February 25, 2010

Let the Debate Begin

Yesterday, prompted by a release from Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson’s office, the media went after the transportation story.  It’s the dog that, up to now, hasn’t barked: no major screw-ups, and general agreement that things have gone well on the transportation front. 

In fact, the City’s plan – 30 percent reduction in traffic, 50 percent reduction in capacity to downtown, no venue parking – has worked spectacularly well.  And TransLink has performed with remarkable flexibility and stretched itself to the limit.  

So now what?

“You now have a public that sees the possibility,” said (SFU City Program director Gordon Price).

“We just conducted the greatest controlled traffic experiment in North America.”

But despite the optimism now, TransLink is about to return to barely adequate service and a probable new round of bickering between cities and the province over how to fund the system.

“Here’s the embarrassment – now they cut it all back,” Price said.

“They dock the third SeaBus. They can’t proceed with the frequent transit network. They can’t do what they say they want to do that we could do and that we know works.

“Maybe now a new political consensus will emerge that not only can we do it, we must do it.”

As BC Local News reporter Jeff Nagle notes, “the genie is out of the bottle.” 

Mayor’s Council Chair, Peter Fassbender of Langley: “I’d like to believe we’ve developed a transit spirit that says this system can work and it can deliver so let’s find a way to move it forward on the foundation we’ve built in this short period of time.”

But Transportation Minister Shirley Bond is sticking to her marching orders:  “She’s ‘pretty comfortable’ with the existing set of property, fuel and other taxes plus fares to fund TransLink….  The debate, Bond said, will be about ‘how much should taxpayers, who are actually served by transit, contribute.’ ” – i.e. let the mayors squeeze the property taxpayer ’cause there ain’t gonna be no move on vehicle levies or road pricing from us. 

The only person more missing in action is Gordon Campbell, who as ex-Vancouver Mayor and GVRD Chair, would have been front and centre on this issue.  As Premier, it will be up to him if there is to be any real legacy from the spectacular transportation success of the Olympic experience. 

Otherwise, the only debate we’ll be having is how much we’re cutting back.

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

  1. During the Summer 2000 Olympics, Sydney saw a similar unprecedented shift to public transport with very few road congestion problems. A wide range of agencies and stakeholders worked together to deliver a seamless and frequent transport network, and in doing so, attracted a lot of new transit riders. Ridership on Sydney’s rail network has not since reached the peak experienced in 2000.

    The challenge for Vancouver is to maintain the momentum to bring about a lasting change of attitudes in both the public and those that fund and manage the system.

  2. I will say that totally out of the blue, I know very well how Paris Region finance it’s own transit efforts. Around 40% comes from a “business” tax. Every company or business with more than 9 employes have to pay a tax amounting for 1% or 2% (depending of their location within the Region) of their regional payroll. If you ask me, this is quite sensible since comuting is such a huge movement generator and a lot more equitable than heavily relying on taxpayer money.

    Well, quesiton is, could this be possible to duplicate in Vancouver.

  3. Unless there is a change of heart in Victoria, this will be the greatest missed opportunity of our time. The BC Liberals are too beholden to their business backers who run the freeway and trucking lobby to do anything. The notion of paying any attention to what the public thinks or any other sort of democratic notion is paid lip service at best.

    The Province is utterly intransigent on the issue of funding for TransLink. Region wide tolling would mean the BC Trucking Association would have to start paying their way and the business wags would predict economic doom in depressed times. There is no vision with this crowd. Maureen Bader would be on full screech 24/7. They all think that privatizing TransLink, keeping the profitable services and ditching the rest is the way to go. Anything else can be dealt with by freeway expansion which nary gets a critical glance.

    Want to bet Port Mann traffic has been down these past two weeks as well? Doesn’t matter, freeway expansion will still go ahead full throttle. Billions that could go to transit being poured into pavement instead.

    Until there is some movement to take these wags out of the public discourse, there will be no change. These lobbies have far too much sway in Victoria. TransLink does not have the tools and the Province hold the keys to the tool box. The problem is evident. What is not evident is who is going to really do anything about it.

  4. I’ll mention what I indicated in another thread – that downtown offices are empty during the Games – workers are on vacation (out of town), attending Games events (in town and out of town), partying and volunteering.

    Our office in TD Tower would normally have over 200 workers. There have been maybe 50 workers each day over the past 2 weeks (and many of those crowd around the TVs in the cafeteria watching the Games).

    The people using transit during the Olympics are willing to wait and be forgiving for a special event. People aren’t likely to do so on a daily basis.

    Are the 30 minute waits for SkyTrain better or worse than the usual waits and overcrowding that you hear about at Broadway & Commercial? I figure that they are “worse”. Remember that the “usual” waits are significant enough to turn people away from transit – in their daily lives. People on “vacation” are not time-sensitive.

    While you can be hopeful that people will use transit in greater numbers, I would be wary of applying the data under different – everyday – circumstances.

  5. Ron – I think that you make a very good point. But, what I think the Olympics show is that we could choose to invest in Transit in lieu of freeways, and the world would not stop rotating

  6. @dist, one problem of payroll taxes for transit is that an economic downturn with resulting layoffs will mean budget cuts and resulting service cuts. At least a payroll tax will broaden the tax base, and perhaps can be focused on capital projects, but portland of all places has to cut service to account for dwindling payroll taxes for trimet.

    “Due to the continued economic recession and declining payroll tax revenues, we need to cut the budget for our fiscal year that begins in July by $27 million. The changes will include a 5 percent administrative cut, a salary and hiring freeze, reductions to bus and MAX service and a five-cent fare increase. ”

    http://trimet.org/news/september2010proposal.htm

  7. They need to find more revenue sources then they currently have. Biggest idea being tolls. Not just on select bridges but every bridge.

    Another thing I feel they could do quite easily is keep the idea of anyone going to an event. Whatever that may be. Gets a free ride on transit that day. Of course it would mean that event ticket would cost more as you are now paying for your transit trip.

  8. The usual false dichotomies are here, don’t expand capacity at Port Mann, etc. It’s a staged aregument, and ignores the fact that the real resistance to funding public transit comes from the taxpayers.

    The taxpayers will oppose, in opinion polls or elections, any further tax increases to fund transit, whether it’s vechicle or fuel levies, parking taxes, or — most of all — property taxes.

    There are two useful principles that can be invoked here. One is user pay, which would argue for tolls on all the major bridges and tunnels. Of course, people who live in Vancouver will insist that all the suburban bridges be tolled, but not the Granville, Cambie or Burrard Bridges. North Shore residents will cheerfully endorse tolling of bridges over the Fraser, but not over Burrard Inlet, and certainly not the newly improved Hwy 99 to Whistler. And on it goes.

    The other principle is beneficiary pay. To me, that argues for a higher levy on property taxes, since property owners benefit from the increased property values that result from transportation improvements, whether highways or transit.

    But there is stubborn resistance to that suggestion since it’s believed, perhaps correctly, that any appreciable increase in the costs of holding a property could exert downward pressure on real estate asset prices, and that in turn would reduce the non-taxable capital gains some people have acquired in their principal residence over the past twenty or more years, and could put some recent purchasers into a negative equity situation, where they might be tempted to abandon the property to its creditors. A wave of panic sales could lead to further downard movement in prices.

    Can someone correct me if I am wrong on this point: The ongoing funding for most other metro transit systems in Canada comes from local property taxes, not fuel or parking levies. Is that right?

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles