I guess we should have expected something like this.
Last time, just before a provincial election, it was a sudden announcement of the referendum requirement for new Metro transportation taxes (in retrospect clearly designed to fail). This time, a cap on or elimination of toll revenues
Yet another way to screw up Metro transportation planning and funding.
From the Vancouver Sun:
Neither provincial party consulted with the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation before announcing their plans, according to disappointed New Westminster Mayor Jonathan Cote. The New Democrats have promised to eliminate tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, while the Liberals say they’ll cap tolls at a maximum of $500 per year.
“The reality is, it’s going to be huge. We’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, over the long-term,” Cote said. “They’re really populist moves that run contrary to good public policy. That’s the unfortunate side of developing transportation policy in the middle of an election campaign.”
For the mayors, the campaign pledges represent a significant step backward just as they’re trying to move ahead with a 10-year transit and transportation plan. More than half of the cost of the new Pattullo Bridge, for example, was supposed to come from tolls.
“Every single project, from the Pattullo Bridge to light rail in Surrey to the Broadway Line, I’m feeling a lot less confident today than I was even a week or two ago that those projects will ever get built,” Cote said. …
Gordon Price, director of Simon Fraser University’s City Program, described both parties’ proposals as good, short-term politics, but bad public policy.
“If this sort of thing just gets pulled out for elections, how can you make any long-term commitments?” he asked.
He believes capping tolls will also limit the mayors’ ability to introduce road-pricing to pay for transportation projects. ….
It’s astonishing how advocates of the free market and its efficiency in allocating resources (which depends critically on ‘prices that tell the truth’) turn into socialists when it comes to roads and bridges. Effectively the Liberals and NDP are saying that we will hide the costs of construction and maintenance of bridges by paying more from general revenue, shifting the burden from users, primarily in Metro, to the provincial taxpayers. Thanks, Kelowna!
Both parties know this will distort transportation planning in the region (or at least they should), but clearly don’t care.
With a $500 cap on tolls to be paid on existing and planned bridges, even with small incremental increases, the economics of infrastructure will now be dependent on the willingness of the Province to pay more and more out of general revenue. That in turn will make it easier to shift the burden to Metro taxpayers.
For instance, if the Province is making up the difference between what was anticipated in tolls on the money-losing Golden Ears Bridge (Translink’s responsibility), it will also be easier to cut that grant since it makes no difference to the users and will get lost in the overall budget of TL. (Conceivably it will be have to made up by cutting or not expanding transit services.)
This cap also fundamentally changes the planning for Pattullo Bridge. TransLink can no longer expect to fund half the costs of the bridge through a stream of toll revenues. (Even if Port Mann got the numbers wrong initially, it’s still expected to cover the debt over time.) So either the Province (Liberal or NDP governments) makes up the difference, a new revenue source is identified (will it need a referendum?), TL covers more of the cost from existing sources which it has largely exhausted for any major increase, or removes Pattullo from the 10-year plan.
Presumably, Metro and the Province could agree to tolling all the bridges in the region to deal with the inequity of tolls only for South of the Fraser. But why? The NDP has ruled that out, the Liberals will have a $500 cap, the politics will be brutal, and it doesn’t actually raise much revenue if the idea is to cut tolls on the SoF bridges (it might even be a loser given the costs of refitting and servicing the NoF bridges for tolls.)
And then what about mobility or road pricing? Jordan Bateman, positively salivating, declared such a prospect dead. It probably is under current circumstances.
But given the fiscal train-wreck that the parties, in their blatant attempts at vote-buying, have created, it might allow for a complete rethink of transportation funding in the region.
Indeed, the mayors and TransLink would be nuts to agree to anything less, given how they’ve been treated by all the provincial parties in the past. The precedents – vehicle levy, parking tax, referendum requirement, governance changes – are not promising.
Once again, they and future of the region are being sacrificed for political expedience. One might say they’re being played for suckers.
I have to say this is spectacularly dumb policy. They just sunk the cost of building up the toll infrastructure.
I thought the free loans for over-leveraged financially inept condo buyers was bad. This pretty much says hey, young people move out to Abbotsford. We’ll deal with a $150-300M/yr hole in our budget because we want you to live in suburbia and commute 140 km per day!
The NDP is saying “well we want to build transit to Langley, but hey why not drive?”
At least the free loans thing wasn’t that expensive from the provinces perspective (each is about $4K free interest payments). The cost of this toll revenue is equivalent from a budget perspective of giving about 40,000 interest free loans each year.
Or maybe its their way of saying we’re really not going to do anything meaningful about foreign buyers, so if your local and have a family Abbotsford is your only option.
Do you have any economic research to back your assertion that building The Wall to keep foreign buyers out will lower prices to levels 10-15 years back?
The math for a $500 a year toll cap for all of metro’s bridges , tunnels & transit would be interesting.
TransLink should simply plan to shut down the Pattullo in 5 years and state that they don’t have the finances in place to build a new one. In any case, reduced or eliminated tolls will simply serve to increase the already vast subsidy to drivers. If toll policies go ahead, ,the private automobile may become the biggest social program in Metro Vancouver if is not already.
There are no subsidies for roads. They are all paid by car related charges or property taxes. Without roads the economy would collapse. Closing this bridge is not only political but also economic suicide !
Yes we should toll new bridges, but a 4 lane Patullo bridge is too narrow as is a 4 lane SFPR. Why not a 6 or 8 lane bridge with 1-2 extra express lanes per direction ? Where is the debate about express lanes with higher throughput but even higher tolls ?
Thomas, you are entitled to an unbridled love for road socialism, but not your own facts. https://patrickjohnstone.ca/2014/03/who-pays-for-roads.html
Property tax payers who don’t use municipal roads much are currently forced to heavily subsidize those who use municipal roads a lot. Seniors living on small pensions who go shopping on Sundays are forced to subsidize $250,000 per year real estate sales people who drive on municipal roads all day long.
