LNG and the TFN

On December 16, the Tsawwassen First Nation (TFN) will be asked to vote on whether an LNG terminal will be placed on their lands. As this proposal is to be built on native land, the community of Delta will have no say in this matter.

This proposal appears to be driven by Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) to simplify the installation of a terminal for the storage and handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). It is not a surprise that they would choose to install the terminal in this location on Tsawwassen band lands. This could avoid conflict in the community and possibly expensive, time consuming consultations.

The drive to have a positive result from this vote has been supported by two letters from FortisBC to the Delta Optimist. These letters state that not only is LNG not harmful, but an expansion of LNG facilities in Delta will be good for the environment.

LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) is largely made up of methane gas. The gas is cooled to a liquid state and thus reduced to 1/600^th of its volume for transportation. It can only stay in its liquid state as long as it is contained and kept cool. When it escapes, as it will during handling, it will revert back to its original state and volume.

The effects of LNG on the environment have been researched and well documented. In fact, the BC government has hired consultants to see what can and needs to be done to mitigate the dangers.

“If LNG development proceeds as the B.C. government hopes, we will face a climate challenge nearly as big as the Alberta oilsands, and all the risks and reputational issues that go with it.”

This quote is from Alison Bailie, a senior advisor with the Pembina Institute in B.C.

The Pembina Institute suggests that as much as 30% of carbon pollution from the LNG supply chain will occur at the Terminal. Under “normal operating conditions” this could mean as much as 4 million tonnes of carbon pollution annually in South Delta at the Fraser estuary.

Sadly, before an article in the Optimist this week, none of this was being discussed, and the vote is just four days away. All that we have is the assurance of Chief Bryce Williams that “best practices” will be followed. How that will be controlled or monitored by the TFN is not clear. How well it has been researched or discussed by the band in preparation for this vote is not clear.

What is clear is that the incentives for the TFN are financial. Undoubtedly, the pressure to perform has been there since the treaty negotiations and agreements of 2004. Agreements in which Port Metro Vancouver is a major participant.

Once again native people are being asked to trade their values of stewardship for the land in exchange for needed economic progress: pitting the value of economic gain from trade of their land against the consequential damage to their land, their surroundings and the environment. In his book, The Inconvenient Indian, native author Thomas King says; “It is beginning to look like colonization, part two”. Hopefully, the band will speak out against this ill-advised use of their land by voting against it.

 

Oh behave!

Below my response is a letter to the editor of the Delta Optimist. It is written by PR Vice President, Doug Stout of FortisBC. The heading and article completely avoid discussion of air pollution due to LNG. Perhaps their argument is that when it's in the pipes it is in liquid form and not a gas. Obviously the discussion needed is about what happens to the LNG when it escapes and changes from the Liquid state to the gas state and expands.

Oh Behave!

There is a small ad in the Optimist with a heading; Oh Behave! I would like to suggest that be the comment for the various executives of FortisBC.

Last week Mr. Michael Mulcahy, the President and CEO of FortisBC wrote to tell us that the Tilbury LNG expansion was “good for the environment”. The most recent comments come from Doug Stout, the Vice President for External Relations (ie PR). In Fridays’ Optimist his letter to the editor is titled “LNG can’t contaminate water or soil”. In his article Mr. Stout actually tells us that LNG is non-toxic.

I expect Mr. Stout wants to convince us that this (predominantly methane) gas, either in the gaseous or liquid state is not harmful. This seems strange even coming from a person we assume has been trained in Public Relations. Methane gas-not harmful??

In a study conducted for the government of BC by the Pembina Institute it is made abundantly clear that all along the LNG production chain there is carbon pollution. “Assuming standard practices, one typical LNG Terminal and the associated shale gas development would result in 12 million tonnes (MT) of carbon pollution annually”. 30 per cent of this pollution would specifically take place at the terminal (ieTsawwassen). 4 million tonnes of carbon pollution right here in Tsawwassen. If you want to discuss the ENVIRONMENTAL effects of LNG gas this is what you will need to address.

Mr. Stout must be in the minority in his belief that because LNG is non-toxic it is not harmful or a pollutant. His ingenious comment is that “LNG….would disperse into the air not harming marine life”. Leaving out the little bit of information about what it will do to the air. Interesting. LNG is a gas and yet only potential harm to the soil or water is covered with this article. No mention at all about the possible effects to our air quality from this gas substance.

Please, FortisBC, show a little more respect for the intellect of the Optimist reader. Spin is just spin. If you really want to convince us how you will make this proposal safe or good for the environment you will need to do much better than these whimsical comments.

