There are several things wrong with the transit plan for British Columbia's Lower Mainland, and there's a lot more wrong with the politicians who are pushing it.
In spite of that, I'm voting "Yes".
I want more public transit. I want the east-west routes in Vancouver opened up. I want more buses, I want more rapid transit, I want new bridges, and I want them all connected.
One of the flaws in the plan is the lack of strategic vision. More bike lanes, as proposed, may encourage more people-powered transportation, but if they come at the expense of roads then we are not addressing the problem, we are just adding window dressing.
A strategic approach, funded and accountable, would enhance our economy and standard of living. I would like to see timed traffic lights, alternate routes through congested areas, and most of the items in our current grab bag. I understand we need to pay for this through taxation, but let's not pretend this is what we pay our elected officials to do.
Voted "Yes", in spite of the flaws, will at least get the infrastructure and the traffic moving. But then I recommend that taxpayers vote "no" on something else; at the earliest opportunity, vote against the politicians who opted for a pointless referendum.
If our elected officials are in agreement over the transit improvements, then why didn't they just do it?
We elect people to government to make difficult decisions. If they were all easy, then we wouldn't need politicians. The basic decision over the transit referendum is quite simple - more public transit for more public money. When the facts are clear, being decisive is what we pay politicians to do.
The politicians behind the referendum have unnecessarily complicated the decision by mixing in pet projects with bad management, then blending it with an unrelated payment plan. These same politicians are trying to distance themselves from potential screw-ups by sloughing off the decision-making to the public through the referendum - even if only 30 per cent of registered voters will bother to do so.
We employ/elect more than 200 MLAs and city councillors in the Lower Mainland to make these decisions. Not one of them has the stones to stand up and be counted.
The referendum is a recipe for delay and unnecessary expenditure, with potential to derail much needed infrastructure improvements. This does not help the economy grow, nor does it add to the greater good.
Our officials came up with a dog's breakfast of political wish lists, wrapped up in a strategic package. If we vote "No", will Surrey actually stop advocating for the replacement of the Patullo bridge, or will Gregor Robertson stop designating roads as bike lanes, or the Premier Christy Clark unannounce the Massey Bridge? Not likely.
It is also foolish to tie the financing for these projects to an unrelated taxation scheme. After the province totally blew the introduction of the HST, politicians are now trying to tie in regional transportation infrastructure to a general sales tax. Targeted taxes only make sense for targeted projects. If they're not related, then you are just causing trouble.
I don't care for California-style politics of referenda which ensures nothing gets done. Referenda should be reserved for large issues, like the referendum on the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, or the 2005 and 2009 B.C. mandate on voting reforms. The last-ditch attempts to save their phoney-baloney jobs referendum on the HST in 2012 does not qualify as legitimate.
If the mayors and MLAs agree the transit plan is the right thing to do, then why don't they just buck up and do it? Otherwise, we shouldn't be paying them.
Columnist Michael Izen is an economic and labour market analyst.
Column reprinted courtesy of Troy Media.
To comment on this story, click here.
