map with a dozen rail lines joining the cities of this area so people could see a future where they can get from one place to another without building more highways or enduring long waits for bus transfers. Realistic in the short term? Not a chance. Necessary in the long term? Absolutely!