translink-size-xxlarge-promo

Insights West surveyed people in Metro Vancouver in the months leading up to the transit plebiscite. You remember that the ballot was the  fulfillment of  the provincial government’s election promise to ask if residents would support a hike in sales tax in order to fund transit. At the time, most people said NO.

This article in the Vancouver Sun on Monday June 7  written by Mario Canesco of Insights West suggests that we have thought about it and we want to talk about transit again.

Full disclosure-the Walk Metro Vancouver Society supported the yes vote in the referendum. As a Director of the Society, I spoke to seniors groups in support of the plebiscite and released a joint policy statement with Shannon Daub of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. If the plebiscite had passed, there would have been more HandyDart services for the disabled, improved walking facilities at bus shelters, and a 20 per cent reduction in congestion-significant for emergency vehicles to access seniors in stress.

Eleven months after the failed plebiscite, Insights West notes that our attitudes have changed. Immediately post-plebiscite, 62 per cent of people stated that changing TransLink was their main concern-not looking for a Plan B, or ponying more funding from the Federal Government. That percentage has now shrunk to 49 per cent of folks that  say the main thing needed is changing TransLink. Another survey showed that 67 per cent of the current Compass card holders on TransLink are satisfied with the new card system.

But what of a bigger transportation and transit plan and paying for it?

What a difference a year makes. We have a new federal government that is talking about supporting infrastructure projects, and a provincial government that, well, has to think about being re-elected next May.

Insights West says that road pricing, eg.  bridge and road tolls are supported by 34 per cent of people if it resulted in a shorter commuting time. The big issue here is asking people to pay for what they perceive is government’s responsibility, and something they currently enjoy free.

There is also a new report from the David Suzuki Foundation and it is more direct about the transit crisis. It suggests thatsystematic underfunding of transit by the provincial government has contributed to the congestion that people face every day in densely populated areas like Metro Vancouver, while other transportation projects like roads and bridges are going ahead without delay, transit infrastructure has been put on an uneven playing field as the province continues to provide insufficient financial support.”

It’s always easier to say no and hope that things will go away. But a growing region needs  efficient transit  infrastructure and support. And that needs to be planned for now.

Bring on Plan B.

 

 

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. “The public is not prepared to embrace the concept of tolls. In a wide-ranging survey on commuting, only 34 per cent of British Columbians said they would support paying tolls for roads or bridges if it guaranteed a shorter commute time.” Insights West Poll

    It is also worthwhile to note that shorter commute time cannot be guaranteed only speculated upon which puts us in the realm of the transducer salesman.

  2. Public transit has been tolled since forever on every trip, and as a result it recovers half it’s operating costs. Its efficiency in moving people for an affordable price has been known for a century.

    It boggles the mind that we still have governments who don’t get it. Or who do get it but are beholden to donor lobbyists who have driven the invasion of the automobile to unbelievable levels of damage to cities, the planet, and to lives. It’s so big it has become invisible, and socially acceptable.

    What a shame the No voters didn’t think about the big picture before they took revenge on the TransLink Fat Cats the premier dangled in front of their faces like bait on a hook to distract them from the real issue: intransigence on the transit file by She Herself.

    1. It was harakiri.

      ‘Jarvis, who has served TransLink since 1999 and as CEO since 2009, will also continue to draw his salary, which amounted to $422,407 in 2013 — of which $83,700 was in bonuses — while Allen will be paid $35,000 per month for the next six months as the search continues for a new CEO.

      “We are not particularly happy paying two CEO salaries for a year-and-a-half,” Szel said. “But it was the board’s view to change leadership and change leadership now. We believe it’s the right thing to do. We need to build public confidence at TransLink.”

      Although Szel would not say whether the mayors’ council played a role in dumping Jarvis, Transportation Minister Todd Stone said it was his understanding the mayors of Vancouver and Surrey — who sit on the TransLink board — were part of the decision to let Metro Vancouver know that TransLink is “under new management.’

      We’d like to see the minutes of that meeting.

