Rob Shaw’s article today in the Vancouver Sun does not pull any punches-and finally there is some truth-telling in the Provincial government’s ranks about what was REALLY going on with the lack of co-operation at supporting accessibility and good public transportation in Metro Vancouver. Kevin Falcon who used to be minister in the Liberal government said the party “lost considerable urban ground to the NDP because ethical issues chipped away at their credibility, and because of the lengthy political dispute over funding Lower Mainland transit projects…lack of progress over transportation projects, and just a little too much politics and not quite enough initiative”.
There’s been a lot of drama-the Province insisted that the Mayors Council put forward their proposed way of funding transit to a 2015 plebiscite. The Province also “nixed or delayed potential local funding sources for transit, such as a vehicle levy, road pricing or carbon tax expansion, and the result has been a multi-year fight with local politicians over money.”
And that’s not all. At the end of the campaign the Province announced that the Mayors Council would have to hold another referendum for new revenue resources to fund things like the Broadway subway or Surrey rapid transit.
“Nobody in government is perfect,” said Falcon. “But I think it’s a mistake to say we’re going to force a referendum before we make any major transportation decisions. At the end of the day, the public hates that kind of politics. What they want to see is leadership in action.”
Of course the bridge tolls, the lack of Uber or ride share and the need for taxi reforms also didn’t help to smooth things over either for Metro Vancouver. And the Massey Bridge, overbuilt and in the wrong place to support regional growth and industry became a Port project, completely against the principles established by Metro Vancouver and the Mayors Council-supported only by the Mayor of Delta with the Port in the backyard.
It’s a new day.
As much as I am very critical of Kevin Falcon for building an unnecessarily overblown Port Mann, imposing trench warfare for two years on Cambie when building the Canada Line, for monkeying with TransLink governance when the previous board voted contrary to his wishes, for delaying funding himself for the Evergreen Line for a decade, and for a number of other issues when he was in power, many of his comments on the election ring true.
This election was in part a referendum on the arrogant treatment of the Lower Mainland by Christy Clark. She lost the vital urban vote as the result. And that should be the end of referenda on single issues like transit (imposed only on the big city and nowhere else) forever. Falcon nailed it when he said the transit plebiscite was passing the buck on leadership. Then you’ve got that big mountain of private pay-for-access money in BC Liberal accounts, something called “corruption” by the NY Times, no less. That issue turned off many Liberal voters as well as everyone else. I think Falcon is the first of several BC Lib voices that will speak out. Is this the day before the night of the long knives? How is it possible that Christy Clark will remain as leader, especially if the vote counts to come stick it to her, or keep the count exactly where it is now? Trying to imagine the contortions Weaver will have to go through to back Clark is getting harder by the day.
Forming a stable new government will be a tough gig when you consider that the speaker’s chair is traditionally occupied by an MLA from the governing party(ies). This is the power of simple arithmetic. Should the NDP get backed by the Greens there are several things they have to consider, and one of the first should be to plan beyond what will undoubtedly be a shorter term in office. The Greens are now a fact of life in BC politics, so work with them and compromise already. Another may be to secretly negotiate with one or two of the true liberals (are there any left?) in the overwhelmingly conservative BC Lib caucus to cross the floor. The NDP and Greens were both elected on their green, anti-corruption and job-creating platforms. Take it to the bank with an agreement to work together over several terms with the sole purpose to act on their principles, and stuff the partisanship into a bag.
Both Horgan and Weaver speak very positively about an urban agenda. In that light, IF they obtain power, let’s encourage them to run the Broadway subway all the way to the UBC campus in a single public (i.e. not a P3) contract, eliminate the highly inefficient train-bus transfer penalty altogether on this vital corridor, and be done with it. Those who suggest the cost is too high for the ridership are ignoring induced demand, the Network Effect and the increasing ridership over 100 years. You can reverse 60% of the trains at Arbutus with simple X switches while 40% carries on to the campus, and instantly change that ratio simply by punching a couple of keys on a computer to closely match hourly changes in ridership. In addition, why focus only on Surrey for light rail? Why not develop a long-range transit masterplan for all SoF communities using extensive, dedicated LRT routing (commuter and local) and a plethora of buses from B-Lines to neighbourhood shuttles?
The urban-rural divide needs to be bridged, and we urbanists must vocally support positive change in Interior and northern communities. Regional intercity rail and better transit service in small and medium cities could play a big role. However, that is a two-way rail line. Any government that treats the big city like the Clark government did will suffer at the next election. But a government must also work in rural areas very hard too.
I have never been a fan of Kevin Falcon either. That being said, I thought his insight on election night coverage was very good and I agree with him on this issue.
