Will Dunn reminded me that I had written this 585 days ago:
.
Not that I want to publicize Jordan Bateman (the local spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation) even more, since the media do enough of that already (and let’s face it, I get my fair share of coverage too) – but in the absence of leadership from local leaders, his strategy regarding the transit referendum may well prevail.
And what strategy is that? Why, getting people to vote against their self-interest in order to effectively disable TransLink – and with it, the regional vision we have pursued for decades with considerable success.
Not, of course, that Metro citizens will intend to vote against more transit or a more sustainable region. But thanks to Jordan’s strategy, that’s what will happen.
Here’s how the strategy works.
(1) First, discredit government – in this case, TransLink, and the collective goods we pay for with taxes. Ignore the larger purpose of the organization and concentrate on the ‘bureaucrats’, whom you can dismiss contemptuously.
(2) To do that, use small examples, real or manufactured, to tar the entire organization. Whether free coffee for staff, bonuses for executives, teething problems for Compass Cards, policing costs (or not enough policing), the installation of fare gates (or not installing fare gates), it doesn’t matter what the examples are – so long as there is a steady beat of criticism, amplified for and by the media.
(3) Maintain that any new programs can be paid for by eliminating ‘waste, fraud and abuse.’ Never give credit for any instances where that actually occurs. TransLink has already had three performance reviews and an audit, it has already saved millions in ‘efficiencies’ (often a euphemism for cuts) – but never mind. Always maintain that spending is ‘out of control.’
(4) Establish the bottom line as ‘No More Taxes.’ Do not ever get into a debate about the value and merit of what those taxes purchase. Simply repeat, and repeat: NMT.
(5) Suggest that voters can ‘send TransLink a message’ by voting for ‘none of the above’ on the transit-funding referendum. It matters not that eliminating the entire administration of TransLink (about 4 percent of its budget) would barely pay for a few more bus routes, much less a multi-billion-dollar rapid-transit line. Insist that cutting salaries and perks is a necessary condition (though never sufficient) before discussing new revenues. At that point, simply assert that we’re taxed out, even if we’re paying less taxes or getting new services.
By aggressively attacking the organization so that those in favour of a new tax will have to defend it before they can argue in favour of its funding, you disarm the proponents before they even begin a ‘yes’ campaign.
Want to see this strategy in action? Go here for today’s salvo. (And yes, I’m perfectly aware that this simply gives another opportunity for the CTF to reinforce its messaging.)
Meanwhile, time is running out – 442 days left til Nov 15 (though it’s possible that the referendum might be held in May or June) – and we haven’t even got the wording yet, much less leadership for a yes vote.
One wonders whether the CTF was instrumental in convincing the Premier to go with the referendum idea during the election since it gives them an ideal platform to pursue their agenda. Better yet, blame for a No vote can be put on local politicians for their inability to convince the electorate. And the subsequent cutbacks on local transit services as other sources of revenue decline will thereby justify another round of criticism of TransLink.
It just doesn’t get any better than that.
Impressive how well you were able to predict the future. But let’s face it, the ‘No’ side of any tax debate has a very simple and clear strategy. The ‘Yes’ side is always more nuanced and tricky.
Or is Jordan Bateman really Gordon Price’s evil twin brother? Or are they actually the same person? Together they might be working to make this part of the world unlivable for both the poor and very rich making it… gasp…The Land of the Middle class? Nooooooooo!
Still waiting for the CTF to say “plenty” about highway spending. As for the audits apparently they didn’t touch “program spending”, the audits didn’t dig deeper.
To me, from Jordan Bateman
Date: Aug 30, 2013 2:38 PM
We say plenty about highway spending, and hold gas tax honesty days annually.
Stats aren’t out yet on the new Port Mann – and the full project isn’t even finished yet, so I’m not sure how we know it’s “under performing.”
Those audits were high level and did not drill into program spending. Even with that high level look, TransLink has been found to waste one out of every ten dollars. Imagine if they actually dug deeper…
I know you believe I have an ax to grind, but your own vision is clouded with bias.