Let’s toll beaches, bike lanes and sidewalks too as some folks use them a lot and others little ? Charge hefty user fees for healthcare, police, courts and schools too as not everyone uses or benefits from them, either ?
Even if you do not have a car you rely on roads for
Grocery delivery to stores
Delivery of clothing and every other item sold in retail stores
Mailman dropping mail
Plumber arriving to fix your toilets .. ditto painters, roofers, gardeners
Space to bury gas pipes, electric cables, waterline, sewer lines
Trucks to get to new construction sites
Buses to transport folks
Subways below ( on occasion )
Like CO2 taxes if you make road use more expensive ( through tolls or per km charges ) it acts like a PST increase as road use, like energy use, is in everything.
Kindly enlighten me, for example using just beaches or healthcare, why we ought to toll roads but not healthcare or beach use ?
“why we ought to toll roads but not healthcare or beach use ?”
Ummm, because we are a society of grown-ups, some of us capable of nuanced thinking and the power of discernment?
Why pay for people’s bad lifestyle choices aka hospital bills ? Sorry, Chris, I had expected a more mature adult response. If you think road use ought to be more user paid, why not beach or hospital use ? All three cost money and not all folks use them the same.
Excessive ( free ) road use = bad ?
Excessive ( free ) hospital use = good ?
Equating roads to healthcare in terms of human values indicates a lack of joined up thinking.
Everything has a coast, Thomas. But not every thing has the same value.
“…. cost ….”
Thomas; it is highly likely that if tolling roads is enacted the ramifications will be extensive. Vancouver could probably not do it unilaterally. A government could possibly give that power to Metro Vancouver, then how would Aldergrove, Squamish, Abbotsford, Bellingham, etc., react? It could kill retail. Which brings up another important issue. Right now there are many vacancies in downtown Vancouver retail. It’s not just a Vancouver situation, retail shopfronts are experiencing a downturn. Some say the on-line sales are hurting. This is also very much a New York City issue too. Landlords can lower rents, to some degree but another important factor is property taxes. Vancouver has high business taxes. If retail were to erode further then is the City of Vancouver prepared to lower taxes to maintain life on the streets?
Every car on the road, without fail, degrades the experience of every human around it. It offers a benefit only to those people inside it, and even they rail against all the other cars in “their” way.
The infantile response to move to extremes of speculation has no place in reasonable dialogue. Why not charge joggers with their greedy O2 consumption for that too? It becomes a ludicrous exercise in what my Dad would call ‘playing silly buggers’.
We are adults capable of cost/benefit analysis, the recognition that life isn’t a double-entry scenario — where the aim of society is to ensure everyone’s books balance in terms of what they give or take to the world at large, and the ability to discern between those things that can’t nor should come with a price tag.
Well, some of us anyway.
@Ron: cars, like knives, guns, nuclear weapons, oil, solar panels, wind mills or iPhone apps, have benefits and drawbacks. One cannot lament only the drawbacks. One needs to look at the benefits too. Sometimes it is a close balance or one’s values weigh benefits more than drawbacks, or vice versa.
Cars are like coins: they have two sides. If we had no cars or trucks how would these benefits of roads be accomplished ?
Get from A to B in an efficient way (in the rain, with A/C, with loud or soft music on, ..)
Bring along “stuff” too big or bulky for a bike or in a bus
Grocery delivery to stores
Delivery of clothing and every other item sold in retail stores
Mailman dropping mail
Plumber arriving to fix your toilets .. ditto painters, roofers, gardeners
Space to bury gas pipes, electric cables, waterline, sewer lines
Trucks to get to new construction sites
Buses to transport folks
Subways below ( on occasion )
No one is forced to buy a car, even if subway or bus alternatives are readily available, yet many do. Why is that ?
Trucks, transit, emergency vehicles have two sides.
Only the owner, not society, sees another side to cars.
Beyer’s approach to life is succinctly encapsulated in the title of the Dead Kennedy’s compilation album – “Give me Convenience or Give Me Death”. Sadly, it’s give me convenience and your kids get the death, knowing what we do about the cost of chronic motoring.
Cars + Roads = Life !!
Thomas has a point when road tolls are simply user fees to pay for infrastructure. Although driving has high external costs unlike other public facilities like hospitals, beaches or bike lanes. The situation is quite different if road tolls are used to manage congestion. It has nothing to do with user pay.
Still waiting for an answer why road use ought to be tolled but not school or healthcare (or beach) use.
Why is a grade 12 mandated for all ? Many folks need only 9-10 years of education and then can become plumbers, hairdressers, truckers, electricians, painters, etc .. why not make a cut after grade 9 or 10 or charge a fee ?
Why is any knee replacement free even for the most hard driving snowboarder or skier ?
Again, if you think road use ought to be more user paid, why not beach or hospital use ? All three cost money and not all folks use them the same.
Excessive ( free ) road use = bad ?
Excessive ( free ) hospital use = good ?
Why one and not the other ??
Then you missed the answer referring to human values.
“One cannot lament only the drawbacks. One needs to look at the benefits too. Sometimes it is a close balance or one’s values weigh benefits more than drawbacks, or vice versa.”
Thomas I have to agree with you and this is why I suggest it is very difficult to do an objective analysis of the complex web of subsidies. A useful and appropriate benefit-cost analysis requires an even and thorough assessment of both sides (add in the word “social” to social benefit-cost analyses, which are done for public investments, the assessment becomes further complex).
What happens typically is that one cannot do a completely thorough assessment so at some point you limit your analysis. The question is if you limited your analysis equally on both sides of the pros/cons or benefits/costs. If so the results of the analysis can be deemed objective and fair, under the assumptions of the limited scope. I like to envision a scale (like the scales of justice) in that if the assessment fair for both sides, the scale is balanced.
