Post 59—The Metro Vancouver Translink Plebiscite

Pete McMartin of VS was really upset when the citizens of Metro Vancouver rejected a slight additional tax to pay for Translink expansion (July 4, 2015).  He wrote a scathing column, using such strong language that a few days later the paper published an editorial openly disagreeing with their man (July 9, 2015).  Well, yes, they can’t afford to overly insult their readers as if they are bird brains. This is how McMartin describes his neighbours:

They’re resistant to change. They abhor densification. They’re conventional in their sensibilities and they’re highly dependent on the automobile. More importantly, they’re not just dependent on the automobile, they prefer it.

I would love to quote him for the rest of this post, but it might be illegal? So, a summary of his vitriolics has to do it for us. 

The excuse many use for not taking transit is that they would if it were near and more convenient. That, he charges, is an outright lie. He daily commutes by bus in less time than it takes a car, but the bus is seldom more than a quarter full. They voted “no” about a system they have never used and have no idea how well it works, whether good or bad. It does not occur to them that the system reduces the pressure on the road and thus those still driving also benefit from the subsidy. They reject a mere .5% tax hike subsidy for Translink, but think nothing of the subsidy of billions spent on roads and bridges that are forever inadequate and clogged. 

Though Vancouverites tend to see themselves as a special breed in a world-class city, McMartin finds that “we’re nothing special.” Our city “is like a hundred other cities. We can’t see past the ends of our driveways, much less into the future, and we don’t want to. The No side didn’t win the plebiscite. The car did.”

The subsequent editorial denied McMartin’s negatives and  insisted that the negative vote was the result of public mistrust of the Translink administration. Furthermore, while the No vote rejected the extra subsidy, it is already having a positive effect in that a movement has been created towards better and more efficient governance of Translink, including the firing of some of its top executives.  The Sun editorial supports the idea of moving the service from the Province back to Metro authorities, where it was a few years earlier, but snatched away by the Province.

Deep in my heart, I largely agree with McMartin, but he expressed himself too offensively for most people. I confess to enjoying his vitriolic. It is largely right on, not because people are ignorant so much as selfish, which leads to contradictions. 

I also largely agree with much of the editorial, but find that their its solution is superficial.  Some years ago, the provincial government took the service out of the hands of Metro authorities, who number over 20, each with its own agenda. It was difficult to move forward with so many strong-willed politicians at the table. To now return Translink back to these same authorities would be to set the clock back and restore the former blockage.

I believe that the basic solution is to amalgamate all these 20+ jurisdictions into one as, I understand, was done in Toronto.  The current makeup of Lower Mainland jurisdictions is nothing but ridiculous, absurd. It serves as a model for how not to organize local government. As long as we are so ridiculously fractured, it is unlikely that the Translink problems will be solved. 

Do I have any hope for this direction? Unfortunately, not at this point in time. Such a move  needs a popular movement to push it forward, something of which I see no sign at the moment. But surely, if we have been smart enough to organize our current Metro setup, we are also smart enough to realize that developments have overtaken that model and rendered it obsolete. Every progressive movement eventually spends itself and needs to be replaced by something more relevant to the succeeding newly developed contemporary situation. 

In closing, I do want it understood that it is not the current Translink mess that has brought me to this conclusion.  Behind this long-standing opinion is my rejection of  this selfish politics on the part of politicians, which is, I believe, the basic reason this clumsy system continues to exist. So, now we have to go back even one more step—overcome selfishness and personal or local ambition at the expense of the larger community. Remember the title of this blog: “My World—My Neighbour.”  We’re back to basic Christianity that’s open to the world and to the concerns of others—your neighbours.