LNG can't contaminate water or soil

Editor: Re: LNG plant comes with too much risk, letter to the editor, Nov. 27 I would like to address Bill Sharkey's question about how the processing and transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are different from crude oil. The most important thing for people to know is LNG is non-corrosive, non-toxic, non-flammable and non-explosive. It cannot contaminate water or soil. In the past 50 years, LNG carriers have travelled 135,000 voyages and 240 million kilometres worldwide, and there has never been a major release of LNG from a carrier due to a collision, explosion, fire or hull failure. If LNG ever did contact water, it would float on the surface, and as it quickly warmed up, it would disperse into the air without harming marine life. Like our Tilbury LNG facility, which has safely operated since 1971, a facility on Tsawwassen First Nation lands would be built in a designated industrial area. The facility and any associated natural gas pipelines would be built to withstand natural hazards, including earthquakes and flooding. FortisBC's facilities and transmission system have excellent safety records because emergency preparedness is woven into our culture. It will be up to Tsawwassen First Nation members to determine if LNG is something they would like to see on their lands. We look forward to their decision. Doug Stout Vice President, Market Development and External Relations FortisBC - See more at: http://www.delta-optimist.com/opinion/letters/lng-can-t-contaminate-water-or-soil-.

Musings on the massacre of the Massey Tunnel

The Massey Mayhem; let’s build a bridge!

Having planned to build a new ten lane bridge over the Fraser River, the BC Government has yet to provide a business case for the proposal. In the meantime, a $3 Billion price tag has been proposed for the bridge and removal of the existing Massey tunnel. Now, with the possibility of LNG ships passing under the bridge, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) has stated that they need an additional 8M (24 feet) of height for the bridge. This will not only increase the cost of the bridge, it will add to the difficulty of locating off-ramps for Steveston and Ladner.

Why build a bridge?

The primary reason to replace the tunnel is to allow PMV to bring deeper hull ships through to the Surrey Fraser docks. The tunnel has had $20 Million in seismic upgrades in the past ten years and is known to be serviceable for a long time. Why is it that we are even considering replacing the tunnel? It can be an effective part of the solution to the “congestion” experienced in the Lower Mainland. As long as the tunnel is there it will restrict access to both the Oak Street and Knight Street corridors.

Wait, what, why not a bridge?

That may sound like a self defeating notion and is quite likely why a large part of the population is in support of the bridge. It will be more effective at getting cars across the Fraser. However, those same  travelers coming from South Surrey and White Rock are then being restricted when crossing into the Vancouver core. The proposed bridge does nothing to solve the traffic nightmare at the Oak Street and Knight Street corridors. Both of these bridges into Vancouver can be as congested as the approach to the tunnel. Once the government commits to building the Massey bridge there will not likely be any funds, desire -or ability- to deal with this “congestion.”

What’s all at stake?

What we haven’t been told is that replacing the tunnel is only a fraction of the cost; there is still more at stake. The Metro Vancouver Water District apparently has a 32” water main near the tunnel that serves Delta. This water main would also have to be removed in order to achieve the desired depth.  No cost accounting has been done for moving the water main. It is not clear at this time if Hydro also has any utilities that need to be moved.

The additional one time dredging costs to lower the river bottom to the 13.5 M (44 feet) depth proposed by the Provincial Government is estimated to be $175 Million. The new ongoing annual cost for the deeper proposed dredging depth has not been determined or accounted for. Presently Port Metro Vancouver pays $15 Million to dredge the river annually to a depth of 11.5M. Only $10 Million of that cost is recovered by the sale of sand and the remaining sand has to be disposed of at cost.

There is more to the dredging than a financial cost. A report called “Sediment management in (the) Lower Fraser River (March 20, 2010, Michael Church) states that to avoid “serious adverse affects to fish population… a long term management program should be initiated before additional sediment is removed by gravel or sand dredging”.  No such plan has been undertaken or, at least, made public.

So what’s all the fuss?

The Fraser River estuary has been designated a RAMSAR site by the UN. The estuary is considered an area of international ecological importance for migratory birds and fish species. The removal of the tunnel and increasing shipping traffic along the Fraser River is just one of the proposals that PMV has on the table. An additional 3 birth container terminal is being planned at the mouth of the Fraser and LNG shipping is being planned.  As well, soft (thermal) coal is now being shipped from the States through the Surrey Fraser Docks and Texada Island. Only ad-hoc environmental planning has been done for these projects and no full-scale overview has been required by any of our environmental agencies.