Jordan Bateman
B.C. Director
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
http://www.taxpayer.com
604-510-5535
Vote NO in the Transit Referendum and Help Fund My Retirement Instead
I am a soon to be retired single family home owner with two grown children, living on the Westside of Vancouver. As I look at my personal circumstances I realize that there are several reasons that I should vote NO in the upcoming plebiscite on transportation funding.
The major road and bridge conditions would be improved with a YES vote but I won’t need roads and bridges so much. The congestion would be reduced with a YES vote but, hey, I will no longer need to travel at peak times.
As more density is pushed into my neighborhood, which is well served by transit, the demand on existing rapid transit lines, will be outstripped to the point of chaos and a NO vote would delay the addition of more capacity for up to a decade. As I age I will increasingly be dependent on public transit, but I can travel in off peak hours so it won’t affect me as much as most working folks.
Further, we in Vancouver are already better served by transit than those living in the suburbs so, the more congestion increases, the more will the value of my home.
Then there’s the tax. The consumptive nature of the tax means that I would be among the biggest losers. I am a big consumer of expensive things, (as my wife can attest), where-as many transit users and commuting working folks purchase mainly necessities such as food and rent which would not see increased taxation under the proposed tax increases. I find myself wondering why I should pay most for something I would use least (and that I already have). A NO vote would help support the outrageous increase of my home value relative to Vancouver’s suburbs.
Of course the multi-year lag in transportation funding would hurt the economy of the region, add greenhouse gases to the environment and hinder the progress of my children’s advancement in life as well as making their commutes more difficult; but, hey, they will inherit a much more valuable property.
I therefore urge everyone to vote NO to this ridiculous tax that does so much financial harm to me personally.
Thankfully the vote is structured as a mail-in ballot so the young people who would benefit most from a yes vote will not be voting, as they probably don’t know what a mail box is or that it takes a couple of days, once you place your ballot in one of these red boxes, to get it transmitted to the receiving party.
So of course I will be voting NO in the upcoming plebiscite on transportation funding…NOT!!
My brilliant wife swung a no voter in a friendly impromptu pub debate on Saturday. She said to the very nice senior gentleman (I paraphrase):
“tell you what. I’ll work for another 25 years and make sure your pension and healthcare are fully funded. But in exchange, you need to vote yes so I can get to work every day”.
They even shook on it.
Voting “yes” enshrines excessive public sector wages & benefits, especially guaranteed pensions to age 95+.
Voting “no” doesn’t mean a vote against better rapid transit, funded through other means at the Mayors’ disposal today without a referendum.
Patrick – your wife is indeed brilliant!!
It is interesting you called it backed in 2013. However that also highlights the inexcusable unpreparedness of the Mayors and the Yes side. It’s been said that referendums in LA and Seattle succeeded because there was more lead time. Well there was lots of lead time in ours but it was squandered.
It seems that with the ever escalating gas tax, the possible vehicle levy, the tolls on bridges, the probability of comprehensive road tolling, the massive recent increase to the parking tax, the bike lanes, etc., the pro-transit forces have decided that drivers will primarily pay for transit. That is the vision. It’s perfectly understandable that since the vast majority of people in the Metro region are drivers, they might be a bit concerned about how TransLink and the Mayors go about looking for money.
The other important point is that Metro Vancouver and TransLink are unelected. This is taxation without representation. Some people are not happy with that.
“ever escalating gas tax”: not quite. The HST has gone down from 7% to 5%, so this 0.5% is only a quarter of the way back up to where it was a few years ago.
The tax I am referring to is the Metro Vancouver Gasoline Tax, now up to 17 cents per litre.
The HST never went down. The BC HST was 12%, sales tax in BC today is 5% GST + 7% PST, 5+7=12.
GST used to be 7%. Then: 7+7=14.
Feel free to send 2% extra to the government at the end of the year.
Metro Van Board consist of local gov’t elected members, who are appointed by their Councils. The Translink board has two directly elected directors (Heppner & Robertson), and the rest appointed by the Mayor’s Council.
