Stephen Quinn is deeply depressed in the Globe and Mail:
.
TransLink often leaves one lost in transportation
I have spent the past week pretty much immersed in the debate over the Metro Vancouver transportation plebiscite.
I’ve spoken with mayors representing both sides. I’ve spoken with experts and transportation planners from Washington, D.C., to Auckland, New Zealand. I’ve heard from public health officials and academics. I’ve read reports, budget documents and scholarly articles. And I’ve heard from dozens of citizens from municipalities across the region who have detailed the reasons they’ll vote Yes or No when their ballots arrive in the mail.
At the end of it all, I have arrived at this conclusion: I am depressed. Hopelessly, deeply depressed.
I should make it clear that the route to depression was not a direct one. My journey began at hopeful, continued through concerned, and then took a detour through incredulous before I spent some time at angry and then arrived at my final destination of depressed.
I’m depressed that the province announces multibillion-dollar road and bridge projects without the need for a referendum, and that when a project primarily serves car drivers like the new Port Mann Bridge or the George Massey Tunnel replacement project, the province has no trouble taking the reins and distributing the cost among all of the taxpayers of B.C. But when it comes to paying for transit and transportation in Metro Vancouver, it becomes an issue to be decided by a plebiscite and paid for by residents of the Lower Mainland.
I’m depressed that by forcing the region’s mayors to agree on a plan, craft a question and identify a possible funding source, the Premier and the minister have created the perfect scapegoat, when in reality the mayors have little control over what the TransLink board decides, or what the province deems a priority.
I’m depressed that the people who have decided that this is about TransLink are partly right. They have the Compass Card fiasco to point to with each non-functional turnstile standing like a tiny idle monument to ineptitude. Yes, I know – fare gates were foisted on TransLink by senior government and the system is being phased in as we speak, but the first fare gates were installed two and a half years ago. Maybe TransLink should have gone with a different system.
I’m depressed by the number of people who say they are in favour of expanded transit but have decided that their vote is a way to punish TransLink for the service that they haven’t been getting.
I’m depressed that the board of TransLink thought that firing their CEO and hiring an interim chief executive and paying both of them about 10 times what an average worker earns in B.C. was a good idea.
I’m depressed that the Yes campaign thought that just saying the words “Jimmy Pattison” would magically put to rest the fears of those who worry their tax dollars might not be spent wisely.
I’m depressed that I was right about just how divisive an exercise like this one would be.
I’m depressed about what the future of Metro Vancouver might look like if we don’t find a smarter way to move people around.
I’m depressed that people who already ride transit might vote against their own interests.
This is new to me, this feeling. Until now, I’ve been able to find something to poke fun at – something to mock or ridicule. But this has gone beyond satire.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go put my head down.
.
Stephen Quinn is the host of On the Coast on CBC Radio One, 88.1 FM and 690 AM in Vancouver.
He’s not depressed, he’s a liar. If he was honestly depressed, he would not be clearly thinking, and needs rest & medication. This (whatever you want to call it, but don’t call it journalism) is filler, nothing more than styrofoam popcorn. Using depression as a theme because he couldn’t come up with anything meaningful is repugnant and an insult to those who suffer from depression.
“Depressed mood is a feature of some psychiatric syndromes such as major depressive disorder, but it may also be a normal reaction to life events”. Reference Wikipedia.
Are you discussing MDD? Stephen Quinn wasn’t.
Personally, I agree with his sentiments.
I agree that “depressed” and “depression” are words badly misused by lay persons. Those of us who experience depression, even mild episodes, know that Mr. Quinn is mistaking temporary disappointment or dispiriting thoughts for a truly awful condition. But so do many others, and it most certainly is an insult to those who suffer from real depression.
Vanessa wrote: “If he was honestly depressed, he would not be clearly thinking, and needs rest & medication.”
Pedantic, much?
Vanessa is right. Quinn is not depressed he’s kvetching. Kvetching is more of a neurosis than anything else, and that’s perfectly acceptable. In fact, it can be argued that kvetching is more than normal, it’s necessary for anything at all positive to happen. In this case it’s also required to stay in the conversation if you have the tiniest doubt about one side or the other. Kvetch and you can stay in both camps, and you can kvetch about both too. What’s not to like? Throw up all the complaints and benefits each side proffers, kvetch about the complaints and shrug and say maybe to all the benefits and everyone will like you. Heck, they might even call you a smart guy. Just keep yabbering and keep on kvetching and hedging, throw in a bit of irony and you’ll hang on to your CBC East Van constituency and even really smart guys might accept some of it as humour. Kvetchers of the world unite!