So what else is involved?

The latest word on LNG is that it will be handled in and shipped from 80 acres of the Tsawwassen lands. Nicely done PMV! Now you can honestly say it is beyond your jurisdiction and wash your hands of the whole affair. No pesky environmental undertakings needed. The leadership of the Tsawwassen First Nation says it’s committed to ensuring best practices are used in all aspects of this proposal. How this will be achieved was not made clear. Chief Bryce Williams, the youthful leader said that “they would work with their partners to ensure best practices”`. The proposal will be voted on by the members of the band in mid December. No other public input will be required. This has to be a coup for Robin Silvester and PMV. What a way to circumnavigate all those environmental concerns!

Promises, promisezzzzz!

When Premier Christie Clark announced the bridge proposal she stated that “a new bridge will open the corridor to future rapid transit options”. The operative word here being “future”. The failed Translink plebiscite showed no improvements or transit offerings to the South Delta area. One can only assume that with the proposed bridge costs it will be a long way into the future before funds are available for those “rapid transit options”.  

Rapid transit is generally driven by population growth.  It is clear from the Provincial Government initiative to weaken the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) how this will affect Delta.  A weakened ALR puts South Delta farmlands at risk. In most parts of the world Agricultural land is at a premium.  Obviously the present Provincial Government does not see it this way. As well, the CEO of Port Metro Vancouver, Robin Silvester, responded to these concerns by stating that we could “import our food”.

Why would any business person consider it prudent to rely on imports for our food needs? The South Delta farmlands have some of the best climatic conditions in Canada. The food grown here serves a large local population and shipping to this market is environmentally effective. We have a finite agricultural land base. We would be weakening our ability to be self reliant by reducing any of our agricultural lands, especially those in South Delta. If recent increases in food prices can be attributed to problems with agriculture in California we need to protect our agricultural interests. Anything less does not serve our self interest. No matter how much PMV wants to create a “Gateway to the Pacific”.

The fly in the ointment.

Lastly, why are the needs of Port Metro Vancouver driving the transportation planning process for the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)? How is it that this Federal Crown Corporation has the power to influence Regional decisions of this magnitude without being made accountable?

As a Federal Crown Corporation, the residents of Canada are PMV`s largest group of stakeholders. We need to ensure that PMV stays true to their vision; "inspiring support from our customers and from communities locally and across the nation," as well as their mission statement: "To lead the growth of Canada's Pacific Gateway in a manner that enhances the well-being of Canadians and inspires national pride. 

If the community of Delta were polled about Port Metro's various undertakings on the Fraser, the response would be very interesting. I very much doubt that "inspiring support and... national pride" or "enhancing the well-being of Canadians" would ring true for anyone in Delta.

Why are BC residents being asked to pay the price?

“As a port authority under the Canada Marine Act, Port Metro Vancouver is mandated to facilitate Canada's trade, while ensuring environmental protection and safety”. Under the direction of CEO Robin Silvester they seem to be concentrating on the trade aspects and not the environmental protection or safety. Sadly ‘facilitating Canada’s trade’ leads to BC residents paying for and living with second rate transportation solutions. Surely our Premier Christy Clark and her government can demand more than that from the Federal Government. As premier of this province her position should be to represent BC in Ottawa; not to present Ottawa’s position to BC.

Recent concerns about the business plan for the new bridge over the Fraser River

Vancouver infrastructure; Federal Funding and a Provincial dilemma

The bridge across the mighty Fraser

Promises of Federal infrastructure funding and recent transparency issues with our Provincial government have brought the planned bridge across the Fraser River back into focus. Questions dating back to 2014 about the public input process have been renewed. These points have been accentuated by recent revelations about the lack of any background to the decision. Apparently the business plan is still being put together after missing two deadlines. And yet, the decision to move forward has long since been made. Freedom of information requests regarding the decision making process have shown little success. Les Leyne of the Victoria Times Columnist reported in an article of June 4, 2014 that a 14 page FOI response on the business plan was largely redacted.

Some serious concerns and questions have been raised.

One of the main questions that concern a lot of people is: Why is the tunnel being forsaken?

It is clear from recent work on the Maas tunnel in Rotterdam that the almost identical Massey tunnel will continue to be very functional for years to come. The Maas tunnel is 20 years older than the Massey tunnel, and has recently been upgraded making it viable for an indefinite time. $20 Million has been spent on seismic upgrading to the body of the Massey tunnel. Another $17 Million was identified to deal with the access points and the ventilation equipment. These costs are paltry compared to the proposed $3 Billion costs of the bridge. It seems that dismantling the tunnel will be an unnecessary expense when it could be a part of the solution, to the traffic issues, and not the problem.