Do not blindly adopte the ‘representation’ cliche and equate electability with accountability. Gregor Robertson isn’t even accountable to his own family. In this polarized province and region, having a highly politicized, left-right split, battle for control back-and-forth every 3-4 years would be far, far worse and dysfunctional that the current governance system.
“Gregor Robertson isn’t even accountable to his own family.” – What the hell is wrong with you?
The levy on drivers comes through the back door. It is hardly talked about in the media, not on the ballot or advertising.
The transit funding needs multiple sources of funding. Making drivers pay make sense as only higher car costs (in both of its states: driving and parking) will result in decreasing car use and less congestion. Not mentioned is parking revenue through resident parking, far too low in MetroVan. Also not mentioned is public sector wages and especially benefits such as guaranteed pensions to age 95+ which are far too high, and savings there could pay for many km of badly needed subways.
It is a weak plan, taking an easy route: higher small local PST with almost no rapid transit and almost no decongestion. Not necessary parking fees. Not necessary road tolls. Not necessary reduced public sector spending. Not necessary higher property taxes, especially non-residents.
And given that the plan is more bus based than it ought to, with far too few rapid transit solutions to N-Van, W-Van, E-Van, Delta, Van-West, west end downtown, N-Burnaby, MapleRidge, Tsawwassen and White Rock, it is a very weak plan. Too timid. Not bold enough. Not far reaching enough. Minor to no impact on congestion.
Mayors have many tools at their disposal that they will use in case of a “no” vote or that they will do anyway even with a “yes” vote .. all except wage & benefits alignment with the real world.
To my (often repeated) point of excessive wages and benefits/pensions, here is a study the verifies it: http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/6069-government-wages.html
Public sector workers make 18-37% MORE than comparable private sector jobs.
To me THAT is the crux of this debate.
Do you have any evidence the provincial government under Christy will allow an elected Metro government with an elected TransLink board?? My guess, based on prior evidence, is that they prefer to bully and dictate to TransLink and yank any possibility that democracy-enabled local competition will arise.
This is clearly a huge right wing conspiracy in which CTF and the Premier are conspiring to deprive the poor citizens of LM of the badly needed transit improvements. Riiiiiiiight….
So the unions supporting the Yes side would agree with you, right?
However, selling off TransLink assets or services (or parts of them) to the private sector after a No vote would be strong fodder for that kind of conjecture, wouldn’t you say?
There’s no question that if one listens and watches while many people completely ignore their obligation in paying for travel on a bus or a SkyTrain, it becomes clear that their behaviour is continued into the city streets, and alleys. Many people don’t like this. It’s the broken windows rule.
Just one other factor that has nothing to do with a .5% tax raise.
There are fare evaders in every public transit system. Sometimes it seems people in Vancouver don’t know the simplest things about transit. Or maybe they are looking for a red herring so they can be upset about TransLink.
And what percentage of riders who skip paying their fare justifies hundreds of millions in fare gates? Will fare gates recoup these losses?
The evidence says no.
Logic is just that; logic. There are many examples of protection built into the public realm that are, logically, economically non-performing.
The percentages are irrelevant unless you can convince every voter to consider logic alone and forget their frustration with evasion.
Leaders of the Yes side know this. We will not be seeing posters and seeing ads telling us that, in actual fact in the grand scheme of things, fare evasion is irrelevant.
That’s why the referendum is such a mistake. So many people get hung up on something they don’t understand and they don’t want to understand. Referenda can work in places with a different political history and culture.
I think people understand ” more taxes ” very very well. Perhaps the Mayors do not understand cost control and delivering demands by the electorate within a budget rather than catering to powerful public sector unions with their excessive wage & benefits demand incl guaranteed indexed pensions to age 95+ ?
Excessive (employee) spending growth is the core issue. Transit is a side show.
That’s an extremely elitist attitude Antje. While the fine details of the plan may not be studied by everyone, the basic question is clear: do you wish to pay more taxes for better transit service. Quite simple really.