This column matches my views & feelings quite well.
Same. It’s a little heartbreaking to watch so many people vote against their best interest in a (delusional) populist rage. It feels like we need a couple years of work to just remind people what taxes do and how we can benefit from them because even otherwise sensible people just see taxes as some sort of theft. It’s bizarre and it’s not something that even the combined support of the mayors, the police unions, the fire departments, and virtually all labour, civil, business and environmental groups can change in just a few short weeks.
We’re sorry to hear. Get clinical treatment.
I agree 100% with Mr. Quinn. One of the many gems which sums up the irrational response of so many:
“…people who say they are in favour of expanded transit but have decided that their vote is a way to punish TransLink for the service that they haven’t been getting.”
It’s tragic to watch American political techniques gain hold here. I used to think we were smarter than that. I just hope people realize they value the services gov’t provides before it’s too late.
Just like the abysmal failure of the NDP in the last prov election (when they were convinced they were entitled to gov’t and citizens owed it to them “C’mon, it’s our turn!”), very soon the media will start guessing all the good reasons the no vote prevailed. The one I’ll be watching for is the unveiled (and failed) threat from the yessers; if you vote no, all hell will break loose, chaos will reign, and we will punish you. Wouldn’t be surprised if that in itself gave the nosers 10-15%.
I’ll also be keen on seeing what TransSlinky does in the first few months of defeat (and not fruitless, insincere, token efforts like playing musical CEO). One would be to eliminate the recently established speculative, gambling-addicted real estate department, who grossly have been overpaying for non-transit properties (e.g. Broadway, at 45% over assess) and adding to commercial unaffordability.
I believe it is NO, not NOW. It’s not a cultural change refusing of infrastructure, it’s timing. There’s also the real spectre that a $7.5 billion estimate will turn to be “oops, we messed” and turns out to be $12 billion, with locals to be penalized for decades with the overrun.
Thomas is correct; the lense through which the polls are clearly showing is not the spenders (and supporters) of other people’s money, but the individuals and households, who will sting with every purchase the make. Every day, every amount. That, is where the public interest lies.
Let’s see how lean (and honest) TranSlinky can run in the next 3-5 years.
So presumably if Translink cuts upwards of $100M from their annual budget and undergoes a comprehensive external audit, then after 3-5 years you might consider voting yes?
” Thomas is correct; ” .. well my comments are being edited out. They seem to annoy the author of this blog. Maybe the truth hurts too much, or is unwanted.
If TransLink is once again forced to trim the budget by a significant amount the “wasteful” things like paying the ex-CEO a consulting fee rather than a huge severance package won’t stop and the bad real estate deals will get even worse because they’ll be forced to sell properties that they know they’ll need in the future just to balance the books today. That’s what happened before when there was pressure to trim the budget so we know it’ll happen again.
The only way to save a significant amount of money at TransLink is to cut service. They’ll lay off drivers or offer them part time instead of full time. Older buses due for replacement will be kept on the road with duct tape and bailing wire if necessary. And service to places with marginal ridership will be cut to the point where taking transit is no longer a viable alternative. Why bother running a bus at all if it only comes by once per hour?
Then again maybe BC Transit and TransLink erred by expanding into the suburbs too far, too fast. Maybe there shouldn’t be a bus running out to Aldergrove or Albion. If we stopped running empty buses out to the far forty and simultaneously stopped collecting taxes from those fringe populations, the system as a whole would probably be more efficient.
What about all the people who are dependent on transit, but can no longer afford to live in a well served area? Do we simply cut them off? This is PUBLIC transit after all, it’s there to serve the public, especially those for whom other modes of transportation are simply too expensive or (for the elderly) no longer allowed.
I don’t want to pay more for everything I buy, but I also don’t want to be stuck in traffic because thousands of people no longer have any other choice. I don’t want to live in a place where those of limited means and mobility are effectively prisoners in their own neighbourhoods. 35 cents per day to keep our public transit system growing in response to increased demand? Seems like a bargain to me.
When I read this stuff I have to laugh. Er, that hamburger joint put up thier prices, so; remember that last few times we went there and it was uber crapola? C’mon, let’s go back now they’ve upped their costs and give them another chance and, what the heck, they know we’re just a bunch of suckers. P, T. Barnam lives!