Bula on BC Transport: “How Vancouver’s traffic nightmares hurt all of B.C.”

Frances Bula examines the transportation issue with a province-wide perspective in B.C. Business: How Vancouver’s traffic nightmares hurt all of B.C.

A few excerpts:

The general subtext of the naysayers: transit in dense Vancouver is something that only a rarefied group of people use—city slickers who think they should get whisked around town on billion-dollar subway lines. It’s an indulgence for them, but we need money for roads because the real economy of the province happens on the roads, not some dinky monorail. …

… the debate makes it sound like a zero-sum game: if Vancouver wins, some other region loses. But there are plenty of people looking at the whole picture from 30,000 feet who say that a robust transit system in the Lower Mainland has benefits that extend to Chilliwack, to Hope, to Kelowna, to Fort St. John, to Kitimat.

One of the biggest reasons: Vancouver is, condos and latte joints notwithstanding, primarily a port city, with Port Metro Vancouver now the fourth-largest tonnage port in North America. The lives of port cities depend on efficient distribution inside that urban engine. And just more roads can’t produce that. At some point, cities that need to get trucks around have to find a way to get some cars off the road. …

There’s another argument for how efficient transit in the Lower Mainland benefits people in B.C.—and while it’s not as tangible as trucks, it’s even more important, argues one advocate.

“The premier keeps talking about the wonders of LNG but if you don’t have the lawyers and the accountants and the engineers and the architects in Vancouver to make that work, you won’t get anywhere,” says Michael Goldberg, professor emeritus with UBC’s Sauder School of Business. …

For him, an equal part of the wealth is the province’s human capital, much of it concentrated in its largest metropolis. And if the people in that city can’t get together easily, can’t schedule multiple meetings within a few hours, can’t teleport themselves out to the airport on rapid transit and fly into Terrace or Cranbrook for a day of consultations—then the economy slows down as inevitably as if someone poured molasses into the engine.

That’s why the rural-urban politicking over transit funding enrages him. “If we want to be congested and expensive to do business in, keep on doing what we’re doing.” …

… even that fundamental disconnect could be reduced if people actually understood who is getting what. At the moment, they don’t—allowing almost everyone to feel aggrieved, resentful and ripped off. Provincial ministers say that Vancouver shouldn’t be asking for favours from the hinterland. That, of course, puzzles those who understand how transportation is funded overall. …

Every time the question of money for transit comes up, it sets off a pitched battle over who is getting what. But there is never a clear answer because of the very mixed bag of funding regimes.

Jurisdictions dominated by cities, like California, tend to set up political fights and tax regimes that benefit cities. States and provinces that see themselves as primarily rural, like Indiana, set up barriers and fights that benefit the rural areas—as B.C. seems to be doing. And both engage in unproductive squabbles about unchangeable realities. “

Any time we spend on a province-wide argument, it is going to devolve into whether cities are a good thing,” says Jarrett Walker. “That is pointless.” …

Then again, Premier Kathleen Wynne triumphed in Ontario—new taxes, transit funding for the cities, and all. So maybe it’s possible for peace to break out in B.C., too.

Lots more worth reading in the full article here.