It is expected for those that advocate for something to only focus on the benefits/pros, and then only on the costs/cons of the competing things. Think of when you go to an Apple store or Samsung store and how they up-play their products while down-playing the competing products. Not dissimilar to the different political parties right now up-playing their platform, and down-playing the opposition platforms. They are lobbying a bias and hope you bite. But I would hope people are smarter and know that the Apple salesperson will not be pointing out the many beneficial features of a Samsung phone, and vice-versa.
It’s another matter for official social benefit-cost analyses and we expect them to have no such bias. We should ensure they are as objective as can be.
I doubt the subsidies offered for roads can hold a flame to home ownership subsidies via homeowner grants and exemptions from capital gains taxes.
Which capital gains taxes should we introduce in your opinion ?
You will have to take off your rose colored… no wait – completely fogged up… glasses if you think drivers are subsidized. This is completely wrong and grossly inaccurate. I think what you meant to say is that drivers are subsidizing all this nonsense. We pay way too much already and we get very little in return – other than congestion. Those who do not want to pay the true cost of transit are always crying to get money from the drivers. I said it before – if transit is so great, have those who use it pay for it. When they have to pay the true cost (that is NOT subsidized by the driver), I bet ridership will drop over a cliff. Face the facts.
Facts:
http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Who%20Pays%20for%20Roads%20vUS.pdf
http://www.transportfutures.ca/news/motorists-are-subsidized-25-billion-year
https://www.biv.com/article/2013/7/news-flash-for-drivers-cyclists-are-helping-subsid/
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/
http://cityobservatory.org/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-free-way/
etc…..
BILL Yes transit ridership would drop over the cliff with full cost recovery. Will you promise not whine about congestion when your competing with those former transit riders for road space.
Buses in bus lanes actually slow traffic flow.
The Constitution allows local and regional government reps to be played for suckers by the province. Is it time for the TransLink board and the Mayor’s Council to resign in protest and hand it all back to Victoria? After all, Victoria holds all the cards and it has not just shortchanged TL and the MC (and residents), but has used them as punching bags and shields for years no matter what party is in power.
Remove the shield and you have a direct line between Metro residents, who form half the province’s population, and the provincial cabinet table. The handcuffs destined for local government wrists would no longer have a purpose.
It’s high time for a more effective local governance, and one can only hope this won’t have to resort to a Constitutional amendment with BC government lawyers fighting against it. To avoid that, perhaps the feds will have to use the new infrastructure bank to directly fund 90% of transit in the largest cities (which house 85% of the nation’s people) under action on climate change legislation and cut out the provinces that protest at the lost of control over their urban minions.
You are right, the MetroVan Mayors Council on Transportation leaders at least should have resigned after they lost the referendum, and are now re-warming the same old, same old plan for new funding (40% each by feds and province instead of 33%) .. have they learned nothing ?
Recall, cities are a legal creation of the province, not the other way around.
But let’s debate the old Italian city-state model, perhaps it had some merits ?? Tolls instead of drawbridges ?? Different currencies, too ?
Shackling local governance and starving the largest economic engine in the province while simultaneously mocking it is an exercise in extraordinarily misguided and childish management ability and short-sightedness by the Puppetmeisters in Victoria. They want control, but they want to set it up so that the public sees only the locals reacting to circumstances derived over dessert in Victoria.
Cutting the strings would create a courageous vacuum. Remaining tied up and complaining merely reinforces the role of the locals being patsys to the whims of so-called leaders who should know better. The province could appoint its own TL board (they already do to a large extent), but then it would own 100% of the issue of managing a massive urban transport enterprise. To continue post severance to shackle and starve Metro governance (notably at the planning and financial level) after the locals withdraw will then be felt at provincial cabinet table.
The Metro is responsible for half of the economic activity of the province. Similarly, the Greater Toronto Area generates as much economic power as all of Alberta in an average year, roughly $330 billion. The six largest cities are responsible for half of all the wealth gebnerating capacity in the entire nation, adding up to a trillion dollars a year.
Cities have been messed with by some provinces for far too long. It’s time they be given the tools to stand on their own — or at least start the discussion.
No Alex. The province does not “to a large extent” appoint the TL board:
The TransLink Board of Directors is composed of seven individuals appointed by the Mayors’ Council (from a candidate list presented by the Screening Panel), the Mayors’ Council Chair and Vice-Chair (at their option), and up to two members appointed by the Province. The TransLink Board of Directors:
appoints TransLink Chair and Vice Chair
appoints TransLink CEO
supervises the management of the affairs of TransLink
submits long-term transportation strategies to the Mayors’ Council for approval
submits 10-year transportation investment plans to the Mayors’ Council for approval
approves TransLink’s annual operating budgets
proposes to Mayors’ Council changes to customer satisfaction survey processes and conducts surveys annually
proposes to Mayors’ Council changes to customer complaint processes and implements approved processes
publishes annual reports
holds public annual general meetings
establishes subsidiaries and appoints their Board Chair and members
The province appoints 2 members, the Mayors’ Council appoints 9.
Tell us more about this screening panel that puts forth candidates.
Like, how many positions on it come from the Mayor’s Council?
Isn’t it just one of five?
“They’re really populist moves that run contrary to good public policy.”
To which there are two possible responses. One is for experts to avoid populism by influencing leaders to make choices that are wise but unpopular. The other is to popularize the good choices.
The former has not been successful. Experts lack the political leverage to influence the Province. There are a few influential groups with pull, particularly developers, but even virtually all the mayors united and the “biggest coalition in BC history” had zero impact. Regardless of party, the number one priority of leaders, even the most idealistic ones, is always to get elected: if transit gets in the way, it will always be sacrificed.
I agree completely with this blog post, but there is no point complaining about a lack of leadership if the political support isn’t there. Put another way, in a democracy, the job of leaders is not to lead: it is to follow. (For example, Rachel Notley had no choice about Kinder Morgan: as premier of Alberta, she had to support it.)
