TransLink Referendum Mayhem
Posted by zweisystem on Friday, January 10, 2014 · 2 Comments
Welcome to the BC Liberal world of transit, where transit or should I say transit mega-projects are a means for winning elections, nothing more.
The Canada Line is a good example, where ten BC Premier wanted to showcase a transit P-3, but the problem arose that SkyTrain, being a proprietary railway, made near to impossible to have a real P-3.
The project soon went “South” when the SNC Lavalin (also was on the Bombardier bid) lead consortium underbid Bombardier and SkyTrain to win. The problem was, the consortium were never allowed to do any real engineering before the bid process and TransLink’s incompetence over the subway section of the Canada Line, lead to costs spiraling ever upwards.
The concessionaire of the Canada line then “reneged” on assuming risk on the project, leaving the provincial government hold the bag, so to speak for cost overruns. Real P-3’s, the concessionaire assumes risk on the project.
As the Canada Line’s costs increased ever upward, the scope of the project was reduced; single track construction was used in Richmond and YVR; stations were made smaller, excluding escalators and elevators and some even omitted; station platforms were designed with a length of only 50 metres (some stations only have 40 metre platforms); a switch was made from bored subway construction to cheaper cut-and-cover subway construction; and no compensation was to be paid to merchants and businesses disrupted by cut and cover subway construction.
Still the final cost of the Canada Line was in excess of $2.5 billion a far cry from the original budget of $1.3 billion. No one really knows the real cost of the Canada Line though media reports put the cost from $1.9 billion to $2.3 billion depending which politician or bureaucrat they were interviewing. It is interesting that the Susan Heyes (losing) lawsuit against TransLink for compensation had evidence that the final cost of the Canada Line was in excess of $2.7 billion! The presiding judge, the Honourable Judge Pittfield, called the Canada Line P-3 a charade!
And a charade the Canada line was, the only heavy rail subway in the world, built as a light metro and having less capacity than a simple streetcar line.
Enter the TransLink referendum, which is supposed to extort more money from the taxpayer to fund Liberal transit mistakes and even maybe a SkyTrain subway under Vancouver. Enter transportation Minister Todd Stone, from the “Hurtlands”, who hasn’t a clue about regional transit issues, hasn’t a clue about SkyTrain; hasn’t a clue for what is needed for transit to improve, leading the charge for a “yes” vote in a referendum that we still don’t know what the question or questions will be?
It certainly looks like the current premier wants a no vote so she can continue the great BC practice of highway and new bridge construction. BC politics at its best!
Vaughn Palmer: Will transit referendum sink like a Stone without the bossai??i??s support?
Transportation minister Todd Stone is committed to success; but it sounds like the premier is hedging her bets on vote outcome
By Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun columnist January 9, 2014
VICTORIA ai??i?? Across Metro Vancouver, there is widespread disagreement about priorities for expanding transit services.
Surrey wants light rail. Vancouver has pitched for a new transit line to the University of B.C. Other municipalities cite the need for more buses. Nobody can agree on the means to fund any of those options.
The lack of consensus was one reason why the B.C. Liberal election platform promised that any new sources of revenue to fund regional transit priorities would be subject to a referendum.
But as 2013 ended, the Liberalsai??i?? own lack of consensus on how best to frame such a referendum was embarrassingly on display.
The cabinet member in charge of the setting up the referendum, Transportation Minister Todd Stone, sounded increasingly sure of himself on the recipe for success.
ai???Iai??i??ve done a ton of reading on this,ai??? Stone assured me during a mid-November interview on Voice of B.C. on Shaw TV, citing research on some five dozen referendums of one kind or another across North America in the past two years.
ai???They were questions that were asking the voters to approve new spending measures to expand transit. Seventy-three per cent of the time, these referendums were successful. Then that begs the question: what are the common denominators with all of those referendums?ai???
OK minister, what were they?
ai???People need to understand what theyai??i??re voting for, ai??? he replied. ai???It cannot be a convoluted question with a whole bunch of boxes to tick off and so forth. The successful referendums, almost to a referendum, tend to be yes/no ai??i?? one single question at the bottom.ai???
The other necessary ingredient is a well-organized campaign to ensure a favourable outcome.
ai???Successful referendums were referendums that in many respects were run like political campaigns,ai??? Stone explained. ai???There was door-to-door canvassing; there was ai???get out the vote.ai??i?? There were all the traditional aspects of a campaign that you would expect to see in a provincial or federal or municipal election.ai???
Nor did Stone intend to sit on the sidelines: ai???The premier did not make this commitment to just run through a process ai??i?? maybe itai??i??ll work, maybe it wonai??i??t, whatever, and weai??i??ll move on. We are committed to success. I, as the minister, am committed to success on this referendum.ai???
So, to recap the Todd Stone version of winning conditions for a successful referendum: A simple yes/no question. A full-blown political campaign. And the Liberals, in the person of the transportation minister, pitching for a win.
Enter Christy Clark. ai???A simple ai???yesai??i?? or ai???noai??i?? doesnai??i??t do justice to the questions that are there,ai??? the premier told Justine Hunter of the Globe and Mail in December. ai???We really want to ask people: ai???How much transit do you want and how do you want to pay for it? How much change do you want or do you want no change to the system at allai??i?? … it needs to be a multiple-choice question.ai???
She reiterated the theme in a year-end interview with Tom Fletcher of Black Press. ai???Itai??i??s not going to be a yes or no option. There will be a number of options, so it will mean that people will need to do a little bit of homework, thinking about what theyai??i??d like to pay for and how theyai??i??d like to pay for it, or whether or not theyai??i??d like to just keep the status quo.ai???
Clark also rejected the notion that her government should become a major player in the fight to secure approval for the referendum. ai???People will need to do their homework to make sure they get the answer that is right for them, but Iai??i??m not going to try to decide for people what their answer should be.ai???
Had Clark stumbled across evidence that eluded the well-read Stone in his research on successful referendums? Or was she keeping her distance from a campaign that might well end in failure?
Either way, she put the minister in the awkward position of having to sidestep the bossai??i??s comments by saying that the specifics of the ballot question were still under discussion with Metro Vancouver government leaders: ai???It is imperative to get it right, to win this referendum.ai???
He and the premier were largely in agreement on the question of timing. Clark reiterated the position taken in the election platform that any referendum would be held at the same time as the municipal elections in November 2014.
Stone told me: ai???We want to maximize voter participation; we want to minimize the cost of the referendum; and we want to set the referendum up for the maximum chance of success … timing in and around the existing municipal elections next November would make the most sense.ai???
Not to local government leaders whoai??i??d rather not have such a contentious issue on the ballot when they are running for re-election themselves. Those and other reservations will make it hard for Stone to achieve another of his winning conditions ai??i?? namely, a broad coalition of support.
ai???Weai??i??re going to need all the businesses to support it, the students, local governments, other community organizations to get behind this. Itai??i??s going to need to be supported.ai???
At this point, itai??i??s not even clear that he has the support of his own premier in his drive for a successful referendum. But if the campaign falls short, at least heai??i??ll know where to start putting the blame.
vpalmer@vancouversun.com
Ai?? Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
When expensive freeways are built, new developments spring up far from the downtown core and more people move to the distant developments which require more roads for the increased number of drivers. Then, grade separated transit lines (subways in Toronto, for instance) follow in a futile attempt to reduce the gridlock.
When expensive grade separated sky train lines are built, new developments spring up far from the downtown core and more people move to the distant developments which require more roads for the increased number of drivers. Then, more freeways and bridges (Port Mann Bridge and Massey Bridge for freeway expansions in Metro Vancouver, for instance) follow in a futile attempt to reduce the gridlock.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-port-mann-bridge-toll-puts-pressure-on-pattullo-traffic-1.2488984
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bridge-to-replace-george-massey-tunnel-says-premier-1.1862247
Which scenario do you prefer, the expensive freeways followed by expensive grade separated transit (subway) or the expensive grade separated transit (sky train) followed by the expensive freeways? Transit by TransLink actually increases vehicle traffic, air pollution and GHG emissions.
http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/eric-chriss-study-not-having-transit-is-more-environmentally-sustainable-than-having-transit-in-vancouver/
Both the City of Vancouver engineers and TransLink planners tacitly agree with calculations showing that TransLink does not reduce road congestion. So, what’s going on here?
Shouldn’t somebody be keeping score to determine whether or not transit by TransLink is doing any good? Puzzled?
Let me fill you in on a secret: SNC Lavalin having a history of bribing politicians to win contracts makes much more of a mark-up on profits if it can build a sky train line costing $1.4 billion than a measly little tram or trolleybus line costing from about $12 million to $120 million over 11 km in Coquitlam, for example. As far as engineering staff and support staff hours go, SNC Lavalin uses up about the same number of hours for the sky train line, the tram line or the trolleybus line – SNC Lavalin makes easy money on the sky train line. For the typical 10% mark-up, SNC Lavalin makes a stunning $140 million for the sky train line, an honest $12 million for the tram line and a paltry $1.2 million for the trolleybus line .
Moreover, TransLink with a staff of 500 planners and others doing no productive work, day after day, and costing taxpayers $60 million annually to employ can’t find the spare cash to pay for their huge salaries if we build tram or trolleybus lines. That is, with the next $1,400 million sky train line, it is easy to skim $60 million for years for employees at TransLink to show up at work, turn on their computers and kill time on mindless matters.
With the inexpensive $12 million trolleybus line or $120 million tram line, planners and others doing meaningless work at TransLink can’t bill taxpayers $60 million annually to sit around all day. There is also no extra fat for the simpleton accountant who is the CEO of TransLink to sign engineering contracts, which he can’t possibly understand, while staff in short skirts at TransLink keep him amused. “The Sr. Advisor Stakeholder Relations [at TransLink] identifies develops and enhances relationships with local government, senior staff and key regional stakeholders who have a vested and/or financial interest in all projects initiated by TransLink”. In short, she provides happy endings:
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/ian-jarvis/34/290/923?trk=pub-pbmap
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/shirley-samujh/4/930/984?trk=pub-pbmap
It’s just one big party at TransLink. Taxpayers who are being duped are paying for the salaries at TransLink:
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-brooke/35/766/aa2?trk=pub-pbmap
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/bob-paddon/1/3ab/123?trk=pub-pbmap
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/kevinfalconbc?trk=pub-pbmap
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/pamela-findling/19/107/b9?trk=pub-pbmap
…
http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/rachel-glover-mba-ccp/17/457/41a?trk=pub-pbmap
In the referendum on transit, two questions are necessary:
1) No more taxes – build trolleybus or tram lines and dissolve TransLink
2) Yes, more taxes – build more sky train lines and keep paying the salaries at TransLink