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.

 

The Banker

Just a little light Bill Nighy humour to end the year.

The ongoing debate over Port Expansion

Well, I spent two hours of my time yesterday at the ‘small’ meeting for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Expansion Project. Thirty or so community people showed up including professionals, ready to debate the information presented by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (doing business as Port Metro Vancouver, PMV). Needless to say it was not a debate. The well presented glossy booklets held little new information since the previous presentations. It was clearly obvious that no public input has been seriously considered. The information is really a one way stream of polished Public Relations. Nothing more than Blah, Blah, Blah.

This Federal Crown Corporation will not govern the tenants that are in place within their jurisdiction. This was made clear when Fraser Surrey Docks refused to pay an environmental fine to the Vancouver Metro Board. Notwithstanding their argument that they are governed by laws, there is obviously no body that will govern, or preside over, PMV or their tenants.

You will find the following on their website:

Our Mission

To lead the growth of Canada’s Pacific Gateway in a manner that enhances the well-being of Canadians and inspires national pride.

 Our Vision

To be recognized as a world class Gateway by efficiently and sustainably connecting Canada with the global economy, inspiring support from our customers and from communities locally and across the nation. 

After yesterdays presentation I would ask three questions of PMV;

·        How can you possibly claim to “enhance the well-being of Canadians” if you are not interested or willing to address the major concerns expressed in this process?

·        How can you possibly claim to be “world class” or “sustainable” when your time line for shore power is “sometime over the next ten years.”

·        How can you possibly “inspire support..from communities”, or attain your claimed “transparency” when your process is really nothing more than a mandated PR forum?

A lot of specific questions were raised at this meeting. Nothing more was offered than a repetition of the information in your glossy pamphlet. The issue of shore power alone should be settled before any expansion is considered. If you were really interested in being a “world class Gateway” you would handle shore power the way it has been handled in Long Beach, CA. In 2014 50% of the fleet calls must use shore power. By 2020 this will rise to 80%. You have enough data on complaints from local residents to convince you this issue needs to be handled and yet you remain cavalier about your approach.

Port Metro you need to do better than this! Show us some level of responsibility. You owe it to the residents of Delta to be the corporate citizen you claim to be.

Income in the year 2014

Recently CBC news carried an article that spoke of wages being paid today relative to the past. The article stated that todays minimum wage earners are making as much as people did in 1975. This is not surprising as the shift to non-union jobs has been evident. If unions are not present to set wage standards, wages take a beating. Sadly most non-union workers are not aware that unions and union wages drive wage settings for the non-union workers.

It is our various Provincial and Federal Governments that have failed us at this level. In the drive to be "competitive" and to have "Free markets" and "Free Trading Agreements" our wages and benefits have taken a backseat. Yes, we need more open trade, but at what cost? And what does this do to our ability to be self-standing and to support our local economy? We also need to remember that when our dollar is weak we sell our resources at less than their true value. When our dollar was strong against the American dollar our exporters cried foul. They claimed their markets were decreasing and at peril. Whatever happened to the notion that during good times (when our dollar is weaker than the US $) manufacturers retooled in order to be competitive during bad times? Sadly all these notions have fallen prey to the idea that profit margins be maximized at all times. Just look at Corporate profits since the bank crash of 2008. While claiming poor market conditions were the cause of lay-offs and wage cut-backs, corporate profits have been at an all-time high.

Here in BC, the government has yet again failed in their negotiations with the teachers union. To some degree they have public support in that a lot of folk envy teachers and their summer holidays. What they are not aware of is the time teachers put in during the school year. But mostly the sad part is that BC teachers rank amongst the most poorly paid teachers in Canada! And they are the only people that stand between your kids and a promising future. Is this what good governance is all about, saving money at all costs?

The $3 Billion hoodwink.

The Provincial Government asked the public for input on replacement of the Massey Tunnel. The result of this consultation and final report is an eight lane bridge. The value of this bridge is marginalized by manipulation of the public input. The real reason for the choice of a bridge appears to be dictated by Port Metro Vancouver’s need to get bigger ships up the Fraser River.

 A number of options were presented to the public. Several of these options were presented so that it was almost a given what would be chosen.

One of those options was the retention of the tunnel. As presented this option had no additional means of obtaining the desired results to “support objectives for regional people movement”, to “relieve congestion” or to “improve safety”. As a result, retaining the tunnel was not heavily supported by the public. This is not a surprise as this is exactly what the process was meant to do; pave the way for the removal of the tunnel.

This tunnel will be useful for many more years, a point proven by a similar tunnel in Rotterdam (the Netherlands). So why dismantle it? If we add the additional tunnel or bridge components necessary for public transport to take traffic off the road, the tunnel will remain effective.  This will cost a fraction of the current proposal and will better achieve the desired goals set out by both Government and the public.

The second option to have the bridge “placed in a different location” was equally set up to fail. The new location merely rerouted traffic back to Highway 99 and the Oak Street corridor. This option served neither of the two objectives to “relieve congestion” nor to apply “a visionary long term solution”.

