Liz James Sings The TransLink Blues

Liz James is one of the few columnists in the region that has taken the times to research our local transit fiasco and she has well demonstrated that she understands the issue. Unlike the mainstream media, which collectively have not done much research on the issue (some even believe that no builds with LRT anymore!) and seem to take their ‘marching orders’ directly from TransLink, Ms. James confronts the TransLink and transitAi?? issues squarely on target.

“The silos in which [the region’s] land planning, economic development and transit functions operate are symptomatic of the problems many cities in the world face. . . . We need to be working on the same page.”

Richard Walton – June 20, 2013

In our recent exchange about his presentation to the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation, District of North Vancouver Mayor Richard Walton said he shares a concern expressed by several of his colleagues – “TransLink is (required) to plan for the future as part of its mandate, but the funding levers necessary to implement the plan lie with the province.”

Clarifying his reference to the three silos, he said that while land planning is the responsibility of Metro Vancouver, economic development is done by 23 separate communities in the absence of any central co-ordination.

As for the third silo – TransLink – Walton did not need to tell me that today’s dysfunctional agency is a direct result of that lack of co-ordination, coupled with under-funded interference from Victoria.

Instead, more diplomatic than I, Walton said “effectively, the province controls the levers but will not engage in the process.”

The problem with being diplomatic is that nice guys often finish last.

For 15 years, various costly incarnations of TransLink boards, committees and councils have tried to negotiate an appropriate funding model. They tried to no avail with both NDP and BC Liberal administrations.

So if those committees find it difficult to take the next step, let me stiffen their resolve: Your decade-long reluctance to stand up to Victoria, to say you “ain’t gonna take it anymore,” has brought TransLink to its financial knees.

People have had enough – to such an extent that many view the governance of TransLink as being part of the problem.

For validation of those opinions, we need go no further than the executive summary of a March 2013 report on the TransLink governance commissioned by the mayors.

The summary quickly came out of its corner with a right hook to the chin on transportation governance which it said is: “less than ideal in relationship to the six major criteria of accountability, transparency, responsiveness, clarity of purpose, advocacy and productive relationships.”

“The most critical of these,” the report stated, “is accountability to the population being served, which is almost completely missing .”

That point isn’t new. People have been saying that since the Glen Clark days.

The governance we have endured since 1998 is an international embarrassment. At least, that’s what I gathered from the next two paragraphs that say our “arrangements” are “unique in the world and not in a good way.”

Regardless, we cannot allow the victims of a failed and expensive governance model to be further penalized for driving their vehicles when no workable transit option is available.

TransLink has been on a wild ride, hampered by provincial decisions like the $2.4 billion Canada Line but left without dollars for its basic obligations.

For their part, most regional politicians have lacked access to the impartial technical expertise on transit required to challenge Victoria’s dictates and have had little option but to go along.