Transit is in a particularly tough spot because a) it requires large up-front investments from senior levels of government, and b) it takes a long time – certainly more than a four-year term in office – for the benefits of those investments to be realized.
This is why I believe that the only way to develop transit in anything other than dribs and drabs is to get the public on-side. Not everyone: even 10% might do the trick if motivated. It is clear that right now, no such movement exists. On the contrary, majority opinion is against significant investment in transit.
The case still needs to be made to the public. I think transit advocates need to behave as though the referendum never ended. In that instance, there simply wasn’t enough time to make the argument. With the next government (of whichever party) already committed to sabotaging transit investment, now is the time to play the long game.
Who will play it? Translink is hamstrung; the mayors’ council is trying, but their “cure congestion” pitch is awful; the influence of academics and other experts is either minimal or takes a very long time to have an impact; the media is not sympathetic. The only group I see that is effectively pitching transit is developers, whose real estate ads take for granted the lifestyle desirability of Skytrain. But they have only a narrow demographic and geographic target.
Geof, I agree that the job of leaders is to follow, however by default they are looked upon to lead. Even if they do a bad job at it, they are still leading, if not symbolically. I’ve always felt leaders should have a servant or stewardship attitude, but also be confident in their role. They are both the extremes of a leader and follower at the same time, sort of like quantum qubits which are in a superposition of both “1” *and* “0” (as opposed to the classical definition of a bit being like a switch as being either “1” *or* “0”).
It seems you are trying to connect transit investments to political objectives, of which you state the number one priority is always to get elected. It sure seems that way and if that is truly the case, I would suggest looking at the system from a mechanistic perspective:
If it’s about getting and staying elected, the marginal and subtle photo-ops and ribbon cutting can be a mechanism that is used to drive the “stay elected” agenda, which is the highly-coveted public exposure of accomplishing what the constituency wants. Using these public events as an example of a political mechanism, maybe an idea is to ban elected officials to be present at such photo-ops or announcements. Instead, have a public officer and a member of the public represented in lieu of politicians to make the announcement and be in the photos. You could have these picked at random like they do when one is picked for jury duty. It would be a great morale booster for public sector staff. The public still sees good things being done, but there is less of an incentive to turn these publicly-funded investments into partisan leverage.
That is one “actionalbe” example. But overall I believe fundamentally that elected officials should determine policy priorities (as this is the role they are elected in for) and ensure proper process and due diligence is in place similar to a Board (i.e. they ensure the table is set properly and restaurant is operational). But they should not be involved or interfere in deciding the actual solutions (i.e. they should not decide on the menu items), which should be done with technical experts (“cooks” and “nutritionists”) and in consultation with the public (or “patrons” as they are the determiners and sources of “value” and eventually decide what to pick on the menu). Now this may lead to populist decisions (“me want cookies”), but it is up to the experts to ensure they are informed of the merits (pros and cons) of each solution option (i.e. they are informed of the nutritional value of each menu item, and the policy priorities would have been decided that being healthy is a good thing).
Elected officials are then merely the moderators of the discussion and eventually the ones to officially ratify decisions as representatives of their constituencies. They are in control of the process but not the direct outcome. So in the case of say a water crossing, the policy would be one of social, economic and environmental goals, solutions such as bridge and tunnel designs determined by experts (including their merit), and members of society consulted to vet and debate over the solutions.
The key piece for me is the “menu”, which is the evaluation and ranking of all candidate major transportation projects in the region (or effective transportation catchment area). Having them all on the same “menu” and subjected to the same agreed-upon criteria (which is derived and based on society’s values), ensures we have a holistically designed system, not one that is put together in piecemeal-fashion.
This way you get the benefits of democratic representation, technical excellence and sincerity, and outcomes that society wants and needs.
I suggest Clark that your proposed system would have a weak link where public opinion favours elements and policies that are not in the common good. A taste for sugar, alcohol consumption, citizen’s continuing support for the death penalty, wide support for resource-hungry roads over leaner transit and walkable communities, and addiction to cheap financing, debt and cheap fossil fuels are only a few. Jevon’s Paradox and its relationship to overconsumption in the context of cheap goods and services is one way to demonstrate our exposure.
Sometimes external events illuminate the economic vulnerability and lack of resiliency in our society. A single missile fired by Iran into an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for Trump attacking their Syrian benefactor will cause the price at the pump to double (or possibly triple) overnight, and expose drivers here (not to mention transit and commercial trucking) to an ongoing price shock they didn’t allow for in their budgets as the Mid East sinks yet deeper into instability.
The 5-year drought in California exposed a double vulnerability: California’s reliance on increasingly diminishing snow packs in the Sierras and the fast disappearing water in the Colorado River for artificially irrigated agriculture (Lake Mead is 30 m below normal levels now); and Canada’s reliance on California’s more tenuous exports of food through long and vulnerable supply chains. All related to our love of cheap fuel and its environmental impact.
Sometimes politicos with scruples have to read the evidence and make hard and unpopular decisions, publish their rationale, and face the electoral consequences. One thing that outlasts both the best and opportunistic politicos is their legacy, good, bad or indifferent. The book writing industry thrives long on all but the indifferent.
Why force expensive energy if cheap energy is available for decades to come ? If governments force energy prices up, by CO2 taxes for example, where will other taxes be lowered ?
Relatively cheap mass scale desalination systems now exist to allow California to continue its agriculture.
Politicians like to be liked, selfied, loved .. and re-elected in 4 years. Unpopular but necessary & tough decisions are rare, but happen now and then as we see with Trump, or saw with Maggie Thatcher, for example. Slightly over 50% loved them and slightly under 50% despised them. Which BC politician advocates those tough decision in the May election ?
Btw: Canada and US are now fairly independent of Middle East oil so one blown up oil tanker will not move the oil needle all that much anymore, unlike the 80’s.