Is a bridge the answer?

 Another crossing of the Fraser for highway 99 is definitely in order. However, placing a bridge at the location of the tunnel will mean two things. First, this major traffic artery will be compromised for a period of 3-5 years during construction. The current bumper to bumper rush hour from White Rock will become an increased burden for everyone in Delta/South Surrey, not to mention Commercial and Tourism traffic from the border. The second issue is this: Present traffic from the tunnel to the Oak street corridor is already a problem as it approaches the Oak Street Bridge.

How will the bridge affect the Oak Street corridor?

The Province has given us some stated statistics for Richmond drop-offs after coming through the tunnel.  The government claims that the larger percentage of traffic from the tunnel stops in Richmond. However, you just need to experience the Oak Street bottle neck to understand a ten lane bridge leading to this corridor will not make the problem go away. The bridge will not improve the traffic numbers in the Oak street corridor; it will only increase this traffic. The increase in urban sprawl it will bring to the South Delta area will continue to draw from the Vancouver work force intensifying the need for transportation infrastructure.

 How did the public consultation assist the decision for the proposed bridge?

The announcement to build a bridge was made in September 2012 with planning for the bridge to start immediately. The planned bridge is supposed to be a direct result of public consultations held from November 2012 through 2013. A process the government called “exploring the options”. Sadly the options presented for the consultations all led to support the construction of a bridge.

Proposed Alternatives to the tunnel:

The alternatives were; to retain the tunnel, (without any additional crossings built) a bridge built replacing the tunnel  connecting to the existing Highway 99 in Richmond, adding a bridge alongside the tunnel ( again, directing traffic back to highway 99 in Richmond) and replacing the tunnel with a new tunnel. Finally, the last option was to build a new bridge with a new corridor and maintaining the tunnel. All the alternatives were not well enough developed to qualify as viable options. The final option was supposedly not acceptable due to the perceived loss of agricultural land and the onset of urban sprawl. By improving the access to and from Delta with any of the options, urban sprawl will follow.

If not a bridge to replace the tunnel, what is the answer?

This is a great question. A question that brings to light more questions. What is the ultimate goal? Is it to improve traffic across the Fraser? Is it to have more land for residential development? Is it to have deeper hull ships reach the Fraser Surrey docks? Is it to develop the Fraser harbors and Industrial land and better utilize the South Fraser Perimeter Road? Is this a political decision or a planning decision?

What is driving the new crossing?

Vancouver is a growing residential and commercial center. Because of its location and climate this will continue, driving a need for residential and industrial land. The main driver behind replacing the tunnel is Port Metro Vancouver (PMV). PMV wants the tunnel removed in order to facilitate deeper hulled vessels moving through to the Fraser Surrey docks. Is this a realistic driver for removal of the tunnel? This was primarily a planning exercise in transit infrastructure to “ease congestion”. The original public feedback listed “jobs and the economy” in fourth place after efficient transport, safety and the environment. Somehow in the final report “jobs and the economy” moved ahead of “easing congestion”. How did that happen?

What should be driving this decision?

One of the concerns of this planning process is that the all information is based on existing traffic patterns. It is a given that, as with the construction of the tunnel, the bridge will change traffic patterns as well as the Delta population base. The proposed bridge does nothing to alleviate existing congestion at the Oak Street and Fraser corridors. These issues should be central to the discussion if the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) is to be served by this plan. It would make better planning sense to look at future needs of the GVRD. Especially when the Province is planning to spend an (estimated) $3 Billion on this project. How can this one bridge possibly serve future needs when it does not address the existing problems? The planning for this crossing should be based strictly on present and future transit needs. The need for Industrial land, residential land or the needs of PMV should be considered, but should be  side bars of/to the decision making process.

What would be a logical solution?

One option that did not have close scrutiny is the fifth option. A bridge, but near #8 Road. If this bridge has a connecting road and bridge to Burnaby it would take traffic away from the existing Oak Street and Fraser corridors. This option would upgrade the tunnel and allow re-routing traffic from the existing overloaded corridors and keep unnecessary traffic out of Richmond and the Vancouver center. The main opposition to this was the agricultural community in Richmond. This is understandable. However, eventually this road will become a necessity. Especially given the likely growth of Delta if the ten lane bridge is built. It would be logical –and just good planning- to build this bridge instead of the ten lane bridge planned at the tunnel. It would save the tunnel, save agricultural land in the long run and allow for a more holistic plan to serve all of the GVRD. Understanding the possibilities means that there must be more plans out there that would make infinitely more sense than the proposed bridge.

