Metro Vancouver Transit Referendum: How should I vote?
Introduction
Vancouver’s transit company, TransLink, is seeking to raise over $250M in order to fund a series of new projects aimed at reducing congestion in the city. To fund this, citizens of Metro Vancouver would see a 0.5% sales tax (the “Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax”) added to the current provincial sales tax. The proposed projects include adding 5 new B-Line rapid bus routes and building a Broadway Subway from VCC-Clark to Arbutus. They also aim to improve the service and stations along the Canada, Expo, and Millennium Lines, and to increase SeaBus service by 50% and NightBus service by 80%. Finally, they seek to extend cycling and pedestrian paths, build a new Patullo bridge, and build rapid transit connecting Surrey with various other surrounding communities.
Some challenges we faced included finding non-biased or at least fair sources; both sides of the debate seemed to cherry pick data to support their views, focusing on narrow aspects of a complex issue. We also tried to select articles that had no ad hominem attacks, which we took to be a sign of poor journalistic practice.
There are several things not mentioned in our five articles that deserve consideration. First off, decreased congestion would mean lower wait times for emergency services, potentially saving lives. Second, the bulk of the “no” votes that have already come in are from Surrey, which one source suggested was because the Surrey mayor has promised a light rail system by 2018 regardless of the result of the referendum. Finally, a 2012 efficiency review of TransLink by Shirocca Consulting found that “[TransLink] is well run and manages its costs”, but mentioned that “internal trends reflect increasing costs and declining productivity in both labour and equipment utilization as well as high overhead [expenditure].” The report went on to suggest that TransLink “should tighten budgets and encourage fiscal tension and discipline in how it delivers its services.”
This article by CBC lays out the facts of the transit referendum and compares Translink to other transit systems across North America. It turns out that Translink ranks very well in terms of economical stats for subsidy per passenger journey and subsidy per passenger kilometer. These stats along with fare box recovery ratio are indicative that Translink is quite efficient, contrary to the CTF’s opinion that Translink is “one of the most wasteful government agencies in the country.” However, Translink does have a relatively high executive pay rate. This article, coming from CBC is decidedly trustworthy and unbiased.
This article presents the facts of the transit referendum as well as argues in favor of a Yes vote. They make the point that despite referendums in general not being effective, Vancouver needs an overhaul in transit. Interestingly they mirror the mantra of the ad-boosted campaign by the City of Vancouver that Vancouver will not be livable at the rate at which it’s expanding without a serious overhaul in the way people can get around. The article also shows that the transit referendum will benefit those in low income situations and appeals to the more socialist side of the population. The article presents opinions and facts from the Georgia Straight which is one of Vancouver’s main news publications and is therefore likely a trustworthy source.
In this article, Translink discusses the predicted increase in population in the city of Vancouver. Due to this increase, there must be changes to keep the city functional. It also lays out the projects proposed in the referendum. They outline the repercussions that will result if nothing is done to adjust for this change. TransLink proposes a sales tax increase so that the cost is evenly spread across the economy. This source is biased, however, because it is from the very company that is proposing the tax.
This report discusses the inefficiency in the collection of transit bus fare. This puts an emphasis on the large amount of lost funds that TransLink could be acquiring, if it more strictly enforced fare payment. This shows that the honesty system is not working. If TransLink is not working efficiently, this leads to the question of why people should provide even more money for an inefficient system? This is an unbiased report because it is merely displaying the problems in the system, not trying to convince anyone of anything.
In this essay they discuss the reasons against voting “yes” in the referendum. They inform the reader of the large sum of money that will be taken out of the taxpayers’ pockets to fund a system that already gets money from a wide variety of other sources. We are also informed of the various ways that TransLink has misspent their money, for example on the extremely high income of their two CEOs. This article is biased because the Canadian Taxpayers’ Association is the group leading the opposing side against the transit referendum.
Conclusion
In summary, Translink is plagued by various financial inefficiencies which seem to only be getting worse, despite public disgruntlement. However, Metro Vancouver is plagued by a congestion problem, which Translink seeks to solve with this new tax. We would personally support a “NO” vote; TransLink’s failure to properly manage its finances gives us little reason to trust it, especially given that citizens already pay various other taxes for transit. Despite the importance of the issues raised, these financial inefficiencies represent poor practice, and call into question how well this congestion tax would be used. In addition, addressing these problems would free up a small amount of money that could be put toward accomplishing some of the referendum’s goals. The referendum is open from March 16th to May 29th to all registered voters of 18 years of age and older. We urge any eligible students to register with Elections BC and vote on the issue according to their own judgment.