Ohrn: Prof Kay Teschke adds her graphic to the mix of opinion. (Don’t forget the planned 300 km of separated bike lanes that are part of this package.)
.
Click to enlarge
Article Categories
Archives (2003-13)
Recent Articles
Recent Episodes
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
If I were part of the ‘yes’ side, I’d stay away from the scare tactics like ‘voting no will give you cancer’.
I would also argue that voting ‘no’ doesn’t just give you nothing as that graphic implies. That implies status quo. But it’s going to be even worse, reduced transit service etc.
I think the public health aspect of transit is *way* undersold. It should be a focus of any campaign.
People don’t make that connection. It’s too far removed, too ‘sciency’. ‘Yeah yeah, I might get cancer in 40 years but I have to get to work now’.
This gets sold to drivers by beating it into their heads that more transit, cycling, etc means fewer drivers on the road means less traffic/congestion for you. This debate has to speak to joe average, something Bateman is good at doing in his laughable ‘fighting for the little guy’. As wrong as his policies are, his message is clear and understandable.
This debate has little to do with having people truly understand the health benefits, impacts to urban form, etc… It’s a PR battle.
It’s like the No side claiming that once ebola jumps over here anyone on transit is putting themselves at the risk of catching it, and dying quickly. A bad flu epidemic is also spread by millions on transit. Heck, what about fleas, lice and bed bugs? All over transit. But the No side is not saying these things.
Perhaps Teschke’s fanatical enthusiasm for her bike and cycling studies and lectures are exaggerating her perceptions of the normal world.
Remember when Brian Mulroney ripped a document into two during a press event just before the Charlotteown Accord vote. It was in Quebec and reports were that he was suggesting to Quebecers that a ‘no’ vote could would be a disaster that might cause them to lose their Canadian passports. A scare tactic. They didn’t buy it. The vote failed with only 43% voting for it in Quebec.
… or perhaps you are wrong, and our dependence on cars really is terrible for our health.
I’m going to go ahead and trust the professor on this one.
I agree, though I am less concerned about annoying No voters than mobilizing Yes voters.
The things on the YES side of the image are instrumental. They are not valuable in and of themselves, but only for the meaningful things they can provide. Inverted, the NO list gives us a positive vision of what these things are:
Clear skies; safer roads for our cars, ourselves and our children; cleaner air; movement and exercise; human interaction; vibrant street life and businesses; peaceful green spaces; healthier and happier citizens.
I think Prof Teschke is on the right track here. Emphasize what we will get from a YES outcome, and what the consequences are of a NO.
Note that she does not use the “T” word at all.
Good point. Leave Translink out of it.
The Patullo Bridge is also going to be replaced, no matter what the vote. Scare tactics don’t always work, especially when they are inaccurate.
The InsightsWest poll must be shocking. Only 11% of the diminishing number of Yes voters have confidence in TransLink.
You can make the argument that everything in the plan will get done no matter what the vote… eventually. The point is that voting yes gets us this infrastructure when it’s actually needed (right now), before the bulk of the extra million residents arrive in the region.
And I would make the argument that it was all needed years ago. The entire package should be in operation today and would be if not for some highly questionable decisions made in Victoria over the past few decades.
Again, the mistake is made of assuming a NO vote means NO transit. This is not the case. Victoria has heard loud and clear that we want transit, and we need transit. They aren’t going to back down, not even a NO vote will stop transit investment. This is a plebiscite to gauge public opinion on whether a sales tax would be acceptable, and isn’t a commitment in any way. If it doesn’t pass, the province is just going to go back to the mayors to ask for a property tax increase. You’re going to see rapid transit investment no matter what, because the province can’t afford not to invest in transit.
What evidence do you have that supports this optimism?
Don: Thanks for asking.
• First, the government itself has explicitly acknowledged that “transit is vital to economic development in metro Vancouver”. http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2013-2017/2014tran0104-001914.htm
• Second, sales taxes have historically been unpopular in Canada, and a NO vote can simply mean that people don’t like sales taxes. After all, the only reason there is a vote is because the province doesn’t want to be said to be forcing a tax down peoples’ throats. The government wants to look like it listens to the people.
• Third, the province already has the money. Remember it pledged to reduce the HST to 10%? Unlike translink, the province has abundant cash to spend, or not-spend on the massey tunnel.
• Last, the mayors (Vcr & Surrey) have already dedicated their election campaigns on a transit platform. Would they use a no vote as an excuse for delaying transit expansion yet again?