Glad to finally see some CNG buses and ferries. We ought to ban or tax diesel trucks or buses as they are heavy polluters and urban noise makers. Where is this debate as cheaper & quieter alternatives exist !
Because, Thomas, the energy isn’t nearly as cheap as you like to think. We already pay for it in other hidden ways like health problems. Future generations will pay more for our greed.
Mass scale desalination has a major flaw in that super-salinates occurs at the discharge killing ocean life and making desalination increasingly difficult.
Trump lost the popular vote but he did popularize alternative truth which you’ve taken as your best friend.
Thatcher lucked out with an oil boom coinciding with her draconian policies.
If the market thought there were cheaper alternatives to diesel they’d be using them. So why should we “force expensive energy ” on them? Your arguments are as inconsistent as they are misguided.
Thomas, you’re going to have to supply some citations to back your assertions now and again.
Of all California’s piped, dammed, drilled and highly subsidized water supplies collected from three states, 85% goes to agriculture. Can you please tell us how many desalination plants are required to replace that capacity, and their energy requirements.
Canada imports half of its consumer fuels mostly from the Middle East. The US imports almost 80% of its oil, and Saudi Arabia is second only to Canada in import sources.
If Thatcher was worthy of wide-spread respect, let alone “love” as you profess, then why didn’t she create a sovereign wealth fund from North Sea oil instead of spending it the moment it displaced lost income tax revenue from unionized workers?
“…. laid off unionized workers …” [How I wish there was an Edit button here.]
Again. @Ron , we need to look at benefits AND drawbacks of any energy sources, such as oi, sun or wind. The alleged “health problems” are very minor compared to the massive benefits of longer life expectancies, lower heating bills, cheaper food or affordable vacations in Mexico for all in Canada’s frigid winters. Most expect K Wynne’s Liberals in Ontario to lose the next election over the doubling of energy costs and associated job losses. Even the AB NDP wasn’t that dumb to follow their stupid energy policy lead and will create a much smarter solar industry there [ of course the early coal plant shut-down in the middle of nowhere was a grave & very costly mistake].
@Alex: The US imports 43% of its imported oil from Canada, and overall the % of imports has dropped from around 50% in 2005 to less than 38% in 2015 (and likely is lower in 2016/2017) .. say 1/3 .. and if almost half that is from Canada and quite a bit from Mexico then less than 15% is from other “evil” places like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq etc .. More here https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/04/11/where-america-gets-its-oil-the-top-10-suppliers-of-u-s-oil-imports or detailed by country data here https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm .. in fact Canada supplies more than all of OPEC to the US now ..
Canada is a net exporter of oil by a wide margin. It is cheaper to ship oil from Middle East to Nfld, Quebec and Ontario than by rail, though. Of course, an Energy East pipeline would be an excellent idea, as would be a ban on tanker traffic in the St Lawrence like on the Pacific Coast but of course different rules apply when Quebec and Eastern handout states are concerned.
Re Maggie: unlike closed Norway the UK oil production as a share of GDP was never all that high plus UK is an immigration society similar to Canada (or Alberta) and as such the wealth fund made no sense. It makes no sense to me to tax people’s incomes and consumption like in Norway and force them to save. I believe it is up to the individual to save, not the state, except for the very small inept, sick or mentally ill portion of the population.
@Ron and CA’s water issues
No new technology is without controversy but better expensive than parched or dead (soil, animals or people): http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/carlsbad-desalination-california-drought-environment-water-wildlife/49871124 or here http://fortune.com/2015/10/29/water-desalination-stage-2-innovations-manoj-bhargava/ or here http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/23/desalination-in-california-qa-on-making-fresh-water/
I am not an expert on water. Likely others are though. Technology will ease these issues, just like hybrid or fuel efficient cars are extending oil life and making it far more efficient to use them until e-cars are cheap enough, go the distance and car chargers are ubiquitous .. maybe 2050 or 2088 !
Thomas, we don’t have all those positive things you mention because we kept doing things the same way. We have them because we learned to do things better. We learned to avoid things that are causing us harm, something you seem quite incapable of. Mass denial doesn’t move society forward.
If you want to keep flinging your poop out the window and going to the “barber” for a good blood-letting to fix what ails you, that’s up to you. Don’t keep holding the rest of us back.
Alex, yes you would be allowed to order just “deserts and alcohol” from the “menu.” But the audacity of democracy requires the possibility for decisions that are sub-optimal to the common good, and other social tragedies. Democracy does not guarantee perfect governance, but it is a mechanism that allows us to reach it. Without this possibility of getting it wrong, government becomes too parental and then it becomes the opposite of democracy, in which you have two extremes: a cruel dictatorship or a benevolent dictatorship.
Like most things in life, it’s a wave function and you have the highs and lows due to possibly over-correction in voting, which may explain why the US had maybe the most polar opposites of presidents back-to-back.
Luckily there is a feedback loop where sub-optimal voting results in consequences less to be desired, and the pain of that can initiate change. Democracy is a trial-and-error experiment. One would think we will evolve intellectually to the point we figure out things via cause and effect. I think the sharing of information and education is key in elevating our collective intellect so that it converges towards our values. If so then we also need to also evolve our values towards increasing human civility.
What I previously described is one approach to governance and there are many other routes to good governance. I’m not sure if “one size fits all” in terms of governance models, but I imagine it should be shaped to fit the society it serves and that could vary by culture and traditions.
If we are going to experiment with democracy, we should at least learn from previous iterations, rather than throw the proverbial monkeys and typewriters at it. We either take on an attitude that humans have the will and grace to improve ourselves collectively, or we simply give in to the notion that we “collectively get what we collectively deserve.”
@ Clark, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that cities have been shortchanged by senior governments, especially provinces like BC, and that one of perhaps a small constellation of solutions would be to afford greater local control. There are many models to learn from, like Greater London, the GTA under Rob Ford, etc., and from them we could, if allowed to by Victoria, construct a better and directly-elected Metro government with taxation powers.
