More opinion on the Massey Tunnel replacement project, involving a really expensive, really big bridge. Dermod Travis writes in the Straight.
Here’s Mr. Travis’ reason #7 to hit “pause” on the project. The reference to Bellringer concerns a planned audit “to evaluate the quality of evidence to support the decision to replace the George Massey Tunnel”.
7. Stakeholder buy-in
With Metro Vancouver mayors giving thumbs down to the project, there’s not much public buy-in for it.
It’s why Bellringer’s performance audit could prove invaluable. If the government’s numbers are all on the up and up, what could it possibly fear from taking a few months to let the auditor general do her thing and report back?
Now that would really debunk myths, if they are indeed myths.
Dermod Travis is the executive director of Integrity B.C.
Gee, a toll to pay on a bridge before paying the high fares on BC Ferries, that will be an incentive to travel to Vancouver Island for those already hesitating on the high fares …Of course, one could always consider taking rapid transit on the new bridge to the ferries, couldn’t one?
Passenger ferry service to Waterfront Station from Victoria, Nanaimo and the Sunshine Coast is looking better with each passing year.
Mr. Travis is wrong: Insights West conducted a poll and found that, :” The proposal to replace the existing George Massey Tunnel with a new tolled bridge along the Highway 99 corridor is currently endorsed by half of Metro Vancouver residents, a new Insights West poll has found.
Half of Metro Vancouver residents (51%) support the proposal to replace the Massey Tunnel with a new tolled bridge, while one third (32%) are opposed.”
Some of the Mayors might have reservations but there’s overwhelming public buy-in.
Hence we need fresh blood on the Mayors Council on Transportation. Also see: Brexit.
Ah yes. The tyranny of the majority of 1%. I’ll bet the majority of respondents in support of the project living on the Burrard peninsula was a lot more than 1% below 50.
Ruling with polls and referenda would never have eliminated the death penalty or brought in public healthcare. It is worse than governing by the opinions of political donors. This is why we need representative democracy where leaders lead — or at least are supposed to — based on research and evidence gathering way beyond tapping mass opinion, which can evidently shift seemingly at a moment’s notice.
Oh, it’s 65% in the largest ‘burb – Surrey.
To answer your question, support in Vancouver was measured at 46% FOR and only 28% Against. That means those that oppose in Vancouver are outnumbered by a full 50% more of respondents that support the bridge, in Vancouver alone!
I agree with you that a referendum on this issue was not at all required.
But what if they had to pay 0.5% sales tax to fund it?
It’s easy to be for something you don’t have to pay for.
Stop putting words into my keyboard, Eric.
The fact that there was no referendum on this bridge or any other road project ever in the history of the province, but one referendum on transit imposed only on Metro Vancouverites, tells us everything we need to know about this government’s reckless public spending priorities and attitude toward the big city.
Polls and referenda won’t hinder people’s behaviour much, but tapping their pocketbooks always garners a quick response. The BC Libs bury the permanent operating cost of these overblown bridges and freeways in general accounts, and the hit per user is hidden. The capital cost recovery through tolls is just another layer, but a visible one. The irony is that the SOV suburbanites who support the government’s 10-lane fantasy will grudgingly pay the $4.00 toll, or spend $5 in fuel driving to avoid it, but will remain utterly silent about the growing BC debt.
The thing is, Mdm. Clark and her cabinet “experts” have placed a lot of political capital on fossil fuels. If that decision resulted from long-range planning, then their version is pathetic. What the MoTH freeway planners and Christy’s highway contractor consortium luncheon partners aren’t telling the public is that any independent petroleum geoscientist and analyst worth his/her salt will advise cutting back on oil dependency and automobile infrastructure. The prices at the pump will likely be far different when the ribbon is cut on the airport runway in the sky than it is today.
Here’s one who explains why:
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-We-Can-Expect-Cripplingly-Higher-Oil-Prices-In-The-Near-Future.html
Have you seen the new signs on the HOV lanes? Electric cars get to use the HOV lanes now. With the $5,000.00 rebate from the government and the free recharging in Vancouver City stations, as well as the preferential parking, it’s become impossible to resist all these freebies from taxpayers. A Tesla in every driveway!
Here are some quotes from Arthur Berman’s conclusions (see link above). Urbanists should find these statements sobering because the transition from fossil fuels hasn’t really begun yet despite years of acknowledging its necessity.
One could say that our cities were designed by planners and politicos subconsciously beholden to oil, mostly through the “freedom” of personal transport. What a colossal mistake that is turning out to be.
Gabriel García Márquez’s masterpiece Love In The Time of Cólera is a story of forbidden love. Cholera is, of course, a disease that comes from infected water supplies and can result in prostration from the loss of fluids (Cólera more commonly means anger or rage in Spanish).
Like a disease, the high cost of energy and debt, its corollary, have drained the life from our global economy over the last several decades. The economic benefits anticipated from lower oil prices after the price collapse did not materialize because prices never stayed low enough for long enough.
The period of high oil prices from 1974 to 1986 created great economic distress for most of the world including the United States. Those who want to make America great again recall the economic prosperity of 1987 to 1999 (Reagan-Bush-Clinton years) when real oil prices averaged only $33 per barrel.
The economic problems that lead up to the 2008 Financial Collapse included high oil prices from 2000 through 2008. The massive new debt that was incurred to remedy that crisis as well as even higher oil prices have thwarted a recovery.
Since the 2014 price collapse, monthly oil prices were less than $33 per barrel for only two months in January and February of this year.
