From Michael Mortensen:
.
Predictable.
The Province’s first failure was to put this to a plebiscite. The $3B+ Highway 1 expansion and investment in carbon intensive transport did not need a plebiscite; why then did transit need one?
The Province’s second great failure here was to set a binary plebiscite question with “do nothing” as the only other option. The proper course should have been to present two or more options, either of which would ensure the articulation and expansion of transit to support a livable growing region demanded by residents. Kind of like asking your kids “what kind of toothpaste do you want to use to brush your teeth?” – not brushing is simply not an option.
The plebiscite cost millions and solved nothing – just leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth doesn’t it. Hope the region does not develop cavities!
A vacuum of leadership indeed.
It’s worth reminding everyone that the mayors’ have always had the funding mechanism at their fingertips to fund Translink: increase property taxes. They didn’t want to be the ones raising taxes and neither did the BC Liberals. Neither side is virtuous.
It’s interesting that the Yes side couldn’t even pull off a win in Vancouver. It makes you wonder how much success the “no freeway” campaigners would have had if it went to a vote. Perhaps we construct the myths we want to believe in about Vancouver.
I think in regards to the past “No Freeway” campaign, it was not popular until many years later when another generation came along and after having visited and lived in other freeway filled cities, found this place without them and then it became this thing that’s loved and is popular. Now that most cities are removing or at least rethinking the role of freeways within their cities, we can sit back and say “We did it first.”
“They didn’t want to be the ones raising taxes and neither did the BC Liberals. Neither side is virtuous.”
Your omission of an important fact is an egregious error: only one side was forced into a one-off vote on raising taxes for transportation. The other side wouldn’t touch it with a 20-foot pole.
What sticks in the craw is the outright post-plebiscite condescension of the government in saying to the mayors “we’ve already budgeted our portion, now budget yours” in the context of ten billion bucks – and climbing — already spent or on the books for roads with no referendum.
The mayors / cities have a lot of unrealized collective economic power and could, if they wanted virtually shut the province out of decisions on local transportation and financing. Metro Vancouver is virtually a city-state. Perhaps it needs to start acting like one when they are abused by a bullying provincial government.
While it is true that a project like the Port Mann should have gone to a plebiscite if transit had to, it does not change the fact that if the mayors really and firmly believed Translink was so critical they would raise property taxes now. The fact that they won’t expend the political capital to do so speaks volumes.
I suggest a compromise. The Premier needs to show some leadership on the transit and the housing affordability files. Robertson has asked for a speculation tax, so how about either a hefty speculation tax and/or a super-tax on properties over $2 million, with proceeds to go directly to a transit account and not general revenue?
“if the mayors really and firmly believed Translink was so critical they would raise property taxes now. The fact that they won’t expend the political capital to do so speaks volumes”
Alternatively, it could mean that they think property taxes are a poor mechanism to raise the funds.
Robertson has no credibility left for fiscally responsible politicians or tax payers, like the Greek politicians now coming to the EU with their cup in their hand. A left wing airhead, funded by a eco-friendly billionaire and unions with $20 minimum wage for a “livable wage”, excessive city employees’ wages, no outsourcing and many bike lanes as his main credentials.
The speculation tax makes sense, but allowing cars to park for free on major arterial roads does not, nor does it make sense to have suburbians pay for the expensive subway to UBC without locals paying their far share.
I challenge you to run for office Thomas.
Property taxes do not strike me as a particularly equitable way to fund transit.
Perhaps from London, Mortensen has not been following events and just doesn’t know.
The question was crafted by the Mayors’ Council and approved by the government. The Mayors’ Council only wanted one question.
From the TransLink 2014 Annual Report:
“In fall 2014, the Mayors’ Council proposed a new regional funding source, based on a 0.5 per cent increase to the Provincial Sales Tax, to support their Vision, referred to as the Mayors’ Transportation and Transit Plan. Subsequently, the Government of BC approved a question for the vote on transportation and transit funding and set dates for a mail-in ballot plebiscite. TransLink continued to provide technical and planning expertise to support the Mayors’ Council plebiscite efforts. ”
We are sure there are old friends in France and Spain too that have strong opinions.
I am fairly patched in from here. The UK is investing Billions into mass transit to serve London’s c.9M people. In contrast, the Provincial Government in BC has put it’s investments into carbon intensive modes like the widening of HWY1 and the financially underperforming Port Mann Bridge. Metro Mayors have tried a number of funding approaches in the past, all of which were not supported by the Province.
Thank you for reply Michael. I don’t wish to presume but with you now working for the Duke of Westminster and the family estate it might be easy to lose track of what is going on in our little town. Canada is also investing billions into mass transit. It has before (Canada Line) and more billions were announced in the recent federal budget here. Exactly the amount that the municipalities were asking for. There is also hundreds of millions of federal dollars dedicated for the new Evergreen Line. This is an unprecedented growth in infrastructure funding. It’s also a decade long plan with assured funding. If you want to really get up to speed on what’s happening in Canada it’s here
The provincial government has also put money into mass transit, do you know the Canada Line? The federal and the provincial government were both involved extensively in the funding.
