Meetings, conferences and writing for the rest of the week, so not a lot of time to blog.
Please, write among yourselves.
Questions above. Comments below.
Try to keep the conversation high level, non-repetitive (thinking of you, Thomas) and insightful!
I have two answers:
1. It could be about people’s vision for the transportation system in Metro Vancouver. By implication, it could also be about development patterns, and the region’s vibe as a place to live, work, play, and visit. Basically, answering the question, what kind of a place should Metro Vancouver be?
2. It’s about a premier who doesn’t want to be a leader, so she’s downloading her responsibilities.
Unfortunately, there is a very real risk that a lot of people will see a No vote as a way to show frustration with their particular bugaboo about how Metro Vancouver (and TransLink in particular) is run, thereby automatically giving a very cynical answer to the question of what kind of place Metro Vancouver should be.
Potentially, a very tragic case of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Without a doubt, #2. It’s not just transportation, it’s education, health care…it’s all of it. She’s single minded in her drive to cut off at the knees anything that doesn’t reap reward in the short term ignoring long term benefits.
It’s made worse by the fact that she’s so gutless she won’t come out and say that, or stand on her beliefs but rather just slowly bleed the system dry all while successfully pointing the finger at everyone else.
It’s the antithesis of leadership and we’re all poorer because of it.
Government by referenda on limited local issues is a perfect example of weak leadership at the senior level.
Seems to work pretty well for the Swiss.
Swiss referendum questions are about ‘limited local issues.’
Like transit ?
Not giving in to powerful public sector unions and demanding a balanced budget is weak leadership ? Leadership is saying no more often than yes, as money is limited.
Public transit is not a federal nor a provincial priority, but a local one.
Agustin – I side with you on point (2). Unfortunately, this plebiscite is an abdication of responsibility by the provincial government. The BC Liberals could easily establish a long-term sustainable funding mechanism to cover the projects already detailed in the 10 year plan from the Mayor’s Council. However, not only have they chosen not to, they’re wasting taxpayer funds on a referendum they hope will vindicate their position that public transit is not important (whether for ideological reasons, or because they receive significant political contributions from motordom-related interests).
In a larger sense, this referendum is about propaganda and an unfortunate case of a large portion of the voting public buying into the falsehoods that Translink is wasteful, that we can finance expansion through “efficiencies”, or more troubling, that “no new taxes” is an appropriate mantra for progressive societies in general – it is not.
Consequences – a No vote will delay expansion until an alternative funding source is approved by the provincial government (congestion pricing etc.). I have faith that the 10 year plan will eventually be implemented, but any delays will increase the capital costs. It’s better to implement now.
Bottom line: I despise this government and I dislike the idea of a referendum, but I will vote Yes and support the Yes movement as I believe better public transit is critical, even if this is not the ideal process or funding for achieving it.
I think it’s about a premier who is interested exclusively in the pursuit of power for its own sake… not for the sake of ideology. I don’t necessarily see any big conspiracy to shrink government… but in a way that would almost be comforting if there were because you’d know there would at least be some interest in the long-term health and future of the province after she’s gone.
I agree, I don’t think she’s ideologically driven against funding public services in the way that Stephen Harper is. I think the idea to hold a transit referendum was made purely for political expediency, during an election campaign she didn’t expect to win. It was meant neither as an attack on transit, nor as an endorsement. It was meant merely to dodge the question of whether a Clark government would raise taxes to fund transit, by avoiding any sort of commitment on the issue and “leaving it to the people to decide”.
The comment above, agreeing with Mark Landmann, is attributed to Eric, but this is not me, the ‘Eric’ that has posted here before.
Because of point #2 its time to recall the Premier. And it can be done, see paragraph about Canada below..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election
Every 4 years you got that chance. How about recalling some (overspending, union courting) mayors ?
Wrong Thomas. The lies are warranting a recall and I’m starting it!
What lies ? She was elected on a balanced budget and keep-taxes-low platform and she is delivering on it. You just don’t like it, it appears.
Balanced Budget and keep taxes low, kinda like the Port Mann Bridge? They sure nailed that one. Yeah shes a real winner, went to 3 Universities and never graduated with a degree.
