I’d be interested to know what people think.
Can a referendum that proposes tax increases for transit be won? Can an agreement be struck, wording crafted and a campaign mounted in 500 days?
If not, then what?
I’d be interested to know what people think.
Can a referendum that proposes tax increases for transit be won? Can an agreement be struck, wording crafted and a campaign mounted in 500 days?
If not, then what?
My opinion is that the referendum is a cheap and effective way to take rapid transit off the table for a long, long time. Transit’s opponents merely need to shout about new taxes and overall cost. And just what are the countervailing arguments? Can they be made simple and clear enough? Can they ever appeal to motordom, a shrinking group, but still a majority?
Yes.
Yes, as evidenced in LA and other places. But, the machinery will be out to make sure it won’t and I don’t believe the Province will actively advocate for it. This shirking of responsibility is a hallmark of the Liberals.
I think it’s possible, though I’m not familiar with the local specifics of Vancouver. A quick google finds a few successful tax increase referenda in the states, though most of what I can find seems to be for funding schools.
Still. There’s growing demand for transit, Motor cars are only a slim majority of trips, but given that many (I’d guess in a Canadian city, most) transit riders are also drivers, so the proportion of the population that sometimes uses transit is going to be quite large.
The key has to be messaging though. Don’t try to sell it as an environmental solution. Those voters already support it. I can think of two prongs to hit hard: economic growth/competitiveness, and get to work faster (with a focus on congestion reduction, even for those who don’t use the train and have no interest in switching).
The problem is always putting together the financial backers necessary for a highly visible campaign. Funding an anti-tax campaign is always easier, since big money donors consider it an investment. But the ability to collect small amounts from many people through the internet should make a grassroots campaign feasible if there’s good and visible leadership.
“Last week a number of cities across the country took it upon themselves to improve their transit networks. Of the 20 transit referendums on November ballots tracked by the Center for Transportation Excellence, 14 are considered wins for transit, for about a 70 percent success rate.” http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/11/we-shouldnt-be-surprised-most-transit-referendums-won/3885/
Yes. But it needs a crystal clear plan and it needs to be a permanent solution for all the future project funding. Plus, it needs to throw a bone to the people who are unlikely to take transit (for example, if we have car levy give drivers a few free transit fares every year).
I like Dejan’s points of clarity and bone-throwing. Offering free trips with the gas tax should be a cheap goodie, because take-up is likely to be off-peak. I also like Ed’s call to message around economic growth/competitiveness, and get to work faster.
Regarding visibility and money, I’m not sure how to get people to dig in. Get On Board hasn’t been all that helpful as far as I can tell. I’ve loved the Van Cycle Chic’s videos, but cycling is a lot more sexy than riding the 99. Surrey’s streetcar animation is nice, but looks a bit fantasy-land. A sexy viral video should work well.
We need to tackle head on (have rebuttals ready) the charge that UBC is the big end demand. Perhaps focusing on broadway as a community, the jobs and retail around Granville etc.
Which taxes are we thinking? Property, right? And so the pushback is from homeowners? Weaver noted that students are more likely to vote in fall than spring, so timing should aim for then.
Maybe also play the extremely-low-interest-rates-right now angle.
Potentially a negative campaign comparing ROI on highways vs transit? Call in Chuck Marohn for the math?
My suggested key message:
“Lack of effective transit is harming our economic competitiveness and will cost us jobs”
The Jobs Jobs Jobs message obviously worked for Christy, I don’t see why it can’t be used here too, to explain to people it will cost them more in the long term if they don’t invest in transit now.
In fact, its far past time the conversation started being more explicit in portraying transit as an enabler of regional macroeconomic growth. Firstly, in terms of improving intra-regional labour force mobility (essentially Ricardian comparative advantage, but within the region, not internationally) and allowing people to access all the economic/education/social/recreational opportunities that make cities desirable places to live. Secondly, that transit can help us become more financially resilient and reduce our economy’s long term vulnerability to rises in energy prices.
Other secondary themes:
“More transit frees up the road for people who have no choice to drive”. This one gets used a lot, but I think it can be pushed harder. Lets face it, so much of our region is hard-wired toward auto-centric development that it’s going to take a very, very long time before some of it becomes transit friendly.
I think it needs to be well-articulated what the funding package will provide and when. Just the Surrey and UBC Lines? TransLink is supposed to be working on their 2045 Regional Transportation Strategy. Will it be ready it time? How well can it be marketed? Will the distribution of benefits to everyone, not just transit users, be made apparent? Costs will be readily apparent to people, specific project-level benefits need to be too.
I agree with Ed to not bother trying to talk up the environmental benefits. Outside of the urbanist and environmentalist activist/blogosphere echo-chambers, I think environment is still very much a “nice to protect, when times are good” kind of thing. I.e. we can’t afford to protect it right now because we need jobs. The benefits are real, but I don’t see the angle swaying too many minds.
^This, wrt to pushing the jobs message, economic security and transit. Other points might be preaching to the converted and not connecting to those extra few votes that would make a referendum pass with a nice margin.
As Daryl Dela Cruz notes (http://tinyurl.com/m8f5efh), a referendum on TransLink funding will prevent youth (a key transit demographic) from voting.
Would it be possible to enfranchise teenagers to participate this game-changing referendum which will so drastically affect them?
Also missing the chance to weigh in are all the immigrants and permanent residents who make up a sizable portion of transit users, but don’t get the right to vote on an issue that affects them just as much as a citizen.