Federal involvement?

The newly elected Federal government has put a high priority on infrastructure and listed Vancouver as one of the possible recipients of funding. This opportunity to effect change should not be wasted.  The possibility of actually planning and building a transportation network that will improve traffic for the GVRD is long overdue, and the proposed bridge is nothing but an expensive stop-gap measure.  The North/South movement of traffic needs to be improved from the border, but a plan to integrate this with East/West traffic should be integral to the outcome. The present proposal is linear and really only addresses the issue of crossing the Fraser and with no real outlook to future needs.

Speak up!

This is the time to let your new MP’s know that you want accountability. If the Federal Government wants to put our tax money into infrastructure let’s make sure that the effort and money is not wasted. This is a great city. With the Provincial Government working with the Municipalities and the Federal Government it can even be better. Talk to your MLA and your MP. Let them know that you expect more!

Editorial piece in "The Province" January 7, 2014

Prime Minister Stephen Harper made light of a potentially fatal security breach Monday at a Vancouver Board of Trade meeting when a couple of eco-zealots got within stabbing distance of the prime minister.
“It wouldn’t be B.C. without it,” Harper quipped to laughter from the crowd largely made up of business people.
But there is nothing funny about the anti-oil protest of Sean Devlin and Shireen Soofi — just the latest in a long line of self-important, self-aggrandizing protesters B.C. is notorious for. They make us the laughing stock in the rest of the country and increasingly British Columbians have grown sick of them too.
A few facts: B.C. voters re-elected Premier Christy Clark and her pro-business, pro-oil-and-gas agenda despite her and her party’s many other foibles. After months of hearings, including listening to the concerns of environmentalists, a federal joint review panel recommended last month that Ottawa approve the Northern Gateway project, subject to conditions, noting that building the pipeline “would be in the public interest.”
People have a right to protest in Canada, of course, but too often B.C.’s particular brand of professional protesters take it too far with frightening acts like barging on stage with the prime minister. In other nations, they wouldn’t be arrested, briefly questioned and released; they’d be in jail for weeks.
Most Canadians, who rely on fossil fuels to survive, understand the need for pipelines, they get how selling it abroad is in the national interest, and they are growing tired of the theatrics of protesters making silly claims of global doom. We live in a democracy where, thankfully, elected leaders, not twits with signs, make the decisions. Protesters like Devlin and Soofi need to grow up.

Response to the editorial not printed by "The Province". The election results appear to prove "The Province" wrong when the editors claim that "Most Canadians...are growing tired of the theatrics of...silly claims of global doom."

Your opinion piece “protesters’ theatrics are becoming tiresome” states clearly that ‘most Canadians’ are included in the group that feel the way you do. I would suggest you are wrong. And again your statement “making silly claims of global doom” is –at best- irrational given the wealth of information to the contrary available to you and your paper. It is telling that you name the protesters “twits” when you put them in the same photo as prime minister Harper. Mr. Harper whose government has gutted almost all reasonable environmental laws and policies dealing with rising greenhouse emissions, pollution problems and climate change. It is precisely because of this government that we need protests such as this. When you speak of a province re-electing “Christy Clark and her pro-business agenda”, you need to go back to the election results and admit that the ‘Liberals’ only beat the NDP party by a 5% margin. Had the NDP actually been a party that showed some semblance of strength the results would have been vastly different. And yes, jobs are important. But let’s not base everything in life on an economic model. In case you have forgotten people move here in droves for the quality of life. Let’s make sure we maintain that quality of life.

Oh, and to suggest that an environmental protest is the equivalent of a “life threatening security breach” is theatrics of your own making. Let’s not mistake free speech for danger. Instead, thank the protesters for showing the Prime Minister’s security people their weakness. I realize that you are a tabloid, but if you really need to opine in a strongly stated negative way, give the security detail a slap on the wrist. They were being paid to do something which they obviously failed to do.

Peter van der Velden

Tsawwassen

Another lettter to Port Metro Vancouver

In response to Mr. Cliff Stewart, Vice President Infrastructure, Port Metro Vancouver: "Interest by investors demonstrates need for T2". This article appeared in the Delta Optimist May 6, 2015. 

The bulk of Mr. Stewarts comments in this article are of an economic nature. This is quite appropriate as a response to the (economically perceived ) “need” for Port Metro’s terminal 2 project. However, as an argument for desire for Terminal 2 it fails badly. Sadly Mr. Stewart, whose bias is one of port infrastructure, cannot speak to the major community  argument against the project; how it affects the environment.

