How will anti-TransLink vote influence transit referendum?

A comment on the recent Price Tags article on the upcoming November 2014 TransLink Referendum (TransLink Referendum: Can It win? What do we need to know?) strikes a chord on the instruments of an upcoming transit expansion funding referendum. Commenter “David” posted:

Sadly there will be an anti-TransLink vote, even by people who favour additional funding for transit. Some will choose a non-TransLink supported idea just to spite them while others will switch to the “no” side. Unfortunately TransLink has been the victim of bad propaganda for the last 20 years and a significant number of people believe it needs to be reformed or scrapped despite numerous audits showing that it’s actually doing a good job. The people in BC never let facts get in the way of ideology.

Sadly, he is correct.

Votes in the upcoming Metro Vancouver transit funding referendum will be filled with the votes of people who may want transit expansion, but don’t want TransLink. These people want a Metro Vancouver transit future where the only service expansions will come through finding of additional “efficiencies” in TransLink, or the scrapping of TransLink altogether in favour of a different agency. A referendum, thanks to its ability to define a direct result, is dangerous in that it can be easily seen as a tool for these people to “get their revenge” on TransLink.

Sometimes egregiously bad propaganda, such as the recent wash on TransLink for providing free coffee to employees (let’s face it, TransLink is being singled out wrongly – it’s probably not the only transit management agency that does this), has been all over the local media for the past several years. In many ways, it has already had its effect on TransLink; as in recent years TransLink has indeed been put through a lot of scrutiny, and then through audit after audit.

The ironic thing is that many of these audits found TransLink to be a well run company doing a good job. One audit on TransLink efficiency stated that TransLink’s funding formula is the “best in Canada”, because it has allowed it (TransLink) to maintain transit expansion during the recent economic downturn, whereas others across the country were cutting service; its progress report has noted that TransLink does have an interest in pursuing efficiency, and has has made significant progress in taking initiative. A later review of its governance system, while noting that TransLink’s system is one-of-a-kind in the world, found that it is still seen as “state of the art” internationally.

However, these audits were also successful in fulfilling their main purpose – to be audits. While they found that TransLink has not been doing badly, they also found that changes can be made, and in those changes there are those opportunities to make TransLink’s efficiency “better”.

Because of bad propaganda, there are a lot of people and groups in Metro Vancouver who hold TransLink to absurdly high expectations of efficiency; and, so long as there are absolutely any potential “inefficiencies” in TransLink, even if a “solution” to that inefficiency is a reduction in service or an unreasonable impact to management (as were some of the recommendations in these recent audits), there will be an anti-TransLink vote.

Look around: the results of this bad propaganda are everywhere. An online news article that has to do with transit expansion in Metro Vancouver will often yield a number of comments made by folk who will oppose transit expansion just for the sake of TransLink being in charge.

Article after article, editorial after editorial, letter after letter, and decision after decision, bad propaganda has probably already dealt its damaging blow to the future of the Metro Vancouver transit system, and there might not be much that can be done about that.

(Header photo credit: CC-BY-NC-ND Flickr: Andrew Ferguson)

About Daryl Dela Cruz

Daryl Dela Cruz is a young writer, researcher and activist with an aptitude for pointing out and discussing socio-civic issues. He has made appearances in print, radio and television on transit and urban planning matters. He lives in Surrey and blogs with a focus on local and regional issues, urban life, political matters and technology.
This entry was posted in Transport and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to How will anti-TransLink vote influence transit referendum?

  1. Pingback: How will anti-TransLink vote influence transit referendum? | Daryl vs. the World

  2. Jack Hope says:

    Voters in BC in the last couple of years have a. voted to blow a $2.5-3 billion hole in their own budget in order to ‘send a message to the Government’ and b. re-elected said Government, with a stronger majority after these same people promised to make the province ‘debt-free.’

    You know, looking at the words I just wrote, even though I know this is what happened, I’m still in shock that this could have happened.

    That’s half the money that Metro Vancouver needs to meet its transit capital needs blown in a fit of pique for absolutely nothing. Just gone, leaving nothing of value for British Columbians.

    Christy Clark is a much more canny pol than I ever gave her credit for. Translink was created to be a whipping boy by the province boy and in that regard succeeded beyond the wildest expectations of its creators. Christy Clark is simply handing the whip off to the general public now, in a move that will likely end rapid transit expansion in Metro Vancouver after the Evergreen Line and absolve Clark and her Ministers of any responsibility for providing leadership on transit in the Lower Mainland.

    I’m just looking forward to the adverts touting the Christy Clark Liberals as pro-transit for completing the Evergreen Line in the next election, after they’ve successfully eviscerated Translink.

  3. Pingback: TEA & TWO SLICES: On Simplistic Garbage And Threatening “One Hell Of A Good Time” : Scout Magazine

Comments are closed.