Many talk hopefully about renewed drilling now that oil prices are near $50 per barrel. I doubt that prices will stay at $50 but will, instead, follow the 2015-2016 pattern of cyclicity. Prices should trend higher but I don’t expect a major shift to new drilling or a return to the peak production rates of 2014 and early 2015. The industry is wounded and will not heal for many years if ever.
Tight oil may have bought us a few years of abundance but the resulting over-supply, debt and prolonged period of prices below the cost of production have exacted a terrible cost. Under-investment, a damaged service sector, weak oil company balance sheets and a decimated work force practically ensure cripplingly higher prices a few years in the future.
The calamity of our time of cholera is that we cannot escape ever-higher costs of oil production.
“Tight oil…” That refers to the oil mainly from the five US shale formations.
I’d beg to differ about the fossil fuel age not ending yet.
The investment dollars are definitely lining up against fossil fuels these days. Thermal coal is numbered, and oil is next. Natural gas will be the last fuel standing. Renewables and storage will be more economical for a huge portion of the planet soon than any fossil fuel .
Fair enough. But there will be an affordability ceiling to bump against a few years from now (David Hughes pegged it at 2020) beyond which lies recession, or worse. All things considered, the view over the horizon is of decline in fossil fuels driven by price, which is related to the steep decline in cheap supplies (the peak oil theory is now fact), and the competitiveness of renewables.
To this urbanist, the fact that we in Vancouver have already achieved a 50% average mode share in transit, walking and cycling is quite remarkable and has prepared us somewhat unwittingly for the future. This can only go higher as the price at the pump approaches then exceeds $2 a litre.
I don’t see Port Mann or Massey paying off their construction and financing debt through tolls. Ever.
Freedom to use buses is better ? Freedom to have such high taxes or low wages or far higher energy prices that one is forced into small high-rise condos close to subways (or worse, buses) is better ?
See Brexit: people voted for MORE FREEDOM, not less.
High energy prices: so overrated ! High energy prices are like another tax. As such we should exhaust our cheap sources first, then in time we will move to the more expensive ones without any government force like we see in EU or Ontario or now in Alberta as electricity rates sky rocket for no good reason except politics: http://globalnews.ca/news/2796958/rural-ontarians-left-in-the-dark-as-electricity-bills-skyrocket/?sf30032601=1
Ever wondered why e-cars don’t have the demand pickup they ought to with their zippy acceleration and no exhaust appeal ? The range is limited but the price is NOT a whole lot lower than an efficient gasoline car !!
Sounds like Jeff Rubin’s cousin.
I think we know by now that even the expert experts are only guessing. Here’s what the official US Energy Information Administration department said last month:
The High Oil Price case assumes faster economic growth among emerging non-OECD nations that contributes to higher world demand for petroleum and other liquid fuels. On the supply side, the High Oil Price case assumes less upstream investment by OPEC and a return to cartel-like behavior, and it assumes higher non-OPEC exploration and development costs. As a result, the average spot market price for Brent crude oil rises to $252/b in 2040, or 78% above the IEO2016 Reference case price in 2040.
The reverse is true in the Low Oil Price case. Slower economic growth leads to lower non-OECD demand for liquid fuels, while higher upstream investment and production and non-cartel behavior in OPEC, as well as lower non-OPEC exploration and development costs, contribute to increased supply from both OPEC and non-OPEC countries. As a result, the Brent spot price rises more slowly than in the IEO2016 Reference case, to $76/b in 2040, or 47% below the IEO2016 Reference case price in 2040. ”
So oil should be somewhere between $76 and $252. That’s like saying, “in 2040 a loaf of bread will cost between $3.50 and $15 in todays money”.
It’s difficult to get very excited. I’d rather watch Seinfeld.
Ahhh. So you do get it. Except the part about the decline in supply of CHEAP oil, and the economic ramifications caused by expensive oil.
Sure, I get it. Oil might be around $76 bbl in 2040, or not. Almost double what it is today but still half what it was a couple of years ago.
It really is a crap shoot.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2012.06.28/AEO2012OilPrices.png
For reference, the effective cost of electricity as a fuel compared to gas is somewhere around $0.18/L in BC.
Running an EV is between $0.01 and $0.02 per km in fuel costs.
It’s not really a significant cost. The taxes however will have to come from somewhere, and that should be used to help shape demand.
Not quite. A Tesla has a total capacity when fully charged of about 84 kwh and it goes about 400 km or 21 kwh per 100 km. At 10 cents per kwh that is $2/100km or roughly 1.5-2.0 liters per 100 km which is excellent today. Fast forward a few years, or go to EU or Ontario NOW where you might pay 30 cents to 45 events per kwh and all of a sudden that e-car is not cheaper than a normal efficient car today that use 5-7l/100km !
Hence: the ONLY way to get more e-cars is FORCE it or BRIBE it, i.e. incentives or sheer force through law. I saw a documentary the other day about Norway where a new tunnel to an island is free for e-cars and s.th. like $15 for a gasoline car. Of course the islanders are smart and many switched to e-cars and guess what: the tunnel is now financially broke as they do not collect enough toll !
In principal I love e-cars (I drive a hybrid) as they are quiet and have no exhaust, but they are not yet practical and the whole topic of energy density (i.e. power per kg of weight) is not yet solved as batteries are HUGE .. s.th. like 5-12 times compared to a gasoline tank. Charge station take long and they work only for an elite minority right now. In time, this will change. But do not expect operating cost to be a major factor to buy them. Plus the two or 3 fast charge stations in Hope to hop over to Kelowna are OK now but what about a busy weekend when hundreds of e-cars are on the road ? Many many challenges remain all gobbling up valuable tax $s. Subsidy for the rich. What is not to like ?