Bob Ransford on the SkyTrain heading out to a meeting in Surrey. Two younger 30-ish people are talking about what they’re reading in one of those free tabloid newspapers:
“See what TransLink wants to do? New lines going out there.”
“Yeah, it’s not going to cost THEM, it’s going to cost US.”
How do we overcome this “Us” and “Them” perspective in a referendum campaign?
Key overlooked fact in public discussion of transit improvements. They cost us, but they save us even more.
Families spend less when we and they have transportation choices. Congestion costs less when we and they have transportation choices.
From Mario Canseco in today’s Sun: “Two thirds of the survey respondents acknowledge that price increases in gas have caused a financial hardship in their household.”
Everyone depends on someone who takes transit.
Make sure to focus is on improving OUR transit system. When asked about T****L***, answer about transit – including about improving the governance of our public transit system. When caught in a war of words, fight.
Curious to know who the “us” and “them” are?? Depending on the context I think it speaks to different challenges (trust in TransLink, subregional equity, etc.)
Is this a question of users (“us”) vs. TransLink/Mayors (“them”)? ie: TransLink/Mayors can propose whatever they want because the users/taxpayers are on the hook regardless of investment portfolio
Is this a question of Subregion A (“us”) vs. Subregion B (“them”)? ie: We’re residents of Vancouver, why should we pay for Surrey light rail?
I think “them” are the residents in the location of the new lines.
“We” pay for it and the best part: now “we” can get to the new location using a great public transit system.
I think a lot of people see transit as tool used only by commuters (I always get on a point A to go to point B) rather than a network that lets you go everywhere (exceptions apply). Once you look at it as another method to get somewhere for any reason you immediately see the benefit and all the opportunity it presents no matter which end of the line you stand.
Same dichotomy with drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Ask someone in the car about traffic lights and crosswalks and they’ll talk about how pedestrians are a danger to themselves and redesigns should focus on the car. After they park and start to walk to their destination ask again and they’ll talk about how cars are a menace and more needs to be done to slow them down and protect people.
People like choice. This gives it to them. Drivers like it when fewer drivers are on the roads and when key chokepoints are cleaned up, this gives it to them. Cyclists like it when there are more cyclists (safer), and this gives it to them. Transit users like more service and faster routes, this gives it to them.
Still, I think it’s important to treat “us” not as “taxpayers” (ugh!), or drivers/cyclists/pedestrians but as Vancouverites. Rich or poor, car or not, we all want to get around with a minimum of fuss and cost. Things will have to change and that can be upsetting, but we have a chance to make sure that the change leaves us with a vibrant city rather than a car monoculture and the inevitable gridlock which it’ll bring.
We don’t. The majority of people use transit at least a few times a year and most people would use it more once improvements are made. Yes, there are people who don’t support improvements for what ever reason.
The key to winning any election is getting supporters out to vote. Trying to convince those who are not supporters to change their minds is not really that effective at all.
The Ontario election is a good example. The Liberals increased their percentage of the popular vote and the percentage of people voting went up while the percentage of people voting Conservative went down. This indicates that they had a pretty good get out the vote effort that got people out that did not vote in the last election.
They along with the NDP (whose percent of the vote increased too) promised $29 billion over 10 years for transit. Younger people are more likely to vote if parties offer solutions like transit.
For people already using a very expensive piece of transit technology to whine about better transit costing “us” more money seems incongruous.
At that moment the appropriate thing to do is ask how they’d be getting around if the previous generation hadn’t chosen to build the rapid transit system they’re currently using.
Maybe someone needs to redraw the Metro Vancouver map replacing SkyTrain with 10-lane freeways. Replace those big towers near stations with hundreds of hectares of housing in Abbotsford, Langley and Mission. Graph the increased commute distance and cost. Show the 0.1% vacancy rates in the city and the $2000/mo rents for 1-BR. Then add sprawl for another million residents. Hike city rents accordingly and show that the nearest affordable housing is in Chilliwack.
The last generation of politicians somewhat reluctantly expanded our transit system. If this generation doesn’t then the future is going to look a lot like the vision presented above.
Since “us” is “them” it will be a hard sell …