      1. For even greater entertainment, just look up some of the severance packages in the management level of the provincial government and the crowns. They make TransLink seem like a pauper’s prison. And we must remember that TransLink is a creature of the province, ever molded, slapped down, stomped on and handcuffed — not to mention greatly shortchanged — by arrogant, self-serving government MLAs.

        Then you’ve got the $20,000 a plate Dining with Christy lunches. That kinda adds up.

        Better yet, look at the pay and benefits for private CEOs and CFOs that lost their shareholders millions. The executives get paid while they pen the tax underwritten losses, and then hide half their income in Panama and the Caymans.

        TransLink is a boring afternoon soap compared to these high crime dramas.

        1. Gregor Robertson fired Judy Rogers, paid her off with $571,788 in severance, hired Penny Ballem, then fired her for another $556,000. What’s a million anyway when it’s other people’s money?

          When a corporation does it we can sell their shares and avoid their products or services and then close them down. This is our prerogative in a free market. When governments do it we can only not elect them next time.

          When anyone places money in off-shore banks they are doing nothing wrong. Only if they do not declare earnings when filing income tax returns has any law been broken.

          TransLink is a $1,500,000,000.00, operation, that’s one and a half billion dollars. You must be well into the 1% if you think that’s a boring soap.

        2. OK. So Judy’s and Penny’s severance totalled about 1 / 2,400th of the combined city budgets of the two separate years they were turfed. Penny’s alone was 1 / 2,158th of last year’s budget. Holy bankruptcy, Batman.

          I do agree that firing Judy was a mistake. But why focus just on Vancouver, only one of the 21 cities represented?

          And our free market prerogative does not include the freedom for corporations to pass on their losses to consumers through the hidden manipulation of price corrections, often mislabelling post raise reductions as “sales.” Our freedom also does not apply to knowing about the tax write-offs they regularly incur on losses and expenses, some of which may not be legit.

          I doubt you paid much attention when TransLink was audited by the province and came off with a lame tap on the wrist. Or the comparisons by three parties, two being professional transportation planners, between transit agencies management structures and value per rider and per population comparisons between cities. A reminder, TransLink came off pretty good all considerations in.

          But all this is water under the bridge now, isn’t it?

  3. “We continue to have a sizable proportion of Metro Vancouverites who are seeking what the winning strategy for the “No” side outlined extraordinarily well: lower taxes, less waste and more accountability.” Mario Canseco.

    An overwhelming 66% still do not support tolls and congestion charges that only one third of the population do.

    Plus ça change..

    1. An overwhelming 66% still do not support tolls …

      I sure hope they polled transit riders who pay a toll on every trip, and have since inception with no alternatives.

      Let’s look at it another way. Tolls place individuals closer to the actual cost of their consumption of public services and infrastructure than not paying tolls. Fairness is not a left wing green conspiracy.

      1. What you say is true, “tolls place individuals closer to the actual cost of their consumption of public services …”. We presume you would also support a nominal user fee, or toll if you prefer, for visits to any health-care provider?

        How else do you feel user fees be applied?

        1. Health care is not a consumption-based economic activity, like choosing to drive longer distances and owning multiple large vehicles driven by one person most of the time.

          Healthcare is a needs-driven economic activity and a social necessity. If drivers paid for their actual impact (literally in some respects), then our socialized healthcare costs will decrease measurably. You cannot say the same about privatizing healthcare costs, which penalizes those with inherited conditions or victims of accidents unnecessarily.

  4. Asking commuters if they support road tolls is silly. The boneheads and bimbos want to speed their way unmolested and park for free.

    If it cost $20. to enter downtown, that would deter scummuters – single occupancy commuters. If they shared their precious wheels with passengers, who contributed a fair share of operating costs and the entry fee, the convenience cost would be manageable.

    It’s a curious thing about giving rides – asking for lifts. You don’t see people asking for free coffees or lunches, but it’s been a societal norm to not expect recompense for giving someone a ride.

