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.

 

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.