Looking at it from the wheel point of view, a bike (the ever popular subject of this blog) has a ½ person per wheel ratio unless it is built for two in which case it has a 1 person per wheel ratio which incidentally is the same ratio as a unicycle which very few have learned how to ride. A bike can go anywhere including places where other mechanical contrivances can not go.
A car has 4 wheels and transports from one to six people giving a person per wheel ratio of ¼ person to 1 ½ person per wheel. A car can go anywhere there is a road except into a gated community if you don’t have a friend living there, and if you are not a real estate agent trying to sell a condo unit.
A bus has 6 wheels and carries say 60 people at rush hour giving a ratio of 10 people per wheel. If they could all be stacked on top of each other like a circus act they wouldn’t take up that much space, but that can’t be done because there is a tendency to fall off, which is the reason why we have buses with doors to keep everybody inside. The buses can pull trailers and we call such things articulated machines, unlike the people who manage them who are not that good at articulation. Buses follow routes through places called catchments so named after the plumbing grate you can see by the curb in front of the bench that is used for waiting around.
A sky train car has 8 wheels and can carry say 120 people during rush hour thus giving a ratio of 15 people per wheel. But wait, there is more because a sky train car can be coupled to make a train of 4 cars which can carry a lot of people but only between points often quite distant from each other. This is the primary reason why we build sky scrapers. So we can have people to fill the cars during rush hour.
So here is the wheel question if you have been following this so far; if one person can afford to buy four wheels on a car then why can’t 15 people afford one sky train wheel?
They can. However, MetroVan Transit funding needs multiple sources of funding. Making car drivers pay make sense as only significantly higher car costs (in both of its states: driving and parking) will result in decreasing car use and less congestion.
Roads are worth billions and we let cars use them for free, at any time, in any amount?
Even non-gasoline paying Tesla drivers and US gasoline filled heavy trucks heading to Alberta and beyond? That makes no sense whatsoever. Learn from the Europeans meaningfully: toll highways, first trucks, then cars.
Not mentioned anywhere is parking revenue through resident parking on a street you do not own. Those parking fees are far too low in MetroVan. Charge $100/stall per month and see cars disappear by the thousands from our clogged roads and rejuvenate residential neighborhoods. Where is that in this band-aid plan ?
Also not mentioned is public sector wages and especially benefits such as guaranteed pensions to age 95+ which are far too high, and savings there could pay for many km of badly needed subways. See recent article by Fraser Institute here on excessive spending growth in MetroVan, well above population growth and inflation. It shows that ALL required transit in this plan, and more, can be funded from EXISTING BUDGETS:
http://business.financialpost.com/2015/03/24/curb-vancouvers-sales-tax-how-public-transit-can-be-funded-with-existing-budgets/
The current plan is a very weak plan, taking an easy route: higher small local PST with almost no rapid transit and almost no decongestion. Not necessary parking fees. Not necessary road tolls. Not necessary reduced public sector spending. Not necessary higher property taxes, especially non-residents. As such, these kind of “tax revolt” sentiments or articles appear, rightly so: http://business.financialpost.com/2015/03/23/terence-corcoran-bring-back-the-national-tax-revolt-week/
And given that the plan is more bus based than it ought to, with far too few rapid transit solutions to N-Van, W-Van, E-Van, Delta, Van-West, UBC, west end downtown, N-Burnaby, MapleRidge, Tsawwassen and White Rock, it is a very weak plan. Too timid. Not bold enough. Not far reaching enough. Minor to no impact on congestion.
Mayors have many tools at their disposal that they will use in case of a “no” vote or that they will do anyway even with a “yes” vote.. all except wage & benefits alignment with the real world and living within their $3.5B annual budget across MetroVan.
“They can”, is the wrong answer, so I am making that down as a fail, and I ‘m giving you minus points for the rest of the answer because it has been copied from other places.
J, are you going somewhere with this circular narrative?
Ha, ha, good one M. I did have something in mind but events have overtaken my brain as I had never before considered the circularity of the copy paste function which I am beginning to suspect is at the center of the wheel problem.
Gordon, I hope you’re following the No campaign success over at the hard-left Tyee.
