"In my view, TransLink should respect the discipline of the planning regime set forth in the [South Coast BC Transportation Authority Act s207], which requires that TransLink use its best efforts to implement the official plan in place."
Martin Crillly, Jan. 11
I am still optimistically hoping for political accountability and integrity as discussed last week. In that vein, here are the bare bones of a story about accelerating issues at TransLink.
If you are counting along from my last column, this is: Provincial #3/Regional #1.
The "official plan" referred to above by Regional Transportation Commissioner Martin Crilly is this year's version of the "three-year base plan and seven-year outlook report TransLink is required to prepare every year under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act."
Addressing the need for the agency to carry out its mandate, District of North Vancouver Mayor Richard Walton, chairman of the regional mayors' council, told Global TV last Wednesday, "TransLink cannot provide the services if it doesn't have the money."
Fair enough. Problem is taxpayers have been burned once too often.
To alleviate what TransLink refers to as a funding problem, one of the latest proposals from the mayors is to replace the rejected vehicle levy and property-tax ideas with a 0.5 per cent hike in the provincial sales tax.
That begs these questions:
? Why does TransLink look everywhere but in the mirror to find the source of its financial problems?
? Why not modernize its technology choices to save the millions of dollars needed to fund its operation?
? What corporate and political interests have influenced the agency's intransigence over the past 15 years?
The answers sit at the feet of the provincial government, because by taking a hands-off stance in anything but TransLink's governance structure and capital projects, Victoria exerts a direct and detrimental effect on the agency's ability to manage its budget.
That began when former NDP premier Glen Clark refused to fill the two provincial seats he allowed for when he established the founding board of TransLink and it continues to this day.
Recognizing that accountability-avoidance tactic for what it is, many taxpayers argue that ongoing provincial governments are entirely responsible for the dysfunctional operational reality of the agency.
That said, it's to their detriment that TransLink and its guiding boards, committees and councils have never sought the backing of the people in a demand that the province become a full - and transparent - participant in the governance structure.
So while the province pulls the strings as to the choice of rapid transit routes, transit technology, constructors and deadlines, a variety of appointed executives and elected politicians are left to clean up what remains of the budget to fund operational costs and service the accumulated debt. How many tax dollars have been spent since 1998 to support all those boards, committees and consultants' reviews?
That takes us back to the Report Card on TransLink's Efficiency, officially released to the public on Feb. 1, 2013 by Commissioner Crilly.
The Report Card, is backed by a 37-page (Shirocca) consultant's report entitled Progress Report on TransLink Efficiency Review. Readers can find it under What's New at translinkcommission.org.
Noting TransLink's decision to "budget rather conservatively to the tune of some $40 million per year," Crilly explains that is quite different than "cost efficiency."
Mixing metaphors, what the comment suggests to this laywoman is that TransLink can budget expenditures as low as it chooses to paint a nice picture, but that means nothing if the organization is unable to cut its cloth accordingly.
So while efficiencies
can, indeed, be achieved by optimizing bus routes and transit schedules and by reducing the need for buses to run empty, there is still no discussion about the costs of the elephant in TransLink's room: SkyTrain.
Following an earlier column, a young Surrey resident whose opinion is at odds with the call for light-rail by Mayor Diane Watts, upbraided me for my ongoing opposition to SkyTrain technology.
I make no apologies for that. No one connected with TransLink has ever contradicted my comments about the comparative costs of SkyTrain versus the alternatives - with or without supporting documentation.
Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone disputed similar data in TransLink's own documents - 2001 information received by Peter Boothroyd, a former professor with the Centre for Human Settlements at the University of British Columbia, in response to his requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
More recently, UBC professor Patrick Condon, who in the past may have leaned toward SkyTrain, wrote in his May 2009 Foundational Research Bulletin #8 ". . . we found that for the (costs of the Canada Line) the government could finance a 200-kilometre modern tram network that would place 80 per cent of residents in Surrey, White Rock, Langley and the Scott Road district of Delta within a 10-minute walk of a modern, European-style tram."
After doing some digging, I have discovered it would be possible to have an arms-length transportation consultant produce a comparative-costs report - including mention of the North Shore - for around $6,000.
So to all three councils: Would it be a worthwhile investment to pay $2,000 each for a report that, among other things, would tell North Shore residents whether they are better off continuing to support the increasing costs of an as-is version of TransLink, or whether they would receive more value for their transit dollars by going-it alone?
In the meantime, have a happy Valentine's Day tomorrow!
[email protected] Footnote: Links to cited reports can be requested by email to: rimco@ shaw.ca.
