Let’s assume that the referendum will be delayed. I doubt the Premier would even have raised it as a possibility if the Province wasn’t anticipating that this would happen. Indeed, they may welcome a delay, given that media, business and local sentiment was starting to go negative as it became increasingly obvious that, without a question much less clarity on the process, we were heading for a major … um, fill in NSFW description here.
So, what’s next? It’s not too early to start the discussion we should have had in the first place.
Let’s begin with some comments and speculation from Richard Campbell:
At least two or three years of consultation, planning and design are needed before the big dollars are needed for rapid transit along Broadway and in Surrey. A shorter timeframe for BRT projects but still a year won’t really delay them that much.
For Surrey and Broadway, the region and the Province do need to continue with the process. Further planning and design could bring down the cost estimates and find savings … All of this would reduce the amount required from new funding sources … increasing the likelihood of (a referendum)passing.
There are also many other points that the region and the province need to negotiate on:
- Increasing the provincial and federal shares for large projects. With the region responsible for 100 percent of the operating costs, it simply is not feasible for the region to be providing one-third of the capital costs; 10-15% is more workable.
- The federal government is predicting surpluses in 2015 and there is an election – an ideal opportunity to get the parties to commit more for transit.
- Development on station properties. There are perhaps 15 to 25 station properties that could be developed. The Province needs to enable some of the value to go to transit. This again could reduce the amount needed from new sources.
- Development near stations. The Province and municipalities need to work this out too. TransLink wasn’t planning on doing this until after the referendum. Now there may be time.
Many other issues and opportunities need to be worked out as well. This takes time.
Regarding immediate funding, one possibility is the Province agreeing to help out with the Pattullo. This could help free up money for transit.
Another possibly is the Province helping to reduce the amount needed in the $300 million surplus fund by giving TransLink a low-interest line of credit to help with unexpected shortfalls. This could reduce the need for TransLink to borrow to cover capital, reducing debt-servicing costs, leaving more for operating costs.
Or the Province could give the region $20 or $30 million over the next year as bridge funding until the long-term picture can be determined.
What the region and the province need to do is to appoint a task force or at least properly resourced negotiating teams to find solutions.
One thing should be clear by now: the Province cannot sit this out, expecting the Mayors to unilaterally lead, reach agreement and take ownership of the consequences without the Province being there every step of the way. It’s a singular opportunity for Todd Stone to step forward in a career-making move. Or, if not him, the Premier will have to make contact with a respected leader in the community, in the same way Gordon Campbell recruited Jack Poole for the Olympics, to lead a campaign that has a chance of winning.
Interesting comments. There seems to me that there are some more fundamental discussions that should happen and are critical for continued development of a transit capacity for a metro area that will house 3.5 million plus people.
Firstly, the province has demonstrated over the years, especially at the political level, that it lacks expertise in urban city development for people and should back out of that area. Transportation is one of the many facets of city planning and urban land use planning. While the province may have a role in providing transportation capacity for all modes of travel to city boundaries, the delivery of that capacity and the location should be within the purvey of cities.
Secondly, it is time that the province structures cities’ capability of raising revenue from tax, user pay, and other sources that are needed for running a city and expanding it for future population and workplace expectations. It is time for provinces to stop using cities as a toy or child, giving and taking away allowances at its own prerogative.
Thirdly, three city/metro areas have more population than six of the provinces. Metro Vancouver has about 50% of this province’s population. It is time that the Canadian government changes its relationship with cities / metro areas over 2 million population to that of a city-state or something like that with powers similar to that of provinces, thereby taking these cities out of the purvey of provinces.
Great cities are created by people living in cities, local decision-making, not landlords from far away with other interests.
Is the threat of a referendum a symptom of the problem? Is provincial lack of proper funding of transit the problem, or is it a symptom. Maybe it is the later.
Well said. Indeed cities need more power, however they are also usually left-of-center and run by overspending socialists. That is why conservative! pro-business, tax reducing mayors like Robert Ford ( ex the smoking, of course) in GTA or Boris Johnson in London, UK are needed once in a while to right decade long overspending that is so common among socialists. That is where Christy Clarke and MetroVan mayors clash: the fiscal dimension, ie the excessive spending so common of politicians !
As usual Richard has made some great observations and suggestions, but I almost burst out laughing when I read: “Further planning and design could bring down the cost estimates and find savings”.
In what fantasy land do major projects ever come down in cost? Certainly not in BC where big projects always cost more than they do almost everywhere else on the planet and only manage to come in “on budget” when they have:
1. excessively large budgets
2. a high percentage of foreign workers
3. a public private partnership
Private companies bring efficiencies that make up for any additional cost of borrowing, but the PPP deals in BC have three fundamental flaws that are helping kill TransLink.
1. private partner never wants to take on any of the risk
Golden Ears bridge isn’t seeing the projected traffic volumes. Instead of lost profits, the private operator gets to bill TransLink. Our public officials need to be locked in a room and forced to watch those BC Securities Commission TV commercials until they learn that all investments have risks.
2. private partner expects to make a substantial profit
No sane businessperson is going to borrow money unless the return on their “investment” is at least as good as the alternatives. i.e. why build a bridge when you can buy the land near the bridge and wait for it to triple in value?
3. private contributions reduce the public portion of capital costs and increase operating costs
TransLink only has to pay a fraction of capital costs, but is stuck with 100% of operating costs.