Frances Bula header image 2
← →

The post-plebiscite transit mess: Surrey, Vancouver look to self-financing, mayors’ council on verge of blowing up

July 16th, 2015 · 28 Comments

In the aftermath of the resounding no in the transit plebiscite, yes, it’s a mess out there.

Mayors are looking at self-financing their big projects in Surrey and Vancouver. (And even Delta is considering using its own money to run some needed buses.) Senior execs are being fired at TransLink, and there are calls for even more change. And the future of the mayors’ council is up in the air.

I’d love to have been a fly on the wall in the conversation among Transportation Minister Todd Stone, Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner, and Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson today.

Here are the details of all the Translink/transit-related statements and events in the last week.

Surrey mayor mulls taking back gas taxes to pay for light rail here.

Mayors mull whether and when to quit TransLink; North Vancouver’s Darrell Mussatto is done already. Here

Senior execs get toasted and observers say more needs to happen than just that. Here.

And, last but not least, Vancouver mayor talks about the options city has for paying its share of the $3-billion Broadway line here.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • boohoo

    Vancouver and Surrey will get their big ticket items one way or another, and be sure there won’t be a specific vote on it.

    The problem is all the little things that won’t happen. All the connecting buses, bike lanes, road improvements, increased frequency on current skytrains etc. Those are the meat and potatoes of infrastructure networks that aren’t sexy, there’s no ribbon cutting, and they won’t get funded.

  • Voony

    After the No vote the mayor of Pitt Meadows issued a motion to Metro staff to report back on the ramifications of running local transit like a utility.

    That looks a good step forward, and I like the idea of municipalities paying a direct fee for the provided transit service, since it provides them an incentive to shape their developements and streets to deliver transit efficiently (in fact it is also a reason I believe property taxes are better than sale taxes when it is time to pay for city service like Transit, additional good reason regarding funding stability can also be also found in the NYT)

    A reform of Translink is unavoidable, since it is the main message of the NO vote, so it seems the “power to be” understand that by Making head rolling.

    However, the Translink problem is not one of persons, but of governance architecture.

    The current politicians are probably not the most able to resolve this issue (and beyond the Metro governance at large if Translink is put under the Metro helm); The exercise would be just regarded as a battle of political influence with the Province on Translink… and giving more power to the current council of mayors could just signify the return of parochial interest over the general interest as clearly demonstrated by the Surrey mayor declaration…

    The current coucil is also the main responsible of the disastrous Translink image, and beyond, of their own defeat. (by the way, Translink spend much more money in Surrey and delta than it collects from thoe muncipalities, see here )

    To address the Translink governance (and evetually the Metro governance at large if Translink as under Metro Vancouver), an adhoc body (e.g a citizen eassembly) could be set up to draft some propositions.

    some have emerged on the Stephen rees blog, in ths comment section

    This new Translink/Metro constitituional bill could be put to a referendum: the Province could have hard time to sit down on the result.of such a process.

    At this time, the Council of mayors position as expressed by the Vancouver mayor; “the ball is is with the Province”; is not a constructive one and that needs to change.

    see also here

  • A Taxpayer

    The “Yes” voters should be thanking the “No” voters for not being as gullible as they by falling for the assurances that all is well at Translink and all it takes is a small increase in the PST to solve our transit woes. Events subsequent to the vote clearly show that there are serious problems at the senior level of Translink and the Mayors are not as unified on the Transit Plan as they pretended. A Yes vote would have solved nothing. We would still have the same issues that no one seems to have a clue how to address and Translink would take another $250 million of our money each year.

  • Jeff Leigh

    Not by a long shot.

    Guessing you didn’t get a chance to attend City Conversations at noon today, all on the topic of post plebiscite.

  • Richard Campbell

    One option would be for the Province to cancel the tax cut planned for those earning over $150,000 per year. While more funding would be needed, it would be a great start. Sign the petition at: http://www.bccc.bc.ca/150k

  • boohoo

    “The “Yes” voters should be thanking the “No” voters for not being as gullible as they by falling for the assurances that all is well at Translink and all it takes is a small increase in the PST to solve our transit woes.”

    It’s quite funny watching your brethren feign such shock that anyone would presume to know what each ‘no’ voter’s intentions were yet there is perfect comfort in labeling the ‘yes’ voter’s with sweeping generalizations.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    As seen elsewhere:

    What is happening, fast, to Vancouver is a demographic that reflects what many people decry. Rich and poor and no middle class. First it was the west side going way expensive, now the east side is catching up. The massive growth in social housing, now expanding east from Gastown and all around the Olympic Village, gives home for the poor.
    The wealthy mostly drive and ride bikes recreationally. More than 50% of the bike riders are recreational riders. There are a few young biking commuters and students. The poor and students take transit. The middle class, the largest sized group that also includes all the tradespeople, drive.
    In summary; the importance of uncongested efficient roads is essential for all services, commercial and trades vehicles, industrial vehicles, transit vehicles, the middle-class workers and families, the wealthy and many of those that are poorer, as well as all that live and work in all rural and semi-rural areas, that includes all around the sacred ALR lands.
    Does anyone wonder why a city transit obsessed referendum, headed by a cycling city mayor that forgot to pay for a subway ride failed?