“The urban-rural divide needs to be bridged, and we urbanists must vocally support positive change in Interior and northern communities.”
I agree. That divide is the biggest danger I see coming out of the election. It is tearing the U.S. apart. Regional divides are particularly dangerous when they turn into conflicts over identities and ways of life: unlike interests, these cannot be negotiated. To avoid a culture war, we need politics that work for everyone. The urban-suburban gap presents a similar risk.
I think your transit and rail proposals have merit. I have been wondering whether it is a terrible mistake to put too much transit money into the city where it is most needed: because this only exacerbates the gap. Alternatives to the automobile are ultimately dictated not by efficiency and need, but by public support. In cheesy terms, if half the population feels that they are not on board, they will try to stop the train. In the short run, the city may get less transit if money is invested elsewhere: in the long run, however, it may get more.
Maybe it is time for urban transit advocates to add passenger train and highway bus service covering the whole province to the things we want? This is only a small specific example of how to bridge the urban-rural divide. (Besides which, I would really like better and more affordable ways to get to 100 Mile House and Port Alberni without a car.)
deleted as per editorial policy
The problem with that is rural dwellers don’t have a burning concern for transit or rail in their region. A private vehicle is often required and more practical. They do have a deep concern for jobs, and unless some urban dwellers give on their harsh No Resource Development stance, I can’t see that gap being bridged.
I got the impression somewhere that the reason for support for Site C is the jobs that would be created building it. Would not the same be true for rail?
The rural communities dependent on natural resources could take a chapter from the city and foster greater economic values with new or expanded educational institutes with well-funded public and corporate research centres, transit-oriented development, by enacting policies to glean more value-added benefits, local processing, innovation in forestry and mining tech and processes, and by changing forest management practices to community-based forest trusts instead of the outdated 19th Century provincially-managed high-grade and export.
Rural and resource-based towns could add a Forestry Department to complement the Engineering and Planning departments on a designated forest land base set to perpetually sustainable harvesting and processing processes.
Wind power has a tremendous potential in the north right where the land has been designated to be fracked, and in Hecate Strait and northern Vancouver Island. Wind power, once the transmission lines are in, is as cheap as fossil fuels. Site C may or may not go ahead (under an NDP-Green government it will at least get the thorough, independent review that never happened under the Libs), but all of these power generating schemes will require one or two new transmission corridors, which will also create jobs and enable a tie-in to a national smart grid — should the feds ever get their act together.
Geothermal and tidal power could be incubated here by BC Hydro if so mandated, and any new technologies developed here could be marketed abroad and some of the the power exported. In addition, industrial hubs could be designated in several places all over the province with abundant, discounted low-emission electricity funneled into them to power new heavy industries as well as R&D, with the idea the benefits in jobs and a portion of the profits will stay at home.
Fracking / LNG has no market, it is very destructive to the land and ground water, and the decline rates are so steep you have to drill orders of magnitude more expensive wells to maintain steady production. Moreover, many of the sweet spots have already been tapped. The primary customer for Site C power was to be LNG plants, which will offset only a fraction of the extremely problematic escaping methane, but the Libs have now been marketing the clean power to Alberta with no bites so far, perhaps because their wind power industry is more mature than ours and has even greater potential.
There are many, many ways to bridge the urban-rural divide. Treating each other with respect, taking some of our urban benefits to smaller communities and establishing new, sustainable resource and energy endeavours are just a couple of ways to build bridges.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.
I think it is important to note that when Falcon says leadership, he appears to be referring to elected official, not administrator, decision-making. I make this distinction due to another item (https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2017/05/12/more-power-to-the-transpo-engineers/) appear to advocate for “less Council oversight and public debate” in the making of transportation decisions. It may be true that referenda are a cop-out for elected officials, but the alternative to them is not necessarily elected officials who cede their authority more readily to “leadership” from administrative staff.
Ceding authority isn’t the same as delegating authority and maintaining oversight.
deleted as per editorial policy
Somewhat related to the provincial transportation issue and election results- it looks like all coastal ridings voted either Orange or Green. In other words, all the communities dependent on efficient and affordable ferry service and, BTW, fearful of increased tanker traffic and oil spills.
The NDP won Surrey because Horgan said he would stop charging tolls for crossing bridges. The idea that these same constituents would then happily accept paying money, through road pricing, every time they drive anywhere is a big stretch. If this is the way the Mayors’ Council interprets the results and imagine this is where their money pot is, they are in for a big surprise.
As for Horgan gaining power and giving carbon taxes paid by less well off Northern, Island and Central BCers to Metro Vancouver for their lovely rail plans, that would be an insult he’s wise enough to not do.
