May 16, 2014

Jordan Bateman’s Position: Satisfaction with the Second Rate

Thinking about the CTF release below, and concluding …


Jordan Bateman and the CTF strategy assumes we will accept second-rate transportation.  That’s all we should be prepared to pay for  – a second-rate transit system for Metro Vancouver.  If it means raising taxes, this region doesn’t deserve any better.


UPDATE: Remember, if the referendum fails, things do not stay as there are.  Because of declining gas-tax revenues and population growth, the transit system will decline as service is cut or not expanded to serve rising demand.  Indeed, by 2020 we would be back to about a 2003 level of service.  I think that would meet anyone’s definition of second rate.

Posted in


If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on


  1. Taxes are on the high side in Vancouver, as are unionized wages. Funny, no one talks about unions and their impact on taxation and second rate transportation. Let’s.

  2. It isn’t a matter of second rate its a matter of appropriate. Since all the discussion so far is about shiny trinkets (preferably underground for some weird prestigious reason) there is an alternative . . .

    Curitiba, transport-wise, used to be the talk of the town but since the techo-wizards have taken over the conversation nothing short of debt creating over-kill will be considered.

    Essentially Curitiba’s is a colour coded bus system. The colour being important in order to see at a glance to where the will connect.

    Missed at the banquet of useless technology that is Sky-train and Canada Line passenger’s need to connect when they get off at the main whizz-bang underground station: i.e. a secondary TX system to get passengers as close as possible to their front door.

    I find it very difficult not to be contemptuous of what goes for TX expertise on PT. My advice is stay on yer bike!

    1. It isn’t a matter of second rate its a matter of appropriate. Since all the discussion so far is about shiny trinkets (preferably underground for some weird prestigious reason) there is an alternative . . .

      you are on something Roger…

      Is a subway all the way to UBC appropriate?
      +Own Translink studies seems to say “No”

      Is a LRT appropriate in Surrey?
      +Own translink studies say “No”

      Is the bus second rate?
      Grodon Price seems to say “Yes” –
      Drafter of the referendum could be on the same line (at least we know Vancouver city council and Watts think like it)

      In a referendum, Zurich Citizens have said “Not true” if you treat it as important (bus lanes,… no food truck in the way of the bus like on Robson square… ) and have tasked their politicians:
      “provide us with a transit system which answer the need of users, and not political goal”…
      Today, Zurich has a first rate public transit system, thank in large part to have say “no” to a “shiny trinket” in 2 consecutive referendums…

  3. Wobbly buses slower than cars will never get large number of car users onto the public transit system. Only if it is faster, FAR faster. To do that one has to slow cars down, or install faster rail based systems, usually underground in a dense city. I see no alternative to a subway on Broadway until Alma, then it can go above ground through the now military land and Chancellord Blvd or 10th/University Ave, but since the military land will also be eventually developed might as well build a tunnel there too.

    Surface based transportation gobbles up valuable land, and that land is not priced high enough, neither for parking nor for driving. Only road tolls, higher parking fees and narrower roads will force people out of their cars, and only if other options are faster. Currently the price for convenient fast car use is far too low, both in terms of cash and time invested.

    It takes me less than 20 minutes to go by car from UBC to downtown, with music of my choice, no one coughing at me and at any time of the day without wait. If I park down for $20 and stay four hours all in that is only $5 an hour, or $14 more than public transit. Not cheap, but acceptable for convenience. If it took me an hour each way, due to narrow roads and more congestion, parking were $30-40 and two bridge tolls $10 each way that now five hour stay would be $60 or $12/h and I might take the high speed bus, or better train for $6 both ways.

    To get wage earners onto public transit, which is always less convenient, time is of the essence. That’s why cars will be king for decades to come in Vancouver unless changes are made, anti-car and pro-transit.

  4. Just out of curiosity, is there any fact checking in the original article? Did anyone contact the manufacturers to find out the story?

    You could go to a movie at Riverport and see a fleet of parked new cars, if a car carrier had just arrived, but that does not mean they will be there the next week when you return.