It certainly seems as though most of their left-wing regulars are voting No.
http://www.thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/03/24/Transit-Vote-Vancouver-Economic-Health/
The Tyee has long been the bastion of ideological idiots – those who don’t have an ounce of pragmatism in their body.
The Priceless Times is reporting that a wealthy gentleman is planning to support transit with a huge donation. The report said that the fellow had gotten tired of blogging about the issue and wanted to see real change not just words.
The reporter asked how he had come to this decision and he replied that he had always been a money man and that if you wanted to create the supply of something then you need to create more demand and the best way to do that would be to offer free rides for everybody.
The reporter said that it seemed like a foolish idea but he was never the less willing to listen. So the man explained that he was liquidating all his assets which would amount to millions and that he would use the money to buy books of transit tickets. Wow said the reporter, and the man smiled and replied, what good is money if you can’t give it away? The reporter said wow again, revolutionary, you will probably end up with your own Reality TV Show and the man smiled once more.
How are you planning to distribute the tickets? asked the reporter. Well that’s easy I am going to drive the limo over to the Translink office and I am going to fill up the trunk with tickets, then I am going to drive down to Waterfront Station and I am going to park it right there where they are going to build that new glass tower and I am going to buy a years worth of parking, then I am going to put the limo up on blocks and sell off the wheels and turn it into an information booth, I am going to open up the sun roof, put up an umbrella and hand out tickets to anyone who will take them.
When are you going to start the project asked the reporter and the man replied that it was going to be a one year project starting April 1, 2015 and ending April 1, 2016 at which time the whole idea would be reassessed and if the results were not gratifying then in that case he would be taking up model railroading because it involved trains and it would probably be more rewarding than blogging about them.
The project of giving away the tickets has been suspended because the man is now claiming that he has invented a lighter than air battery using helium 14 which is just what is needed to give drones enough power to carry people around if they weigh less than 150 pounds. He is claiming that the wheel will soon be a thing of the past, and that people will be going everywhere they want to with just the use of their thumbs and an I-phone app.
Apparently WestJet has also created such new, innovative transportation options also for this special day:
After a no vote, the funding will need to be found from somewhere. Leaving the transit system to rot is not an option.
My preference would be to ratchet up fares, in large enough amounts to pay for needed improvements. This approach has the advantage of being a user pay system, so no one can argue with its rationale. In addition, users would be able to experience first hand the improvements that higher fares are going to bring, so the sting of the increases could be reduced by identifying exactly what the increases are funding.
At $2000 or so for a three zone monthly pass, and perhaps an average of $9000 to operate a decent and reliable commuter car, even a doubling of fares is going to be financially preferable to owning say a second car and abandoning transit. If service remains good, I believe people will absorb the hit. I wonder what sort of fare increases would be required to raise the necessary $250 million annually…..
At the same time, a road pricing scheme should be introduced, moving the whole transportation system to a user pay system. Non GHG producing modes such as cycling should be exempt from the user pay system.
The provincial government could provide discount fares for low income folks. The tax money paying for roads out of general revenue could be reduced (along with income taxes) and replaced with the user pay revenue.
Please critique this idea.
I assume you meant $200 (and not $2000) for a monthly pass ?
Public transit has many functions:
a) provide an incentive for retailers to locate and/or expand and to get employees there cheaply & fast, at public expense
b) provide an incentive for employers to locate and/or expand and to get employees there cheaply & fast, at public expense
c) provide an incentive for universities to locate and/or expand and to get students, faculty & employees there cheaply & fast, at public expense
d) provide an incentive for development to locate and/or expand and to get buyers, owners and/or renters there cheaply & fast, at public expense
e) provide alternatives to folks that cannot afford a car
f) provide an alternative for folks that cannot ride a bike (too hilly, too rainy, too sweaty, too much work ..)
g) provide more throughput than cars or buses
h) provide pleasant cityscapes [not true for buses, though, only subways] and open spaces
i) it is more efficient, per person-km
j) provide a subsidy for left leaning voters
k) …
As such, with some many users and functions, all public transit systems are subsidized and taxes levied to pay for it. The debate is what taxes, how much and how much of it the actual users pay, and how much the actual beneficiaries (besides users) pay, i.e. universities, employers, employees, developers, owners, renters, students ..