What Mr. Stewart calls the “most stringent process by an independent review panel” has been questioned at every turn by the community and a number of very well informed professionals. So far the public input meetings for this environmental  review have been little more than a public relations exercise that Port Metro is legislated to undertake. Port Metro has steadfastly refused to deal with the larger picture of environmental concerns caused by all of its undertakings.

Delta will be affected by larger ships going further up the Fraser when the bridge is built. This will require dredging the channel further eroding the delta’s natural habitat. These ships will bring more truck traffic on top of the increase from Terminal 2 causing more pollution. These ships have not been required to use shore power. American ports are far ahead of Port Metro in this. Not only does diesel power cause more pollution, it means older, poorly outfitted ships that can’t be used in ports like Los Angeles will be docking here. As a result, we have more pollution.  Lastly, more Industrial land will be required off the South Fraser Perimeter road. Farmland prices are already under pressure due to the speculative purchasing of land for future Industrial use. Where and when will this stop? I haven’t even broached the issues of shipping LNG gas from Tilbury or the increase of soft coal export from the Fraser Surrey Docks.

What Mr. Stewart hasn’t touched on is that Port Metro, as a Federal Crown Corporation has a very large investor; the Canadian public. Port Metro has a vision; “inspiring support from our customers and from communities locally and across the nation” and a mission statement:  “To lead the growth of Canada’s Pacific Gateway in a manner that enhances the well-being of Canadians and inspires national pride”.

If the community were polled about Port Metro’s various undertakings on the Fraser the response would be very interesting. I very much doubt that “inspiring support and…national pride” or “enhancing the well-being of Canadians” would ring true for anyone in Delta.

Should Port Metro really want to live up to its mission statement or achieve its vision it will need to prove that the community feels the “need for T2”, not just investors.

Response to Stephen Rees

I agree with you that government by referendum is less than satisfactory. Six years in California has tainted my view on that. Having said that, I believe that if this is the ‘Public Consultation’ that Translink is supposed to undertake our erstwhile premier has a lot to learn. The largest problem with Translink is the hands-on, hands-off policy Victoria seems to be obsessed with. When you say Translink I think Victoria. If the two aren’t joined at the hip why would the board fire the CEO while the ink is still wet on his bonus cheque? Thank you Mr. Stone. Sadly Christie Clark will interpret the vote any way she wants. And continue to give us balanced budgets while leaving our schools unsafe, our medical waits the longest in Canada and off-loading as many bridges, etc. as possible. I guess the Victoria consensus is  that’s most people are buying the balanced budget part and accepting of the rest.

Essentially that is how I see the referendum: A thinly veiled attempt at mollifying the public with a seemingly moderate .5% sales tax increase. The real question is where will it stop? Will we be asked to pay for hospitals and schools next? Historically public transport and infrastructure are paid through income tax because it is the fairest form of taxation.   Again, here is a government bent on presenting a “balanced budget”. I find it really disconcerting that various municipalities are spending their money on pushing this agenda because it happens to serve their municipality. We are told that it is good for the economy and the environment and the “Yes” vote has bought into that. Really? This is just spin, these are not the issues, these are by-products . The real issue is, as you say ‘more transit’.  I would say more effective transit. If we are talking about the economics, we should be talking about the economics of our transit. And in this case that means Translink.

The link you sent is at odds with the information that I have; http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/OCG/ias/pdf_Docs/transportation_governance.pdf

http://www.caw111.com/TranslinkEfficiencyReview-Mar2012.pdf

in a lot of ways. The first document talks about Translink debt tripling from 2005 to 2009 while ridership went down. Administrative costs rose 100% from 2002-2008 while ridership costs rose 40%. Administration costs are the second highest of its peers. The second document states that Coast MountainBC costs are higher than most Canadian peers. Certainly operating costs are substantially higher than systems in Calgary, Edmonton, Victoria and Toronto. According to data from CUTA (Canadian urban transit association) cost efficiency is second lowest for this peer group and cost effectiveness the lowest. In terms of revenue passengers per kilometer Translink is the lowest in the group. All of this while the average fare costs are the highest of the group. Do these numbers speak of an efficient system?

The saddest statistic is that Translink attracts fewer riders per unit of service than any other system. How is it possible that this is not a threshold point for the CEO bonus? If Translink cannot improve that portion of its income it will always keep coming back for more money.

With the comment that 14 sick days were taken by employee per year I meant to show that Translink management and management/union relations are hardly exemplary.