The toll on the Port Mann Bridge, along with increased transit means reduced traffic on the bridge. This is considered a success. Only those that warn of massive grid-lock complain that there’s not more congestion on the Port Mann Bridge. If the promise from the academics is correct, the traffic on the Port Mann Bridge will increase and the finances will increase. At least the traffic in the area of the bridge is moving far more efficiently, and therefore not causing the previous massive congestion and resultant pollution and CO2 emissions in and around the whole area.
Just like the BC government, Transport for London also improves the roads. You may be surprised to learn that: “The city’s roads and bridges were not designed to withstand the pressures of today. To keep London moving and our economy growing, it is vital they are brought up to date, so we are investing more than £4bn to do so – the biggest investment in our roads in a generation. ” 2015 Transport for London.
It is also vital that the roads in and around Vancouver are brought up to date. You call them carbon intensive but the usage of gasoline here is declining as more efficient and electric vehicles are used. The four billion UK pounds on road improvements are also for carbon intensive transportation, although the London Subway system has 270 stations alone. London Overground has 111 stations too and there are other rail systems in the network too. In contrast Metro Vancouver has three small subway lines and 47 stations. It will be a few decades before the roads in Metro Vancouver are redundant, especially with the only expansion in the failed plebiscite being a short spur along Broadway, dead ending before UBC.
The proportional spending by the UK and many Euro national governments on transit and intercity rail is far greater than Canada. Your citing of a few budgetary line items does not make it up in math or for the total dearth of long range urban policy at both senior government levels. There was once a federal Ministry of Urban Affairs and a touted Agenda for Cities. Now we have something called the Action Plan with a dog’s breakfast of funding for pet projects and vast budget for advertising and a completely inadequate amount spread over many years for transit.
More than ever we need competence at the senior government level regarding the role cities need to play this century. If the province continues to manipulate urban locals, then the Metro should start looking at developing its own democratic governance, perhaps even issue a constitutional challenge to Victoria. I’d love to see Christy try to spin the suppression of democracy at the Supreme Court of Canada. The Metro will undoubtedly lose the battle, but the case will be sure to wake up Canadian cities to realize just how much power they really have, and would put the premiers on notice that cities will not be manipulated or downloaded to so easily in future.
The BC Liberals and federal Conservatives have proven to be fundamentally anti-urban. That is a concern when the Metro contains half the population and GDP of the province, and the six largest cities represent over half the economic activity of the nation, far more than natural resources. A little fed-up-and-not-taking-it-anymore revenue-withholding revolt way out here could shake up the nation.
Eric, you are conflating the geometry of Greater London with Metro Vancouver in your comments.
The density of Chelsea-Kensington rests between 12,000 and 20,000 people per km2, depending on the neighbourhood. The Metro is ~900 people/km2 if you include the vast watersheds, farm land and parks along with the urban areas (some people do, which is misleading). The density within the Urban Containment Boundary (the more accurate measure) works out to an overall average of ~3,050 p/km2. Of course some cities like Surrey, Langley and Coquitlam will have less density, while Vancouver city tops out Western Canada at ~4,620 p/km2, and well over 5,000 p/km2 more if you exclude the large parks.
I don’t have stats readily at hand, but it’s obvious from Google Earth that London’s road and parking standards are far less excessive than the Metro’s, and the per capita expenditure on asphalt is lower than transit considering the tens of billions being put into or planned for Crossrail and the Tube. It helps to have a pre-automobile road network and a very high walk score with amenities close on hand.
Both jurisdictions have housing affordability issues, but where in London would you find even one 4,000 ft2 lot with a detached house offering 0.7 FAR? The usual comparisons are often anecdotal and fail to provide analysis of housing types or land use. London uses its land much more efficiently and helps (if not alleviates) to offset the high cost of housing with walking neighbourhoods and a diverse transit system where you can ride the rails to the next station, or with a few transfers to practically any city in Europe.
London has 3.6 times the Metro’s population, but perhaps well over 10X the urban efficacy thanks to historical urbanism, the leadership of several post-Thatcher national governments, and higher fossil fuel prices.
Clearly, the link at the end of my first paragraph didn’t show. Use the usual prefix if interested: budget.gc.ca/2015/docs/plan/ch3-4-eng.html
The disdain for TransLink is widespread and even comes from board members. This was a primary reason for the failure. As you know, a similar sentiment is not felt in London for the much loved tube and hopping on a bus is done at every corner.
TransLink is the progeny of the province. The disdain for TransLink is misdirected. Is was designed as such.
So why did Gregor, et al, force Ian Jarvis out?
Because Jarvis was unelected and they needed an easy scapegoat. And they didn’t have a budget for highly-paid PR flacks who would’ve known better, or at least spun it with greater skill.
