From Novae Res Urbis:
Mayor Greg Moore said TransLink has “many people that they’re trying to please at the same time,” and needs to address the funding, and that the forthcoming referendum on transit financing will be important.
“This isn’t a debate about whether we need the Broadway line or the Surrey line, or more buses or another bridge,” he said. “We need all of this. And if we don’t have it, people won’t get to work on time, quality of life will be decreased and we collectively have to figure that out.”
So: the referendum imposes on us exactly the debate we don’t need. We may need “all of the above” – the Broadway line, the Surrey line, more buses, another bridge – but the Premier indicated the referendum has to give voters a chance to choose “none of the above.” Unless everyone gets something but nobody has to pay a lot, the referendum likely fails.
Or, as we’ve seen today with Surrey, municipalities strike out on their own, appeal to senior governments for direct funding (constitutionally dubious) and turn the whole process of regional transportation planning into a political game of constituency rewarding.
So: more damage from this referendum process. But wait, there’s more!
.
Moore said the referendum question is still unknown, but it will not involve mobility or road-pricing, “although the mayors around the region have said that’s the best long-term strategy for funding a transportation system.
So: the referendum will rule out the best options for funding because of political impracticality.
.
“One of the down sides of a referendum is, it’s probably not going to happen until November of next year,” he added. “It’s highly unlikely to have such a complex referendum discussion next spring.
According to TransLink, if you want to buy a new bus, hire and train a new driver, it’s a year and a half to do that, so even if we’re successful next November, we still have to wait that time to see some changes in our system.
We’re growing so quickly, I think we’re going to have more gridlock in the short term, which is why we need to figure this out, and what we as a mayors’ council requested was the referendum question as soon as possible.”
So: The referendum has already succeeded in creating delay, inevitable gridlock in the short term, and the inability to deal with complex issues. And that’s operating on the assumption that it passes.
If you dislike the referendum, what would you propose?
Author
Provincial approval of regional decisions, as authorized in existing legislation.
Gord
Sent from my iPad
>
From its very beginning with a different administration, it didn’t work that well, and hasn’t really since.
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e98eb3ec-7a85-49d5-a364-d18d1823c4ca&p=3
As that historic Sun article clearly demonstrates, there has always been a lack of political will in Victoria to fund transit properly. The provincial government insisted the local region approve Canada Line, but refused to provide any way for TransLink to pay their share. The monument must be built regardless of the impact on the rest of the system.
As the article also mentioned the Evergreen line was supposed to be built at the same time as the Canada Line and we all know how that turned out.
Of course Coquitlam was also supposed to be part of the Millennium line work in the late 1990s. Before that there was a plan to build at least the Burquitlam segment simultaneously with the SkyBridge and looking back even further it was supposed to be part of the original LRT plan that would have seen lines to Coquitlam, Surrey and Richmond by 1987. So it could be said that Evergreen is now 30 years late.
I think that with road tolls, higher amounts of revenue would be genatated in the most congested areas in the city, as well,toll pricing should be set by the level of congestion in that particular area. This would be a more fair approach to paying for transit.
The higher the congestion= higher demand for extra buses in the area.
Road Pricing is really the holy grail of city planning.
It can be used remove the ultimate incentive problem facing cities – artificially cheap transportation out to the middle of nowhere.
Our current system goes against the very basic fundamentals of economics. Externalities, both negative and positive, are forms of market failures. The appropriate role of government is to tax and disincentivize transactions that generate negative externalities for the rest of society.
“Free” use of the road network is an example of subsidizing a transaction that generates negative externalities. That is very poor economics and is socially inefficient. We should be making people pay MORE than the obvious costs of driving on the road network, not less.
Don’t forget that the congestion resulting from the delay provides the Province with further momentum to move forward with other road expansion projects.