I agree that the dialogue has slipped into little more than a yelling match. It is interesting that you see this as an American phenomenon. Having lived in 5 provinces in this fine country I find this a BC approach that seems to be perfected in Victoria. Give the people something to get polarized around and you can justify any decision. Really the divide and conquer approach. I lived in a resource community when Glen Clark said “we have a war in the woods”. And yes, we had a war in the woods. The very next day the community was split on two sides of the highway, doing the same thing the YES and NO sides are doing. Christie Clark is going to have a field day no matter what the outcome of the vote.

The reason I will be voting NO is not because South Delta service is decreasing with the increase in taxes. It will be because I have no faith in an organization that mixes operating costs with capital costs and gets away with it. We are, essentially, stock holders, and I want to see a lean organization that is not saddled with money losing bridges (3). Nor do I think it is reasonable to ask us to pay additional taxes for the debt incurred by the political decision of the Canada line.

Until these issues are settled I have no desire to throw good money after bad. The scare mongering tactic of telling us this is the “last kick at the can” is just that; a tactic. Let our elected politicians show some leadership and offer us something more than this parochial diatribe. Our urban development needs to be planned by people that have no political agenda or affiliation. Unless I can be shown that this is the case I am not convinced that this ‘coming back to the trough’ won’t be an endless drain on the middleclass.

CEO Ian Jarvis fired

On Wednesday, Feb 11,  CEO Ian Jarvis ‘stepped down’ from his position at Translink. The Translink board stated that they were looking to make a change in management due to “a lack in public confidence”. A “hastily assembled” press conference announced that Mr. Jarvis will be replaced and retained (as consultant) through his 2016 contract with full pay. Since that day it has become clear that Mr. Jarvis was fired.  Surely the board has to understand that this move can only hurt the “Yes” vote?

The interesting point behind this move is that this happens when the “Yes” vote seems to be weakening. The ink on an $83,000 bonus cheque for Mr. Jarvis for 2015 may still be wet. So why, within two months of being rewarded so generously is he being removed? Is this pressure from BC Transportation Minister Todd Stone who felt a “change was needed at the top”? Or is the board finally waking up to the fact that they are managing the disaster that is Translink?

As the “No” campaign and many others are suggesting, this is the time to put a stop to the referendum. What really needs to be done is a complete overhaul of Translink, its management and board and its priorities. Only when the public can see what plans are in place for Translink, with the appropriate costing and management can ANY decisions be made about finance.

Transparency is the second major issue in this debate. Victoria and Translink have clouded the financial requirements for transit in many ways. One of which is mixing capital and operating costs. It is reasonable to assume that operating costs need to be largely funded through transit fares and existing taxation (gas tax, property tax, parking tax and BC Hydro levies). This is mostly the norm in all cities with transit installations. It is unreasonable to burden these costs with capital costs. Especially those incurred with past installations such as the Canada line (which was a political decision) or replacement or subsidy of the bridges that Translink is saddled with. It truly is mismanagement of public funds when we are asked to pay to build a bridge and then have to pay to cross the bridge.

Hopefully the latest move to shake up Translink will continue to weaken the “Yes” vote. It is time that the referendum itself be reviewed for its validity. Victoria has floated the referendum out there and has stepped back to let the Majors take the flack. This shows Premier Christie Clark knows the outfall of this will be significant and not at all positive. Maybe it’s time that people recognize that this debate is really about good planning and reasonable expectations. It is not about more funding for another poorly managed government entity.

 

More on the "Yes", well, maybe No vote for Translink

The issues around the additional sales tax referendum are very indicative of all that fails in the current Provincial Government approach. Responsibility is passed on and hidden in a jurisdictional swirl that leaves us in the dark about costs and responsibility.  Why, for instance does the Metro transit system own bridges? Is it because they need to be rebuilt (Patulla, Westham Island) or are losing money (Golden Ears) and Victoria does not want to pay for these costs? This is just more off-loading of tax responsibilities which we are now being asked to pay for through a tax to “relieve congestion”.

The government is asking us to pay additional taxes not for the “operation” of Translink, but for additional infrastructure. Translink is unusual in that the operating and capital budgets are combined, obfuscating the issue even further. Historically infrastructure is put in place only with “meaningful stakeholder participation” so that the government can make appropriate plans and know what the costs will be. This cost is generally born by the government and paid out through the fairest tax distribution; income tax. This infrastructure is considered necessary for quality of life, fair access to housing and work and a buoyant economy.