If Kevin Falcon hadn’t meddled with TL in ’07 the board would still be elected and far more accountable. I blame Falcon, not TL, for changing the specifications to remove references to democracy.
They needed a scapegoat just as they were starting a referendum campaign, and that’s a previous ministers’ fault.
Between Bob Ransford and Bill Tielman be sure, they had plenty of budget, over $6 million smackeroos, for highly paid PR flacks. Cook Communicatins, Stratcom, etc., the disclosure released by the mayors’ council details payments to 14 firms providing public relations, communications, strategic or other support.
MB, I presume you do see the irony of your commentary. The Ministry of Urban Affairs was considered to be encroaching into provincial affairs (think the perennial Québec question) and was therefore disbanded over 35 years ago. You won’t find any federal leader prepared to try and go back into those provincial affairs. Stephen Harper has stayed well out of provincial jurisdictions and the result has been the decimation of the Bloc and the possibly the PQ also. Others will learn from this.
What you are further suggesting is a city attempting to grab certain provincial taxation powers. I’ll stock up on popcorn for that.
By the way:
Largest Federal Investment in Infrastructure in Canadian History.
The Government of Canada understands the positive impact that quality infrastructure has on economic growth, job creation and long term prosperity. That is why federal investment in infrastructure has increased dramatically since 2006, and is at an all-time high.
The New Building Canada Plan will see the Government of Canada invest over $53B in infrastructure across the country over the next 10 years (2014-2024).
For British Columbia, this represents almost $3.9B in dedicated federal funding, including almost $1.1B under the New Building Canada Fund and an estimated $2.76B under the federal Gas Tax Fund*.
British Columbia also stands to benefit from:
$4B available for projects of national significance
$1.25B in additional funding available for P3 projects
$10.4B via the GST Rebate which provides municipalities across the country with additional resources to address their infrastructure priorities
Since 2006, investments of over $1.88B under the Building Canada Fund, the Provincial-Territorial Base Fund, the Green Infrastructure Fund, and the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund have assisted the Government of British Columbia and its municipalities to make infrastructure improvements for the benefit of all British Columbians. Municipalities have also benefited from over $1.56B provided to British Columbia through the federal Gas Tax Fund. Combined with investments under other federal infrastructure programs, British Columbia has benefited from over $4.5B toward infrastructure improvements across the province.
According to Statistics Canada, the average age of British Columbia’s infrastructure has declined by 0.9 years since 2006 to 14.8 years in 2012.
A national Ministry of Urban Affairs in the 21st Century would have a much different connotation than 35 years ago when the Constitution was being negotiated. Quebec under Lesvesque didn’t sign it. Yet Quebec, then and now and presumably well into the future (given their now greatly diminished taste for independence), will not turn down federal money. Name one province, territory or city that would.
You don’t need to negotiate a change in the Constitution for a federal Urban Affairs minister to consult with cities on a National Transit Project. Or to reprioritize bits of the budget to offer $20 billion a year over 8 years targeted for public transit in the 15 largest cities and to negotiate appropriate zoning measures in return. As long as the provinces have a presence at the table, will they be willing to be seen to reject such third party offers? In practice, they will try to scarf the money for their own uses, and that is why both cities and provinces need to be at the table where the feds hold the gavel.
MB; there no argument that the geography of London differs from that of Vancouver. We have the mountains to the north, the ocean and the ALR, an artificial barrier. One would think that as a consequence Vancouver is very densely populated. Yet, as Vancouver grows on the other side of its sacred ALR, we see nothing but low density sprawl that is quite unsuited to rail links to Vancouver, unless done at very high expense.
Crossrail in London has been discussed for over 60 years. As will rail to the far reaches of Metro. We must remember that the TransLink board voted twice against the Canada Line before a third vote was called for. Only by the Liberals pushing did it ever get built.
Phase One of Crossrail is under construction. Phase Two is currently being engineered and the funding prepared. The UK national government is also building and planning additional high speed lines to Manchester – Leeds and then Edinburgh. They were laughed at by the EU prior to Eurostar. Hundreds of new double decker buses have been purchased with the Congestion Charge.
My point about Chelsea-Kensington is that comfortable high densities can be achieved with low and medium-rise neighbourhoods well–served by transit and amenities. If the city of Vancouver chose to use the low-point of the C-K density range, say 12,000 p/km2, it could accommodate 2.5X its current population without carving up parks or resorting to towers. With decent site planning and urban design, you would also respect heritage and probably look at diverting say 5% of the ~40 km2 of land currently used as roads to better uses.
You will not continue to create sprawling vinyl subdivisions without removing land from the ALR sooner or later. Food security is an issue we will need to look at a lot more seriously should the California drought continue for another few years.
Scot Hein pointed out that medium-rise neighbourhoods like Arbutus Lands are not desired. We remember Commercial & Broadway. Tall towers is what Vancouverver wants. This may well be another reason some Vancouver residents voted against the plan. It’s clear there are many east Van residents that do not want tall towers.
Reblogged this on DEZIZIONZ.