Please don’t interpret my analysis as support for the no side. A yes vote would mean a dedicated funding stream for transit: funding that cannot be used in anything other than transit. (Please don’t count the Pattullo disaster)
Plus, there’s no guarentee that a Yes vote will mean a tax increase, especially if it’s a very narrow Yes vote. Sales taxes are not something right-wing pro-business governments like implementing, and the Liberals might loose some of its base if the vote isn’t overwhelmingly yes.
I’m afraid you give the people in Victoria far too much credit. The only promise on the table is a Massey Tunnel replacement, and that’s not starting until 2017.
I don’t buy it. The province is unwiling to spend political capital unless they reap a political return. (I fear even mayors who are in favor are making the same calculation.) A no vote gives them permission to delay as long as possible, only implementing projects when there is an obvious win for themselves or their clients.
Of course traffic and transit will get worse and economic opportunities will be missed, but that’s far in the future. Then it will be someone else’s job: surely, someone will do something about it then (hah). What matters to them is their political opportunities today. The important thing is that they don’t get blamed for it. Of course they won’t be. The No vote was a vote against Translink: they know their scapegoat is secure. Worst comes to worst, they can rejig that and pretend they addressed the problem. Look at climate change. Are politicians who know it needs to be dealt with pronto doing so? Of course not. Transit will fare no better.
While this sounds cynical, I don’t mean it to be. I don’t think politicians are particularly worse people than anyone else, and I believe most people are basically decent. Indeed, I respect the compromises they make in order to get anything done. But like all of us they operate in a context where it is difficult to deviate too far from what is expected by their peers. Most politicians don’t lead, they follow. (Those who lead are not necessarily better.) Think of Jim Hacker avoiding a “courageous” decision in Yes Minister. Even if they believe transit is needed, they cannot do it on their own: they need us to get their backs.
A bet a groundswell of support for Yes would have politicians piling on board. Seeing a base of support, they will serve it. “No” is only a base for doing nothing.
Unfortunately I believe you are seriously deluding yourself. Some local politicians may attempt to go it alone (but I would not want to put money on it). But it will be a cold day in Hell before the Christy government puts any money into transit after a no vote.
First, if the government believed what they are saying, they would get on doing it. They wouldn’t waste everyone’s time and money with this referendum. You can be sure if something were “vital to economic development” for an issue they were for, they wouldn’t waste time or risk it going to a public vote.
Second, no tax is ever popular. But the entire ‘no’ platform is that translink can’t be trusted. Yes or no, that doesn’t change with Provincial action.
Third, I agree they have money. There’s always money when you want it. But again, I see no evidence that they’d spend it on transit before say the massey project and other highway projects.
Fourth, I don’t follow. If there’s a no vote, what can the mayors do?
Don,
A “no” vote will send the mayors back to the drawing board, where they belong.
Teschke needs to take an introductory course in economics & public policy. Her crap contribution is irresponsible and scurrilous. She must spend a lot of time with adolescent sophmores.
The imminent No vote will free-up $2 billion of your local dollars, and another $4 billion of your dollars that go to the Fed/Prov gov’ts. There are many other places and programs (and parts of your life), that would benefit immensely from these funds. The funds aren’t use it or lose it; the golden carriage doesn’t turn into a pumpkin.
I’d say YES to transit but NO to the proposed funding options. Better options, ie Plan B exists.
No rail link to UBC is a major mistake, especially with the new Jericho land development now starting to emerge !
More political will has been squandered squabbling over details. Technology, funding mechanism, routes… We will not be offered the perfect plan. (No such plan exists given divergent interests.)
In the early 20th century there was a consensus across the United States that cities must subways. Politicians, businessmen, citizens all agreed. The need was so pressing that they were believed to be inevitable. Ballot measures were proposed; some even passed. Nothing happened. Why? Because of disagreements about the details. The “inevitable” did not come to pass. Then there was the Depression, then the war; by then cars had taken over and the will did not exist.
I know one thing: we need transit. We have waited decades. I will not compare an achievable plan with an imaginary alternative. I will only compare it with the easy default of doing nothing.
Improvements to transportation infrastructure, systems and administration: Yes. The proposed referendum to simply throw good money after bad: No. Vote for more options because they exist and have not been provided to us to date. If we are going to agree to pay, one way or another, we have the right to demand a full accounting of where, when and how our taxpayer dollars will be used with contractually binding requirements that those funds be used as we specify in our agreement. Without those defined clauses in the agreement, a Yes vote on the proposed referendum is a blank cheque; I never sign blank cheques. Do you?