Dear Editor:
I've been following the debate between the "Yes" side and the "No" side in the transportation funding referendum with some interest.
In terms of the proposed way to fund the transportation infrastructure improvements being called for, I believe that the fairest method to pay for it would be a way that all users of transportation infrastructure would have a hand in paying for it. Whether drivers, transit users or businesses and industries that utilize the transportation network and, yes, even consumers. As a society, we all benefit from efficient transit and transportation networks.
So I do support the use of an increase in the provincial sales tax as the best way to fund those projects, as well as supporting the majority of the projects proposed. So, naturally, you would think that I would be voting "Yes."
Guess again. Along with a great many other people, I find that TransLink itself is broken. Aside from the Mayors' Council, there's absolutely zero accountability on TransLink's behalf to the people who use their services and fund their authority.
And, like a lot of people, I have a huge trust issue with TransLink and its ability to manage the transportation network. Thirty years and $7.5 billion is a massive commitment to an organization which the public by and large has no faith in.
It has been made abundantly clear for a number of years that changes to the governance model of TransLink and its very makeup have needed to be made. As it currently exists, the board of directors are appointed by the provincial government. In other major cities and regions throughout North America, transit authorities are elected by the people, and therefore accountable to the people. In the last civic elections, there was minimal to no talk about the need to reform TransLink, from an appointed board of supporters and friends of the provincial government, into an elected, accountable body.
I also have concerns over the mass hysteria being put out there by some people supporting the "Yes" side. I resent the fact that "there is no Plan B," as someone put it. Why isn't there? Why is it "all or nothing"? Why do people want to make this "all or nothing"? Scared or fearful people don't always make the best decisions.
Last I looked, it's a 30-year plan. If it's a "Yes" vote, is a new Pattullo Bridge, Broadway corridor subway line and Surrey LRT going to magically appear overnight? No, of course not.
Are all the buses being proposed to be purchased going to suddenly show up in transit centres with drivers ready to drive them the day after the referendum passes? No, of course not. It all takes time.
As would it take time to reform TransLink, abolishing it in its current form and making it an electable accountable transit authority, such as the Toronto Transit Commission is, and other similar models as they exist throughout North America.
We recently had civic elections throughout the region. And the issue of TransLink reform, despite widespread acknowledgement of the public's distrust of the current form, was hardly if ever discussed. In fact, the issue of the referendum on transportation infrastructure expansion was barely discussed.
So now we're left with a decision to make. Hand over a 30-year mandate and $7.5 billion to an organization that has a severe public trust and relations problem as well as governance and management issues that may or may not be addressed down the road, because in the words of some "Yes" supporters, "there is no Plan B" - in effect "hold your nose and vote yes," or "Vote no."
I believe that there was a huge opportunity missed during this process to actually put TransLink's governance and accountability concerns at the front of the line and deal with them in conjunction with this referendum.
Until those issues are dealt with, and even though I support the ideals and proposed projects being put forward in this referendum, and the funding model for it ... I'm voting "No" in the referendum.
Dave Lundy, New Westminster