Taking Geof’s insightful comments into account, perhaps the TransLink board and the Mayor’s Council threatening to resign is the wrong approach. It may be better to propose a new model that explains to the public in neutral terms the potential benefits of an elected regional government, and provide proof that the idea accounted for the mistakes made in other jurisdictions. I think presenting the idea to the public with simple, positive and precisely-honed concepts may allow many lights to go on and could create a “grassroots” movement with, hopefully, large enough support to not be instantly and cavalierly dismissed by the province.
Just a thought.
@ Thomas
The Canadian petroleum industry, even when added to mining and forestry (i.e. most of our resource exploitation) doesn’t even add up to 8% of our GDP.
http://www.cannor.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-CANNOR-CANNOR/STAGING/images-images/dpr_2015-16_ne_img1_1476454672925_eng.jpg
Sure, a few double-digit billion in raw or minimally processed resources are exported a year, but our entire economy outputs $2,000 billion in activity per annum. Moreover, an extractive raw resource export economy cannot ever be sustainable when most resources are either finite or high-graded, and the multipliers are weak compared to value-added activity.
And then you have this …..
I’m proud to say that, through your efforts, Canada is becoming a world leader in wind energy. Canada has almost 12,000 megawatts of installed wind generating capacity — the eighth largest in the world. […] In 2003, there was 350 megawatts, and now it’s 12,000. Who can deny that the pace of change is accelerating more rapidly than people ever thought possible?
More wind energy has been built in Canada in the last five years than any form of electricity generation. Today, it’s providing enough energy to power more than three million homes, and in many communities it’s now the lowest-cost option for new electricity supply. From Rivière-du-Moulin in Quebec to the K2 wind power facility in Ontario, and I think I could add St. Leon in my own province of Manitoba, Canadians are realizing the benefits of wind energy.
With plans for new facilities in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, it’s clear that wind energy time has come. We’re well under way, but we’re still scratching the surface of our potential in Canada.
My message to you today is that our government is committed to addressing climate change, and we know that wind power will play a critical role.
Our recent budget built on these investments, providing —
• $21.9 billion for priorities in green infrastructure, including clean electricity and mart grid-to-grid interconnections
• $220 million to support renewable energy technologies established abroad but not yet in Canada, such as offshore wind and geothermal
• $220 million to reduce the reliance of northern and remote communities on diesel fuel by supporting clean, renewable energy infrastructure
• $100 million for smart grid deployment and demonstration, a critical step to expanding the reach of renewable energy
• $12 million for a clean growth hub that will improve access to federal resources and labs for entrepreneurs and innovators […]
The Honourable Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources Canada
Keynote Address, The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) 2017 Spring Forum, April 5, 2017, Gatineau, Quebec
It appears your philosophical paradigm is being shifted.
https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2017/04/keynote_address_thecanadianwindenergyassociationcanwea2017spring.html
Alex, your points are well taken and I believe this has been done locally via TransLink’s governance model. But as Geoff pointed out, it’s how you communicate it and I agree the PR element is very crucial, especially when discussing relatively complex or obscure topics that are not commonly discussed, such as governance.
Back in the mid 90’s when the idea of TransLink was being formed, it was based on more of a first-principles approach starting with a multi-modal focus vs. the traditional silo-approach to modes. I have good memories going to every municipal council that wanted to learn about this new structure, supporting the back-end technical part of this governance proposal. It was a “grassroots” movement that started on sound fundamentals and political understanding, backed by technical and professional expertise and facts that stem from system-economics principles.
I don’t think TransLink’s governance was designed perfectly because it is difficult to judge perfect governance (not that i’m not trying in my current research). However, it is somewhat validated by the hundreds of agencies that came into town or inquired about it and deemed it the modern approach to transport governance. A year ago I was in Beijing to help their national transport department on their congestion and GHG strategy, and out of the blue they wanted to know more about TransLink’s governance as they had heard of many good things about it, and how we evaluate our projects (i.e. multiple account evaluation technique) because this part of decision making is an essential part of good governance.
So we have a pretty good model and yet it’s merely a vehicle. A vehicle (think of a bus) that requires a board and leaders to drive, with all the passenger (us) in the back. Is TransLink a failed model? Some of the PR would have you believe that. If that is the case, maybe some of the fault lies in the design of the vehicle. Maybe some lie in the “driving” of it. Or maybe there are too many at the driver’s seat (it was thought either have the province control the region’s transport or let the region do it, but two or more hands at on the wheel is not ideal). Whatever the reason, my feeling is we don’t know we have a good thing locally and we tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We give in if we constantly think the grass is always greener in other jurisdictions.
@Alex: Yes wind energy is great for electricity generation if installed where it is windy, without government subsidies and far are away from humans as they are ugly (and somewhat noisy if too close). Many states/countries/areas in the world now have legislation for windmills to be not too close to housing. Optical pollution if you ask me, but hey, it is “green”. The long term life cycle of wind due to repairs and blade replacements is somewhat unknown, and as usual not as “green” or energy efficient as promised if one counts energy to build them, truck them, install them, maintain them AND eventually replace them. And of course, when it is not windoy (nor sunny) one needs a backup system (hydro, gas, nuclear or coal)
One reason for Canada’s wealth is its natural resources (oil, gas, coal, potash, wood, diamonds, gold, uranium, ..) and due to our high environmental regulations, high labour costs and complications with (often unknown and heavily litigated) native rights it is often cheaper to process them elsewhere.
A summary of the economic impact (17% of GDP), taxes to various governments ($27B/year) and jobs (over 1.7M) is here http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/files/pdf/10_key_facts_nrcan_2016-access_e.pdf
Clark, I think you hit the crux of the issue with your analogy of a bus, and in the case of TL there is more than one driver, each having a different view of the route to take. Local control won the day until the RAV Line came along and the locals floated surface light rail over a subway against the direction Kevin Falcon and Gordon Campbell wanted.