Operational costs are dealt with in a less straight forward manner. Translink gets two thirds of their budget from taxes that are born equally by people of all levels of income. Arguably due to inefficiencies, only one third of Translink income comes from fares (down from 55% in 2009). Hence the dilemma. Victoria is asking us to voluntarily put in additional money for costs usually born by the government. We can only assume that this is to make their budget look better. However, it comes down to this; we are asked to pay more and get less. To add insult to injury, these costs cover a system that appears to be poorly managed (just look at the ticketing issues), with compensation exceeding the norm. CEO Ian Jarvis was paid an increase in base pay of almost $80,000 from 2008-2009. As well he gets a possible 40% annual bonus. With Translink “performance level to four peer Canadian transit systems …deteriorating”, it is difficult to see how this is justified.

Sadly the additional revenue raised by the tax will not make the system more efficient. Translink needs to be more effective to be more self-sufficient! The worst part of this is that this does not fulfill any criteria of good planning. Does it make sense that Victoria is not willing to subsidize a transit system, but will subsidize a $3 Billion (estimated) bridge over the Fraser? While cutting bus service to the same area? The transit system is positive planning in that it takes cars off the road. The bridge will only put more cars on the road and add to the urban sprawl.  The associated costs to serve the sprawl, of course, are born by the municipality serving the area. Not to mention the negative effects on the ecology and quality of life.

This leaves us with the issue of planning. All issues of transit, roads and bridges need to be planned by a non-partisan planning group. This means people trained in urban planning and not bound by political ideology. The plan needs to be holistic in its outlook, covering all aspects of transportation needs relative to growth and urban needs. Such a transparent planning process would be reasonable for the government to put to a vote. That way, healthy and appropriate decisions can be made about how costs should be born and how a Metropolitan area can grow.

In the meantime be prepared for more GRRRRidlock.

Why to vote "no" on Translink tax referendum

This is in response to a letter by Lory Mayhew in the January 21 Optimist “transit solution is right in front of MLA”.

It is interesting to note that Ms. Mayhew correctly states that we are seeing bus service cuts. She sees the solution as a ‘yes’  vote for the upcoming transit referendum which would see sales tax increase by .5% and Translink revenue increase by and estimated $250 million. I would suggest that Ms. Mayhew is wrong in this assertion.

What she fails to show is that this $250 million is unlikely to increase or improve bus service to this area. Especially once the proposed bridge is built. In a 2012 audit by the Ministry of Finance it clearly states that routes that do not pass certain financial criteria are to be discontinued. This goes against the mandate of a Metropolitan transit service. The transit system is meant to subsidize more expensive routes to outlying areas such as Delta with the more profitable central routes.

There are a number of parts to the argument. One is the outlay of capitol costs for new routes, etc. These have historically been born by government in order to improve quality of life and access to labour markets. This cost appears to be lost in the general costing of Translink and is being passed down from the Provincial government. Another issue is the fact that costing in general has been handed down from the Provincial government. Translink revenues from the Province have been decreased 12% which in 2012 amounted to a loss of $150 million dollars. In the meantime legislation already enables Translink to increase property tax revenues by 3% annually. This is not to mention a $.17 per liter gas tax that presents 24% of Translink revenues or approximately $311 million dollars. As well there is the parking rights tax and a transit levy tax on your Hydro bill. It is little wonder that people are a fed up with the tax increases. Translink will be spending about $4 million of these tax dollars to try and persuade people to agree to this latest tax increase.

Ms. Mayhew fails to discuss that fares only account for 33% of the total of revenue. As long as the transit system fails to garner more ridership by being more effective and less wasteful an increase in taxes will only encourage more waste and less service. 

Let’s not forget that pay raises of the management have been almost three times the norm and the CEO of Translink, Ian Jarvis, is paid more than his counterparts in Toronto and Seattle. Both cities are not only larger, they have far more effective transit services. How successful has Mr. Jarvis been in dealing with the ticketing problem and subsequent loss of revenue? Why is our Translink security armed with weapons when other jurisdictions arm their people with pepper spray and batons? Why does the public not have access to financial information on the Canada line? This was a PPP undertaking and the Provincial government refuses to release this information.  The argument is that due to being a (partial) private undertaking release of financial information cannot be made public.

As long as these questions remain unanswered and the Provincial Government is less than forthcoming additional taxes should be refused. What really needs to be done is a review of both the board and management of Translink. Benchmarks for income should be based on improvement of services and income generated. Oh, and fix the Passport ticketing system. $194 Million and it is still not functioning? Heads really should roll.