Call it the Rob Ford manoeuvre.
Re carbon tax for transit. I don’t see carbon levye collected from northern areas going to transit and cycling in Metro Vancouver, but it might make sense to increase the carbon levy for Metro Vancouver and have that revenue go toward transit and cycling in Metro vancouver.
Why even go there as we will get more e-cars in time ?
Road tolls or per km or per crossing charges are the best way to reduce demand, especially peak demand if priced properly.
But, there was zero discussion on this in this election. Zero. Plus it is a long shot, by looking at Ontario, for example. There even the sensible right of centre mayor of Toronto suggested road tolls for the clogged Gardiner and Don Valley Expressway yet got shot down by the way left of centre provincial Liberals. This debate will have to start in earnest in MetroVan, and perhaps in clogged Kelowna and Victoria too. It’ll be a decade or two until we get it. No one likes to pay and no politician is honest enough to state the obvious, namely that pricing services reduces demand. That debate could also be extended to education and healthcare, of course, but is even more dicey there. Until then, the freeloading continues to let ” the other by ” pay …
@ Anon / Eric, you are omitting the demographic and cultural perspective.
http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-election-2017-south-asians-helped-hand-eight-ridings-to-the-ndp
Is someone suggesting that one definable and unassimilated ethnic group is more inclined to have a strong opinion about road or bridge tolls, than another?
Sounds like a preposterous joke, or a slur, to me.
Read the article. No jokes or slurs there or here.
After reading the article I now see that it confirms what I originally wrote. Tolls hurt the Liberals and road-charges will hurt whoever wants to push them.
@ Anon / Eric, the carbon tax increases planned by the NDP & Greens could just as well build a decent intercity rail service in the Interior and North.
Missing in the above rail passenger discussion is the federal government in that there are no daily VIA Rail passenger trains anywhere in the West..Even the Conservative government provided a further 29 daily VIA Rail trains to the over fifty in Central Canada and if one looks carefully, one sees a three day a week Via Rail passenger train to Jonquiere and another to another “isolated” community from Montreal during the week. Ontario even has a Via Rail commuter rail pass. Where are the Via Rail commuter trains trains to Squamish, Chilliwack, or passenger trains to Prince George, Kamloops, or even the E&N? The latter has a constitutional argument for its existence…We seem to be ignored by the federal sphere in the return of some of our western taxes. Even the 2-3 day Canadian-depending on season, has become a luxury train for tourists..
Railway makes no sense unless very large volume of passengers. Those that wish to get somewhere fast fly, those on a budget take a bus, and the rest drive a car. Leaves a very small % that prefer a subsidized train. It may make sense from Abbotsford via Langley, Coquitlam into Vancouver, but nowhere else in W-Canada. Maybe between Calgary and Edmonton, maybe. Kelowna and Kamloops are well served by Coquahalla (i.e. bus or car). Trains are not viable anymore unless for tourists willing to pay the extra $s. Also see Victoria-Vancouver passenger only ferry. Another service that won’t make it without heavy government subsidies.
By this logic there was no such thing as the Interurban, CPR passenger rail to every community on the mainline, no Kettle Valley RR, or the Budd cars on the E&NR that ran until quite recently, and no modern SkyTrain and West Coast Express trains that evolved from some of these services.
If a decent, affordable intercity passenger train service was created from North Vancouver to Pemberton, then it’s a matter of time until it is extended incrementally to the Cariboo, Prince George and over to Prince Rupert. The beauty of such a system is that it can carry freight too. I would like to see local and regional management of these services under Via Rail, not an exclusive Via contract.
Regarding subsidy, name one highway or airport that isn’t. Add together the value of the nation’s 25 largest airports and you’ve got one massive potential contribution to the planned federal infrastructure bank.
Thomas, look at Amtrak for the long distance trains and connectivity across country for both passengers and tourists-allows some city services to survive as they connect to other parts of country. Also delighted to know that cars and the trucking industry are not subsidized on public roads and highways like the Coquillhala-the trucking industry only pays 60% its use on highways for public taxes spent on highways and one semi produces the same wear and tear of over a thousand cars-US Dept. of Transport study. It was the subsidized public roads and highways that killed the private railway passenger service in the 50’s. So who is subsidizing who. Port Mann bridge and Massey-no public money? More lanes, more congestion. As usual, a good look at Europe/UK can be enlightening. DMU’s on the Valley run cheaper than full train sets; remember Budd cars on BC Rail?
Yes roadtolls make sense in BC. Truck use indeed far too cheap on city roads and highways. More rail except Abbotsford – Vancouver corridor doesn’t make sense.