    I knew one woman from a wealthy family in West Van who bought a two-seater Alfa because she was sick of being a free taxi service for her acquaintances. There have been many times that I was pressured/expected to give rides to co-workers, or those with whom I played sports. The convention should be that even if the driver is going pretty much in the same direction as you, it’s a courtesy to drop some cash on the seat. That is the essence of car share.

    There is a massive surplus of transit in the form of private vehicles parked 95% of the time on our streets, or being driven by single commuters. If Translink honchos could skim fat salaries off car share (like the clever owners of Lyft or Über, they’d tell the bus drivers: Hasta la vista. Good-bye, farewell.

    I wonder too about the number of students/workers at UBC – if it is in fact around 60,000, isn’t that just for 7 months of the year. What is the population from April to September?

    And – how many universities are at the end of a line – like UBC. McGill is smack dab on the plateau; U of T is in the city. UBC strikes me more as a resort university – education tourism.

  5. Post
    Author
  6. I believe we should explore HO/T lanes. Like HOV Lanes, a multiple passenger vehicle can use the lanes freely. Single occupant vehicles can use the lanes for a toll. This system has seen success in California. Follow-up studies there, showed that nearly all of the tolled traffic, was not from High income individuals but were proportionate to the non-tolled lanes. Basically, it was the people running late, who’d pay for the lanes.

  7. We have a problem. People need to get to work. Each person will optimize his/her cost/benefit ratio to do it.

    But, rich people are more than willing to pay to drive a car. And, poor people have no choice than to walk or bike. And, some people will also bike because of their personal benefit of exercise/stress-relief, etc.

    The problem will tolls and road pricing is that it’s regressive. It’s a flat price, regardless of income. Essentially, it clears the roads of poor people so that rich people can get around easier. We’ll penalize poor families trying to rush between jobs and pick up children from daycare. And, we’ll reward Lamborginis going to Nordstroms with clearer streets. It will lead to further disparity.

    I’d rather have distance vouchers. Every license plate is given the same number of kilometres per year. It’d make it more fair. But, I know it’s socialist and not going to happen. Instead, what will happen is that our public infrastructure will continue to be given away to the wealthiest.

    It’s the same situation in education. The poor have no choice but to crowd into the rundown, underfunded B-Line of public schools. Meanwhile, the wealthy can easy afford private schools that the rest of us subsidize. We’re going to base our transportation system on this same economic model.

    If you work hard and earn a lot of money, good for you. You can buy nice stuff and take awesome vacations. But, why should that grant you better access to PUBLIC amenities?

    I don’t believe in road pricing any more than I believe in private medicare. Access should be limited by need rather than wealth.

    1. Another stratagem, to get around the unfairness you elucidate with a flat rate, is to do what primitive countries like Finland and Switzerland do with traffic violations – tie fines to income. A hockey player in Finland had to pay a speeding fine of over $100K; and a millionaire in Switzerland over $300K.

      This system, which has been operating in Switzerland since 2002, would force Greedy Jim to pay a mil every time he came downtown.

    2. We pay in any case. Today we pay in time. Paying in $s is better as it allows to clear the road and allow investment into more transit. Raise the toll until the road flows.

      Uber would solve this problem to a degree but it is not allowed right now due to lack of mayoral campaign contributions.

      We already tax incomes far too high. We need to tax consumption, including real estate far more. That would also monetize our many non-residents’ investment into real estate here far more.

      re this statement: “I don’t believe in road pricing any more than I believe in private medicare. Access should be limited by need rather than wealth.” Shall we also hand out free Teslas or 3BR luxury condos with a view, or just soap, healthcare and road access ? How about coats, shoes, sunglasses or hats ?

        1. “Need” is a very wide field. Somehow a road, medicare is a need, thus free ? Soap is not a need ? A transportation option (say a bike, car, moped or bus) is not a need ? Clothing is not a need ?

          Why do you expect free medicare and free road access yet no free soap, transportation options and clothing as all are needs in a modern society ?

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