The report allows that “most of the traffic through the tunnel goes to Richmond”. What the numbers fail to factor in is the growth from border traffic and from the “Urban Sprawl” that will be created by a large bridge. Building the bridge will encourage residential and industrial development South of the Fraser. This will put more traffic on the road, not less.  This development will also put more pressure on our dwindling farmlands. With less farmland we will need more produce shipped in, putting more trucks on the road. The dismantling of the tunnel will allow more shipping through,  creating more truck traffic. All of this will only add to the “people movement” problem.

This means that this bridge will soon create a need for an additional traffic corridor to deal with this future growth. Therefore, this bridge is not a “visionary long term solution”. A long term solution can not be reached by putting more cars on the road and adding traffic to the Oak Street corridor. If a bridge is chosen, it should be smaller, augment the tunnel, be placed in a different location and handle public transportation. This would be far more economical, effective and “visionary”.

More importantly, building the bridge where the tunnel is will turn this major traffic corridor into a nightmare for a period of 3-5 years (judging by the Alex Fraser Bridge and the #1 highway upgrades). This will not only affect Delta residents. It will affect South Surrey residents, tourism, ferry traffic and truck and commercial traffic. For some strange reason this does not appear to be a major consideration.

The less discussed and more contentious issue to BC residents is the expansion of the Federal entity, Port Metro, and its need to remove the tunnel to allow larger ships up the Fraser. At the public consultation sessions no mention was made of the issue to “support trade and commerce”. These consultations were strictly focused on traffic logistics and infrastructure. How then did ‘transportation alternatives’ get rated lower than ‘Economic Growth’ in the final report?

Certainly ‘Economic growth’ is important. However, if the desire to remove the tunnel and build a bridge is strictly for the benefit of Port Metro, then why are we paying the cost? Port Metro’s requirements should not be confused with the issue of transportation infrastructure.

At $3 billion the cost of this undertaking is a serious issue.  This amount of money could be spent more effectively to serve the “objectives for regional people movement”.  And, this price is being given to you by the same people who missed the South Fraser Perimeter Road budget by more than 100%. How much will this project really cost?

Lastly, a Media Freedom of Information request for the “business case for replacing the Massey Tunnel” turned up a 14 page response that is “almost entirely whited out” due among other things to “disclosures harmful to the financial interests of public bodies”.

With this amount of money going into the project, it is doubtful that any money will be available to deal with the real issues to “support objectives for regional people movement” or to “relieve congestion”. That cost will be handed down to you in a separate tax on top of the cost for this project. All of BC will pay if this project is allowed to go ahead. Not just those who took their time to respond to this issue.

Peter van der Velden

Facilities Management Consultant

Tsawwassen

August 6, 2014

 

The following is a link to the virtual bridge created and paid for by the BC Provincial Government

 

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO5qu9HDJHM)

 

 

Port Metro Vancouver and their responsibilities

Well, here we go again. Port Metro is back in the news. And the news is not good.

Port Metro, as you probably know, has been trying to establish that it is a responsible Corporate citizen Environmentally. In the past several years it has undertaken a number of Environmental initiatives to "Bank" environmental points. These points can then be used when undertaking environmentally questionable efforts like the Terminal 2 expansion for Delta.

This is all encouraged under Canada's "Responsible Resource Development" action plan which supposedly "Strengthens Environmental Protection" as one of its four key themes.

Those are the theories. The reality is that Port Metro as a Federal Crown Corporation sits between the Prime Minister and the Queen in terms of regulatory determination and can (and DOES) pretty much what it wants. The latest news really only goes to emphasize how they see themselves relative to local regulators and their Corporate/environmental responsibilities.

Metro Vancouver issued a $1000 fine to the Fraser Surrey Docks for "discharging an air contaminant during port operations". The response to this fine was not an apology and payment as you might expect a responsible Corporate entity to make. Instead, the response of Fraser Scott, CEO of Fraser Surrey Docks was a letter to Metro that stated they would dispute the charge because it did not believe the Regional District had the authority to issue such a fine.

This brings up some interesting questions:

If the Regional District does not have the authority, who does?
What is Fraser Surrey Docks really interested in here? Are they trying to skirt their environmental  responsibility or are they just letting the local governing body know how powerful they really are.

The truly sad part here is that this was a blast of Soy Dust. Fraser Surrey Docks are proposing to handle over 8 Million tons of American Thermal Coal for shipment to China annually. If they can't be responsible for the handling of Soy can we trust them to be responsible for the Highly Toxic Coal dust?

How does this fit under "Responsible Resource Development"; better yet, how does it "Strengthen Environmental Protection." And lastly; why would a Federal entity want to question a local Municipal Authority on an issue so central to its existence: Corporate Responsibility?

If our regulatory bodies are allowed to fail at this level how can we possibly protect ourselves?