They then stepped in and changed the governance structure. Since then the province used an unnecessary referendum and inadequate project funding grants to get their way, and TL and the MC were portrayed alternately as losers or a bloated bureaucracy full of fat cats (some commenters on this site included), and the tone set by provincial ministers and the premier toward local mayors has been quite disrespectful and mocking ever since. There was analysis on the TL management structure, value for services, pay levels etc. compared to other jurisdictions during the referendum campaign and posted here with positive results, but that was all drowned out by the ragefest against everything it seems except the proposed teeniest of transit tax hikes.
It is very difficult during these instances of public outrage — even rather incongruently by some transit users — to keep it positive. In my view PR is not enough. What needs to be done is to change the system, and the public needs to be on board assisted by, but not due to, PR alone . There has to be some very original ideas that appeal to everyone, not just transit users, and this is where the debate should be.
Perhaps it should start with a question: What kind of city and community do you want to live in in 50 years?
Thomas, I don’t think you know what the wind energy industry is about, and you have continually avoided understanding the role of public sector and always portray it in terms of cost while ignoring value. Cost and value are not the same.
Windmills for power is not universally popular. There are many opponents.
https://quixoteslaststand.com/worldwide-anti-wind-groups/
Alex, that analogy of the “multiple hands on the bus wheel” was what the review of TransLink’s governance in 2013 used:
“The Province is seen as having a dominating influence, sometimes resulting in decision-making that is at variance with regional and local objectives. This is combined with a sense that ‘the Province can’t let go.’ It is also seen that complex policy issues, such as an appropriate tolling regime for an urban area, are challenging to address, particularly because of the Province’s policy which is not suitable in an urban area.”
So the quote ends with a reference to put us back on topic. If TransLink is able to plan complex transport systems and transit operations, why does it not have control of the tolling policy in the region? What is the fundamental difference between fares and tolls? Either the province lets TL drive the bus, or it takes over and drives the bus. But please only one driver.
Fittingly Marvin Shaffer wrote an opinion in today’s Vancouver Sun regarding a similar situation with BC Hydro and Site C:
“The promise made in the New Era document was a good one. While government has every right to set policy and broad direction for B.C. Hydro, it shouldn’t dictate the specific investments and other measures by which those policies are achieved. And it certainly shouldn’t preclude independent review and assessment of the full range of consequences and the need for and alternatives to what is proposed.”
“What we need more than anything else are improvements in the governance of B.C. Hydro — improvements in the roles and processes governing how decisions are made.”
http://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/opinion-politics-versus-good-governance-for-b-c-hydro
So I believe likewise, the issue for transport is one of governance in that we need clarity and adherence to the roles of the different levels of decision making with elected officials overseeing policy and broad direction in order to achieve high-level goals. And there should be no political inference on decisions of the specifics of investments or how they are achieved. Elected officials should ensure that there are clean and proper processes to allow for independent and objective studies to inform decisions, with the path of final decisions being transparent, audit-able, and made understandable to the electorate.
” elected officials overseeing policy and broad direction ”
The province does this. The province allows and endorses policy. The line that the MC wanted to cross was a new tax. This was understood by all as requiring public approval. The government showed honesty in keeping the promise that any new tax would have to be voted on and approved by the people. Many TransLink and Mayors Council supporters didn’t like this promise being kept. ( now many of these same people are calling for some mechanism so that in future politicians can be sanctioned for not keeping a promise).
Christy Clark and the Liberals publicly still supported and spoke in favour of the refendum succeeding. Gregor Robertson and all the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men couldn’t convince anywhere near the majority required. After, a few heads rolled at TransLink but the Mayors just kept on trucking as though nothing had happened and classically keep blaming someone other than themselves.
Sure, Eric, you are correct that the province has a right to stick to their election promise and act on it. I wish all election promises were fulfilled (well I better be careful as there are a few I do not so much wish for). I think where people become confused is why we don’t have more referendums for equally important decisions or tax increases, or why only pick on this one? At any rate, I think we all know it is a political move and they can do it because they form the government of the day.
The point i’m trying to add to the discussion is that elected officials should stay in the role they were elected for, which is policy and general direction, and that there is no “political interference” when it comes to deciding on the specifics of how those policies are best delivered. It is not appropriate for them to determine the justification of a hydroelectric dam or design of a bridge, even if they are professionally certified to be able to do so. As elected officials their role is focused on policy, priority, and due process.
Similar to the firing of the Ministry of Health research staff, where the BC government claimed they don’t direct civil service’s actions and that “there was no political interference in the dismissals”. This is similar to the Board of Governors and refs of the NHL, who are tasked with policy, rules, and ensuring fair processes are delivered, but they do not determine who should win the Cup. But to exercise a certain policy mechanism on one team and not others is when questions on fairness would come about.
At the end of the day, or should I say term, it is a democratic system and we are all ultimately in control by virtue of our votes, the ultimate referendum.
After years of research into both the Site C dam and the Massey Tunnel replacement it would be funny to suggest that any current minister has suddenly become a designer, or an expert civil engineer. You also seem to be inferring that more referendums are called for. Please elaborate. Again, if you are thinking about the proposed bridge are you suggesting that the municipalities of Delta and Richmond ought to have been consulted at the ballot box? Should all of Canada been consulted since the river is federal property? Should all of BC be consulted now that John Horgan has proposed expanding the highway from Kamloops to the Alberta border?
“John Horgan has proposed expanding the highway from Kamloops to the Alberta border” … but not the Massey Bridge ? Like the UBC Broadway Line the twinning of our only national highway between the two fastest growing provinces is a no-brainer, i.e. common sense.
But then, common sense is not so common.
Likely a few swing vote districts somewhere in the Kamloops to Lake Louise area, eh ?
As to the change of policies – or lack thereof – or change of leadership in the MetroVan Mayor Council after a resounding “no” ? Likely some under another Liberal win in May and more spending (and more taxes) after an NDP win. We shall see ..
I am not talking about how things should be. I am talking about how they are. The reality is that successive provincial governments have stymied transit. The question is, what can be done about that.
For a very long time now, we have been asking, demanding, and hoping that our leaders would lead. It has not happened, and it’s not about to. The Dictator’s Handbook, which summarizes selectorate theory, explains why: leaders are beholden to their winning coalition. Photo ops, policies, and so forth are all secondary. Put another way, politics is not about policies, and it’s not about character: it’s about whom leaders represent. All the rational persuasion and expertise in the world won’t change that.
Expertise does not get things done. Rational arguments and deliberation do not get things done. Being right about something really important (e.g. climate change) does not get things done. Politically, these things are nearly irrelevant. This drives highly educated people crazy. The more they lose, the harder they try to marshal arguments and evidence, the more they rail at the “masses” for ignorance and stupidity, the more they criticize democracy for its failings or imagine a better politics. Education has led them astray, losing sight of the need to gain support among the trees of policy and technical details. Ordinary voters who ask the simple question, “who is on my side,” understand the system better than they do.
There could not be a better example than the referendum. The Yes side knew how to build a coalition among elites. They appear to have done a fantastic job of it. The Province, however, and Jordan Bateman, with his tiny budget, knew how to reach the citizenry. They exploited existing narratives (nurtured over time by people like Bateman) to crush the dearly-held ideals of the best and brightest. The Yes side played chess at a poker game, and lost.
If you want to achieve something politically, you have to deal with the system that is. That means making your issue relevant to whether leaders stay in power. The Province can afford to not satisfy the elites who want transit. Whom can they not afford to ignore? The voters. We have tried to change things from the top down. It’s time to also do the hard work of creating change from the bottom up. (Mr Price, I believe has been doing this all along.)
If I have one piece of advice, it is this: learn from Jordan Bateman. He ran a very effective campaign. And it was easy: because the ground was prepared years in advance.
So you’re suggesting they play dirty?
Many highly educated people fail because they are patronizing but they often don’t see it. Ignatieff couldn’t see it.
Play dirty? Absolutely not. If all you see in Bateman’s victory is deception, then you weren’t paying attention.
I do believe that Bateman misled the media and the public on many points. I certainly disagree with him: even if he believed what he said, the implications in my view were not true. Arguing against taxes, he had an easier case to make. But all that aside (and especially compared to the Yes side), he campaigned well.
I admit, I say this to be provocative. I see people get wrapped up in their conviction that they are right, and so lose the ability to reach those who are not already true believers. Respecting and learning from one’s opponent forces us to step outside that comfort zone. I believe that he who fails to have respect for and to learn from his opponent (in his own mind, if not in public) is doomed to misunderestimate him and lose.
Bateman produced a steady stream of press releases, not just during the referendum campaign but for years preceding it. He was proactive, not reactive. He knew what his frame for transit was, and he was constantly on the lookout for opportunities to present it.
He consistently presented his arguments in terms that were meaningful to ordinary people. His arguments were never technical or hard to relate to. The bottom line was always clear and relevant to his audience.
He made it easy for journalists to do their reporting. A very high proportion of news articles (the number 40% sticks in my head) are warmed-over PR. (You see this every time there is a report on a press conference.) With news budgets slashed, journalists don’t have the time or resources to investigate stories in depth. And they are almost always looking to balance two opposing sides. Bateman made it easy for them. He gave them easily-digestible material, established the other side of the story as *his* side, and made himself the go-to guy for them to get it.
Maybe you feel uncomfortable about playing the PR game. Which is more truthful: Explaining your side of the story as clearly and effectively as possible? Or remaining silent and letting Bateman do it?
Maybe you feel uncomfortable about involving an ignorant public it policy-making. Which is more democratic: Explaining to people what a policy means for them in their everyday lives? Or presenting them with technical details and telling them to place their faith in the authority of experts?
Play dirty? On the contrary: being right but not explaining why is not a whole lot better than being dishonest. Visibility, consistency, clarity, relevance (all of which Bateman did): effective communication is the necessary handmaiden of truth.
Oh, come on. The math that Bateman presented was so obviously inaccurate that it couldn’t be anything but a lie.
I believe he implied that an average person spends $56,000/yr on items taxable by PST. Never mind that fact that the per capita GDP is lower than that, or that not everything is subject to PST, or that non-residents, and companies would also pay portions of the tax.
Bateman is the king of sound bites that are lightly sprinkled with truthyisms. “Facts” and numbers that barely pass the sniff test by the ignorant.
someone please help! where is the thoughtful policy and platform development? I’d like to vote for an alternative to the current government, but I feel like all they’ve been doing in the run up to the election is making unwise promises to the electorate.
I’m beginning to think that all sound evidence based policy planning supporters have left politics altogether and only the people who are in it for personal gain are left…
Perhaps transit and bridge funding will come from Kinder Morgan payments.
This week the federal Minister Natural Resources is in China along with Merran Smith of Clean Energy Canada and others, “So that is a good sign and first step that the government is seeing the need to sell Canada’s resourcefulness, not just resources,” she said.
Top of the agenda was encouraging Chinese investments in the oil patch and confirming that the Trans Mountain pipeline will be available for exports of crude to China.
“We have to expand our export markets in all of our natural resources,” he told an audience of energy executives and Chinese investors. “And that is why China is so important to us. That’s why we approved a pipeline to take Alberta crude to the West Coast, and then on to Asia.”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canada-renews-push-for-crude-oil-sales-to-china-as-it-seeks-climate-leadership/article35247518/
This follows on the heels of the sale to a Chinese company of a high tech firm that sells western military technology. It seems JT just can’t do enough for China.
He’s not Harper, so it’s OK.