Premier Christy Clark’s commitment to a referendum on any new funding tools for TransLink may open the door, however unexpectedly, to a new avenue for co-operation between business and labour.
That’s what it will take to convince Metro Vancouver voters that a new investment program for transit and good movements will have a big enough impact on their daily lives – the travel time, the cost of commuting and the quality of service – to warrant new funding.
It took only hours this month for Transportation Minister Todd Stone to confirm, over the post-election protests of Metro Vancouver mayors, that there will be a referendum next year on any new transit funding.
That means those who support more public transit investment – and that includes just about everyone – has about 500 days to work out a winning formula and win the vote.
Lose that vote and the region will face many more years of gridlock and deteriorating infrastructure.
Win the vote and we’ll be able to tackle congestion, cut commute times, reduce transit overcrowding and eliminate bottlenecks in goods movement.
Who would vote against that? No one.
But if the ballot question is purely about new taxes, voters may think about the HST. We all know how that turned out.
That’s why the very broad coalition of groups who support transit investment, from the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Urban Development Institute through to community organizations and transit unions, should start thinking about how they can work together.
Premier Clark’s election victory was built on commitment to a strong economy and new jobs, not greenhouse gas reductions and transit mode shifts.
TransLink’s plans for the coming 15 years need to be clarified, prioritized and reduced to basic issues, with the economy front and centre. How will TransLink’s proposed investments reduce my commute? Will I have better transportation and transit options? Will I be able to manage my travel choices to reduce costs?
Those are the pocketbook questions that will motivate front-line workers in food service, health care, hospitality and other lower wage sectors to consider funding mechanisms that pay off in cheaper travel costs and better quality of life.
Many such workers are already commuting long distances to find more affordable housing. Reducing commuting costs boosts their disposable income without a salary increase.
At the same time, the broader economic benefits need to be driven home. That’s a logical job for the business side of this pro-transit coalition.
A KPMG study earlier this year, prepared for UBC and the City of Vancouver, found that the Broadway corridor is North America’s busiest bus corridor and, after the downtown core, has B.C.’s second largest concentration of jobs and employment.
But growth is occurring even faster than anticipated by Metro’s regional growth strategy, and commuters are being passed by loaded buses at the rate of 500,000 a year.
Between UBC and the health-care institutions along the corridor, the province is reaping billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs from research and development along Broadway.
We need to hear from leading business organizations what they believe the direct and indirect economic benefits would be in jobs and investment, not just in Vancouver but right across the region.
Unlike the HST, which was sprung upon an unsuspecting electorate by a government faced with an immediate financial crunch, transit funding has been on the public agenda for more than 15 years. This debate is not a surprise.
Nor is TransLink, despite the criticism it endures, the butt of public contempt. Its performance during the 2010 Winter Olympic Games ensured that.
People want the benefits that common-sense transit investments can bring. This referendum should be winnable; in any case, we can’t afford to lose. •