  • A Taxpayer

    If words were gold, progressives would make Midas look like a pauper.

  • A Taxpayer

    Sorry, I thought I was giving Yes voters the benefit of the doubt because to have recognized the problems at Translink and the governance structure and still vote Yes, hoping that somehow all would be fixed, is just plain dumb.

  • IanS

    I would be happy to sign a petition calling for more taxes to be paid by someone other than myself in order to provide things that I want.

  • boohoo

    Again with the sweeping generalizations, it’s impressive.

  • boohoo

    If you’re going to quote Eric’s (your?) post, at least reference it, include it in its entirety and include it in context.

  • spartikus

    Given past comments I’m pretty sure Richard Campbell voted in the plebiscite to increase taxes on himself.

  • IanS

    So did I. And?

  • spartikus

    And I don’t think he’s a candidate for the Great Hypocrisy Watch™

    While I appreciate the point that it’s easy to endorse the revocation of a planned tax cut for others (although perhaps RC earns 150k/yr?), I do believe we are allowed to occasionally discuss the merits of government policies even if they don’t directly relate to us.

  • IanS

    Not sure how you read my post as suggesting that he was being hypocritical.

    “While I appreciate the point that it’s easy to endorse the revocation of a planned tax cut for others”

    This was my point. Glad you appreciated it. 🙂

    And, to reiterate, it really is easy.

    “…I do believe we are allowed to occasionally discuss the merits of government policies even if they don’t directly relate to us.”

    Absolutely. If anything I wrote caused you to think I was suggesting otherwise, I apologize.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    It’s not exactly the same context and furthermore, it’s not necessary.

  • Richard Campbell

    Yeah, nothing is going to please everyone. Some were complaining that the sales tax was regressive although it was only slightly so and transit improvements will benefit those with lower incomes. Anyway, taxes have been decreased a lot over the years and been replaced by user fees and consumption taxes. With the consumption tax rejected, maybe it is time to look at more progressive ways of funding transit.

  • boohoo

    Sourcing your quotes isn’t necessary? Tsk tsk. Writing 101 may be in order.

  • IanS

    Joking aside, I don’t disagree. I’m in no hurry to pay more taxes, but, to the extent that the additional funds raised are tied to something worthwhile, like transit, I’m on board.

  • A Taxpayer

    Income taxes for those over $150,000 were increased two years ago to help balance the budget and when implemented, it was announced the increase was temporary and the rate would revert to the then current rate after a period of two years. The budget is balanced.

    This is a perfect example why so many people oppose any new tax initiatives for specific purposes because once the government has our money, there are always those who will find ways to spend it. Already, people are saying the carbon tax should be allocated to spending rather than maintain revenue neutrality as promised when it was implemented.

    In any event, this funding is supposed to come from Metro Vancouver and not from taxpayers outside of the lower mainland who happen to earn more than $150,000.

  • TKO

    But on the upside, now that the electorate has sent a strong message that Translink is broken, it will be promptly fixed and a stable and reliable source of funds identified to provide the many items in the Mayors Council’s transportation plan. The Christy Clark government will be heralded for their genious leadership of a contentious issue.

    And then the sky will be obscured by pigs with wings…

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Not if Eric is me.

  • Jeff Leigh

    If it isn’t the same context, was it out of context on Pricetags, or is it out of context here?

    And if you are Eric, what do you want us to call you, since you are now cross posting?

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    No. The comments differ. They are in context, as written, where written.

    Try and read the thread if you are confused.

    How was the SFU gabfest in the park? Cathartic, or did the supporters of the initiative finally understand why they lost? Anyone there from outside downtown Vancouver? Did Gregor show?

  • jenables

    Funny enough, if those “little things” had comprised the entire plan, I would have happily voted yes for them.

  • Nevin Thompson

    Choice quote:

    “Improvements to cycling and pedestrian infrastructure just won’t be a priority,” Bruntlett says. “The only way for an intersection to get an upgrade is after a collision occurs.”

    http://classiclifecare.com/moments/vancouver-transit-referendum-result-might-spell-trouble-senior-friendly-walkable-communities

  • Lewis_N_Villegas

    I’m with Voony on this one. The major (spelled with a “j” not a “y”) take away from this exercise in quasi-democracy is that we need METRO government, not a mayors board (spelled with a “y” not a “j”).

    Reform, reform, reform.

    The other obvious take away is that we need to bring into alignment the provincial government—still gung-ho on building freeway expansions; a 10-lane Port Mann; a new Dias Island Tunnel replacement; new freeways; new underpasses; new toll bridges that almostnobody uses, etc., etc.—with realities in the new century. Including the need for a viable regional transportation plan.

    Dream, dream, dream.