It was a campaign promise Ron. Christy is keeping a promise we elected her on.
Wrong Eric. The lies are warranting a recall and I’m starting it!
The referendum is about politicians that skirt their responsibilities by
a) the province: i.e. not providing provincial funding for transit but to roads/tunnels and bridge,
and
b) by local mayors who have grossly overspent the past decade, haven’t kept wages in check by catering to powerful public sector unions, have a myopic view of how transit ought to look like (i.e. not enough subways) and are afraid to tell the truth about true cost of reducing car use (i.e. road tolls, higher parking fees) so that folks use more rapid transit, and are afraid to raise property taxes (which they could without the province, and likely will anyway, if this referendum fails or goes ahead)
The referendum avoids the necessary dialogue between province and MetroVan where 60%+ of BC lives.
A “no” doesn’t mean no to transit investment and a “yes” doesn’t mean that the plan is great.
I would like to see more options being discussed, or to show us why plan A is the best, and what plans B, C, D or E looked like and why they are worse than A.
I personally, and 400,000+ frequent car users, would use public transit if it were RAPID and if car use were far more expensive. Until then, Plan A as proposed will do little to reduce congestion in the region. It will remain a joke for a 3M+ metro-plex that strives to be “green” or “world class”.
btw: I took the bus home last night .. to remind myself why I use it so infrequently .. an underwhelming experience, but then: what do you expect for $2.
Politics asides, if the referendum has a theme for me it’s about choosing for a healthy alternative. Healthy living (we’ve all see the studies correlating transit and improved health), a healthy environment, and a healthy economy by keeping us and our goods moving efficiently. It’s easy to say NO or blame for politicians for asking the public in the first place but I think there’s enough smart people out there to understand the enormous value to them personally and collectively of voting Yes.
At the end of the day, this is what matters: better health and economic benefits for the region through more active transportation and less reliance on automobiles. That’s why I’ll be voting yes, and I hope enough people will also see through the political issues to support the initiative.
The referendum is a clear message from some Mayors of what they want, presented as a “take it, or leave it” oversize package. The lack of any options whatsoever is striking.
Gathering together in one ‘Yes or No’ question, bike paths in remote suburbs, a massive subway under Broadway in Vancouver and throwing in mini-buses in distant hamlets as well as mobility pricing for all, or only some, vehicles, bridges and etc., is seen by many people as an attempt to shove through ideas that really need some discussion. The fine-print of the actual Plan is vast.
This one choice only vote could lead to citizens indirectly saying they would to see some variables and some debate, by voting No.
The massive package is very similar to a government omnibus bill, where many different things are all rolled into one. For this reason, some consider omnibus bills to be anti-democratic.
The consequences of a Yes vote is possibly a Pandora’s Box of actions that will surprise many citizens that only see more buses and trains as the result. If the vote is No then there will be a cooling off period with TransLink and the Mayor’s Council having awkward board meetings that will be probably be closed to the media. Life will go on and the Pattullo Bridge will be replaced. Linda Hepner in Surrey will direct her staff to maximize value around planned light-rail stations as she moves ahead with RFPs and plans the route. Gregor in Vancouver will try and get the Broadway subway as a financial commitment from federal candidates in the upcoming election.
I disagree that the referendum is a “take it or leave it” proposition. The result of the “Yes” or “No” vote will be signal to the senior levels of government whether the Metro electorates are in favour of a comprehensive transportation system.
This vote is an “advisory vote” and a “Yes” vote says to Provincial Government that we will put our money where our mouth is!
All major construction items on the project list must be designed and costed. In some cases right-of-ways will have to be negotiated. Alternate designs will have to presented to the citizens for their comments.
Once individual projects are design ready, Translink can approach the senior governments to request the rest of the necessary project funding.
I strongly disagree this is like an omnibus bill, which under Harper usually contain poison pills for the oppositon. This vote only reflects the plethora of transit modes and proposes a clear choice of funding after most other choices were whipped off the table by the premier.
A plethora of transit modes, plus electronic tracking of all private and commercial vehicles (this will be interesting), as well as real-estate opportunities and cycling paths. Not to forget buses, subways and trains and bridges and roads. This is big to us.
I agree with you one hundred percent Eric. It should almost be asking if we support an entire ideological position than just better transit.
Road pricing by electronic monitoring is not on this ballot.
This is about a stop-gap measure (sales tax) for a stop-gap bunch of improvements that really should have been up and running years ago. It’s not “oversize” by any stretch of the imagination. Like Thomas says all the time, it’s way too little to make much difference. But I realize that a $50 billion package of improvements (as advocated by a well known “No” supporter) would stand zero chance of being approved by anyone.
And I firmly believe that this plebiscite is an opportunity for Victoria to wash its hands of transit funding for as long as it’s politically possible. Looking at the current distribution of seats in the legislature, we could be waiting decades for provincial transit funding if the vote is “No”.
I was unable to get an answer when I asked #vanpoli, twice, if “comprehensive mobility pricing” is part of the package. Not that it would surprise me..
If you read the plan at the mayorscouncil.ca website, you will see that the plan is absolutely dependent on “comprehensive mobility pricing” for it’s success. More than half the revenue over the 30 years is planned to come from “comprehensive mobility pricing”.
This referendum is as much about “comprehensive mobility pricing” as anything else.
A referendum is an awkward way to deal with any question, and has to boil complex issues down to a simple yes or no vote. I don’t like referenda because I believe we elect people to public office to take the time to research complex issues and make the best decision possible given the available information. A referendum is an abdication of responsibility by our elected officials. A referendum doesn’t force voters to consider the consequences of inaction. If Christy Clark wanted improved transit to happen, she would go ahead and make it happen without a referendum. Do you think there will be a referendum on the proposed bridge to replace the Massey tunnel? Not bloody likely! Clark wants the bridge so she’s going to push it through no matter what.
David, road use pricing IS on this ballot. It is repeatedly mentioned in the official Information Centre for the Mayors’ Plan. Most people only will read the ballot slip but the supporting documents are all published for those that care to look.
“The Mayors’ Council is committed to implementing a more consistent region-wide approach to pricing road usage “.
“this Vision proposes to replace the Pattullo as soon as possible with a new four-lane bridge. Road usage charges will fund the majority of its cost. These charges can take several forms from bridge specific point tolls to broader time-and-distance based road tolls; …”
“we are now firmly committed to staging the introduction of more comprehensive mobility pricing on the road network …” p.18
“In early 2013, the Mayors’ Council identified five new revenue tools that we believe are the best candidates for generating necessary new revenues: a regional carbon tax, a vehicle registration fee, a regional sales tax, land value capture and mobility pricing on the road system. ” p.34
“An important early step is for TransLink to launch a mobility pricing field study in the next year that will help us identify the most promising approaches for implementation …This Vision calls for usage charges to help pay for the capital cost of the new Pattullo Bridge and to manage demand. ”
From the Mayors’ Council Information Appendices:
“PROJECT DESCRIPTION – The Vision identifies integrated mobility pricing as a key action to implement before the end of the 10-year period. …An effective mobility pricing approach on the transit and road systems will improve fairness and efficiency, while also raising new revenues to help fund the existing transportation system and the investments outlined in the Vision. a more effective approach to pricing could include a distance-based charge that varies based on time of day or level of congestion or crowding.”
And, not because it will be discussed, because it won’t, but because we don’t understand; “Given that issues around pricing the road system are much less understood, the bulk of the project resources will go into testing and evaluating different road pricing approaches. “.
Improve fairness? Hahahahaha!!! Yes, I’m sure when the buses are packed to the tits and driving is relegated to the more privileged, we’ll all see how FAIR it is that the roads we all built are only for those who can afford them. What would that do to translinks funding from gas tax? I wonder… Holy class division, batman, the backlash should be interesting on that. This certainly does prove the omnibus nature of the plebiscite… How can anyone say otherwise? You are voting on an ideology.
Hmmn, is plebiscite a portmanteau of plebeian and parasite? Certainly feels as though that is how they perceive us, however incorrect and IRONIC that would be.
Also, “the Vision”? Are they Scientologists? Ugh.