Metrobabel: The Illustrated Mayors’ Plan

On this ballot-issuing date, I am responding not only to Thomas Beyer, but also to many, many other comments here and elsewhere; so this is not directed to any single individual.

Spoiler Alert! I spent 41 years in the employment of the TransLink family and its predecessors in transit planning and operations (and am proud of it!) before retiring last year. I am currently working part time on contract (fairly, I believe, and immediately disposable without severance). I stand little to gain in employment from success of the plebiscite, but as a transit rider and advocate for more than a half century, I hope to benefit from improved quality and frequency of transit service within my lifetime. The following comments are my own (yes, on my own time), so please vent any outrage now, and then settle into the substance of the issues.

There are many “principles” on which to vote against the plebiscite. I’ll go way better than Jordan Bateman’s or Barbara Yaffe’s ten, with a full baker’s dozen:

1. Against the provincial government for forcing a plebiscite in the first place: But it was a campaign promise from the party that won, so it would seem more appropriate as a future provincial election issue, on what should or shouldn’t be decided through referenda – schools? welfare? bridges? pipelines? They do some of that in California!

2. Against funding at a local level, rather than from senior governments: To their credit, the province of BC (Socreds, NDP and Liberals) have all made significant contributions over the decades. But transit is largely a regional utility, so it seems reasonable (as in many other jurisdictions) to have at least some of the funding accountable locally. Besides, as many will point out, there is basically “one taxpayer”, so it’s semi-moot as to which pocket it comes from.

3. Against the use of sales tax: In other words, agreeing that some publicly sourced funding is necessary, but arguing that it should come from a “better” mechanism. Has anyone got a perfect tax, which can be perfectly collected? There is no such beast, so a search for the holy grail is more a recipe for 40 years in the wilderness. Sales tax at least adds some further diversity to all the other “unfair” taxes.

4. Against the absence of a sunset or renewal clause, and/or specific commitment on managing surpluses or shortfalls: Have faith in citizens (and yourselves) to deal with this in the future. Yes, I know that Income Tax was introduced as a “temporary” measure. If still upset about its existence, please list the alternatives, along with those money-sucking public services, such as health care, education, and policing, that you wish to return to the private sector.

5. Against government “waste”: A (virtuous? innocent? naive?) belief that there is a magic bullet to streamline public decisions, but still have all the rules and layers for public accountability that go with it. This has defied humanity for at least the duration of recorded history. Yes, lobby (and vote in future civic, provincial and federal elections) for efficiency and accountability. But it is unrealistic to stop the world in the meantime. (Any Target shareholders out there?)

6. Against more taxes in general: Somehow the notion that taxes (and public services) don’t provide anything of true value. Beyond the efforts in #5 above, what currently supported public services should be cut, and by how much? If you are fundamentally against more public funding for public transit, then fair enough to vote accordingly.

7. Against current levels of subsidy for transit: Transit fares here currently recover about 51% of bus and rail operating, maintenance and administration costs, which is pretty good by North American standards. According to the U.S. Federal Transit Administration, Portland OR, often held as a model, recovered 30% in 2013. The Seattle region (King County + Sound Transit regional service) is at 29%. Certainly fares could be increased to push the cost recovery up, with some impact on ridership, and debate over affordability for the lower income strata. Minimum cash fare on the London Underground is L4.80 (approx $C8.60); L2.30 ($C4.10) one-zone with the Oyster smart card; and no free transfer to/from bus (cash not accepted on the bus; L1.50 Oyster or contactless card). Toronto cash is $3.00 within Metro, but tack on an extra $3.25 to go into Mississauga, or $4.00 to North York; both the equivalent of travelling from downtown Vancouver to Ladner, North Surrey, or mid-Coquitlam.

8. Against the specific details and balance of the Mayors’ Council plan: In my view the plan is an astounding consensus of hitherto opposing political stripes and philosophies, who much of the time wouldn’t be able to agree on the time of day. A “perfect” plan for YOU (or me) ain’t going to be a “perfect” plan for anyone else. Life in a society of 2.5 million requires some flexibility, just to make it work. (And now that my kids have grown up, why do I still need to fund public schools???)

9. Against trust in the large projects: Actually, all of the SkyTrain projects and extensions have hit their delivery date, capital budget, and ridership forecasts pretty well. The Expo/Millennium reached the year 2011 forecast (prepared in 1982) of 21,000 riders from Broadway to downtown during the 2-hour 7-9am peak right on target in 2011 (about 13,000+ during the peak one hour). It would take 6 freeway lanes one-way to move this volume with the typical 1.1 SOV occupancy rate; so consider a 10 lane freeway (2 lanes reversible) down the BN railway cut aimed at (or through) the Science World dome. Much of the criticism about Canada Line is that ridership was *under*-estimated, and it reached its 5-year target within 6 months.

10. Against public funds for public art: Well, the Main Street poodle doesn’t really turn me on either, but should public sector projects NOT fund any public art, open space, architectural distinction, or public amenity? The Expo Line has often been criticized for being overly Spartan, having been designed (and funded) primarily to move large numbers of people. Is the poodle really worth so much outrage?

11. Against public sector compensation: Okay, but that’s really not covered in this plebiscite. Lobby for another province-wide referendum, California-style. Should legislated salary caps apply to all public or quasi-public sector services (including doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc.), or just transit? And not the private sector? According to the Globe and Mail the top 50 CEOs of public (i.e., private sector) companies earned more than $5.5 million each in 2013, and Hunter Harrison (CP, current owner of the Arbutus corridor) pulled in something like $49 million. I won’t argue to defend any individual salary, except to note that the few from TransLink were well down the list in the Vancouver Sun’s recent compilation.

12. Because the buses are too slow: Yes, bus travel times have increased significantly over the years, so it takes more buses and money to provide the same hourly capacity, at a lower quality. It’s called “traffic congestion”, and the environment is the jurisdiction of the cities and the province, not TransLink. A defeat of the plebiscite won’t change that, although it will limit the future number of buses that will be stuck in traffic.

13. Against TransLink, for reasons not already enumerated above. Pick whatever. There will always be something less than perfect. But take the time and thought to scratch below the superficial headlines and outrage to get the facts and context. Sometimes decisions and outcomes are a bit more complex than they first appear.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that TransLink isn’t political *enough*. There has been (and is) no political champion — no elected official whose survival is at least partly linked with accomplishments of the organization. Having ignored and/or demonized the organization for years, even now through the Yes campaign, most civic and provincial reps are keeping a distance from the Ebola-like political toxicity of the TransLink “brand”. It’s too late to endorse the good accomplishments.

After years of progress, transit service in the region has been largely stagnating since the glory weeks of the Olympics. Since 2010, ridership has risen by 7% while, service hours have been trimmed by ~3%. This has achieved some “efficiencies” (the mantra of today), but still equates to reduced frequency in some areas, and increased crowding in others. There’s not a lot of “low hanging fruit” left, and little, if any, upcoming capacity expansion in the current funding situation. Like it or not, population in Metro Vancouver is still growing, and there is no practical way to build a fortress. Mobility won’t grind to a complete halt, but it sure won’t get better.

So if the polls are correct, perhaps the defeat of the plebiscite will precipitate the political crisis that will force a restructuring of governance, organization, and political responsibility for transit. It will be messy. It will take some years. And it will inevitably add to public costs. Whatever the arguments (1-13), to me it is still a sad situation to see a region that was becoming among the most pedestrian and transit-oriented cities of its size in North America, drop the ball.