For example, in the Broadway subway portion so far I have seen NOTHING UBC pays, and that is one of the reasons, perhaps THE reason, why it stops at Arbutus !
Since we also have so many users I think a PST based 0.5% increase to fund it is far too narrow as many beneficiaries are not taxed adequately for the benefits.
As such, your proposal makes sense, to centrist and right-of-center voters / parties. To left of center folks, for example “Vision” Vancouver it is outrageous to ask the poor $75,000/year city (plus cushy benefits and pensions) employee to pay more for transit or the $12/h McDonald’s employee.
Like healthcare or education transit is viewed by many as a right, without or minimal co-pay. Some, like me, or many others would say that some more co-pay is in order, for both healthcare, education or transit. We can debate the degree of it.
Specifically, perhaps 50% for transit is in order for MetroVan, over perhaps 5 or 10 years, i.e. well above inflation, plus user pay for each doctor’s visit, plus some degree of pay or exams post grade 10. I also think co-pay for road use is in order, besides gasoline taxes, i.e. road tolls at choke points (bridges, tunnels, key roads) and far higher parking fees. So, if you ask bus or subway/SkyTrain users to pay more, say 50% more, then it is also fair to have car users pay more for the roads they use, in both its states: driving or parking. That is missing from the current PST based transit plan. g) and h) is also grossly neglected in the plan.
$2000 = $170 (monthly 3 zone * 12) I was roughly comparing annual costs per transport mode. Transit is substantially cheaper as it stands.
I agree, public transit provides all that you say. But that doesn’t necessarily mean TransLink should be responsible for a subsidized system. I think that is 20th century thinking, and contributes to its perception as a second class mode of transport. (Recall what Penalosa says about developed countries and transit). Transit is emerging as a “preferred mode”, particularly in places like Vancouver and perhaps there might be some ground to be gained by charging for it as such (at least a little) especially if it provides a more premium service.
I am not talking about privatization here, I am talking about letting TransLink charge for their very good quality service, rather than focusing on pushing fares down to meet a social need.
Not all transit is subsidized. There are some profitable routes in parts of the world. Yes, they tend to be in large cities like Tokyo (their subways) but there transit is most certainly not seen as a second class mode of transport. Why should it be? It’s an easier, cheaper and more interesting way to get around.
No, UBC is not contributing, but again, this is looking at the situation in a very narrow way, with a very specific question: who is going to subsidize this system?
We need change that question to: how can we build a public system that provides value for its users, at a price that is competitive?
My basic point I guess is, transit fares currently have a very large spread relative to the cost of car ownership, and transit is increasingly a preferred mode in congested cities (less bother, less worry, less money, etc.)
So let’s exploit this spread by taking some of it and funding improvements to create a virtuous cycle.
The price increases (just as an example, say $3000 per year for 3 zone pass) needs to be balanced against a fairly priced automobile network, that reflects the actual costs of moving around (e.g. road pricing). The true cost of transportation would be better reflected in both modes, and the price advantage, despite a $1000 annual fare increase, would still be clearly on transit’s side.
TransLink is currently being asked to provide a social service (subsidized transportation). Why? This isn’t its mandate, is it? If the provincial government wants to subsidize transportation, let it (it already does to some degree, with BC Transit).
You are on the right path .. UNLIKE our socialist mayors.
How about first class cabins in trains ?
How about first class lunges or bus stops on active routes ?
How about market salaries ?
How about fares by demand ?
Compare your average SkyTrain station with YVR.
Perhaps TransLink ought to be run like WestJet ? Fares that differ by demand. Far lower salaries. Far better service. First class cabins for those that want to pay for it. Far lower subsidy required. THAT (inefficient delivery system, i.e. overpaid Transit cops, bus driver, mechanics or cleaners) is the primary reason why I voted no in the referendum. That, and the lack of RAPID transit and no car tolls.
We indeed need 21st century thinking for a 21st century problem with limited public resources !