Transit Trouble

You know, I promised myself I would not enter into conversation here about things that may really get people seriously wound up, but I appear to be having trouble with that. In fact, I feel like warning you that today's post is longer and closer to apoplectic even than usual. It's not like I have thousands of avid readers who will be at the gates with torches and pitchforks, or even sending hostile emails, but still...I told myself I wouldn't, I just am going to goof around on here, I told myself. Mostly that's so I don't have to think too much, try too hard, and do bothersome things like find out facts.

That last bit is really what's going to hurt me here, because there has been a ton of coverage about the transit referendum here in the Lower Mainland, and I've done my manful best to ignore all of it. I know that usually means one should just shut up about a topic, if they haven't even bothered to listen to the arguments, but hey, this is my blog and I can be a nitwit If I want.

What's got me going seems like I must be wrong about it because it seems screamingly obvious...the Yes and No camps seem to be having a heated argument about two completely different things.

I don't know where the money for all the advertising that's currently going on comes from, but it feels like the Yes side has really turned up the volume lately - polling seems to show the petulant public is going to stamp its little feet and say No. Ad after poll after post that talk about the many benefits, the win win for drivers and riders, the positive results of prior investments in transit, the tiny incremental cost to each resident...I have no doubt whatsoever that spending the money now is absolutely the right decision. Think back to all the trouble the Canada Line caused, and find someone now who will say they wish it hadn't been built. It all seems pretty obvious.

Yet, the polls say the vote will be No. Why, why, why, I axe you.

I only saw one or two things from the No side, and they tended to reinforce the theory I was working on when I started the Chem Trails et Al post - that the weaker a given case is, the more poorly developed and laid out the website supporting it will be. The argument I saw seemed to have to do with exorbitant salaries for the people that run Translink. Really?! This is where I think I'm missing it more than anywhere else along this shaky trail, which is saying something.

I think it's way more complicated than that, and also way more straightforward: it's a trust thing. There's the provincial governments' long and terrible records of financial mismanagement and deception, going back as far as the fast ferries, (or maybe even the federal income tax promise, or GST, or or or).  There are Translink's own problems (it just can't be helping to have thousands and thousands of people walk twice a day or more past all those inert Speedpass gates that have been sitting there for more than a year at the same time as about every month someone publishes some statistics on the enormous revenue loss they're suffering on fare evasion along with a remark about how ICBC (a much more reviled organization even than Translink) is now working with them on refusing to issue licences to those who owe fines for fare evasion). Finally, there's the general feeling that every time you turn on the TV in the lower mainland you're going to hear about how some organization is going to take more of your money and/or about how this is one of the most expensive places in the world to live. People are just absolutely exhausted and have no faith in any level of government or Crown corporation or whatever to manage anything successfully. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. I can't believe that's not the slogan of the No campaign, in fact, now that I think of it - it's vague and catchy at the same time. I digress...again...

So, okay...let's just assume I'm reading this right, since this is my blog and no one ever comments on the site about anything I write anyway (except Rich - rock solid work, there, RJ). If I were a Yes man, and I am, what would I then do about this campaign?

For sure I think we can stop with the "benefits of transit investment" thing. Sold, done, we're convinced...but it feels a lot like the kid who has to take castor oil, or eat liver, or finish their homework, or any number of other disagreeable things we have to do simply because someone ostensibly higher up the food chain than us says it's good for us. I bet everybody knows we better spend this money now or it's going to cost a whole pile more when we eventually have to do it a little further down the road...but so far the whole thing feels like being made an offer you can't refuse.

I'd seek to assure the public that this money and the exhausting list of things it's supposed to be applied to were going to be managed right. Rather than going on and on about benefits, I think I'd start in on accountability, and I'd go Full Draconian. I'd get Christie Clark onside (because, face it, the link between Translink and the provincial government is a big part of the problem here, as it is with each Crown) and put up big billboards covered with those excellent head shots of the executive of Translink that appear in the annual reports (the ones that probably cost about $1,000 each to have taken, where there's a sleek and smiling face above a name and title) and it would say "If you vote Yes, and Translink does not deliver on these goals by this date, these people will all be fired, with cause, and therefore without severance packages. Between this group and your provincial government, we are going to deliver or get new jobs."

I'd probably try to imagine some kind of special legislation that would make this true, because it would probably be hard to make anyone believe that was really going to happen. There would be trouble with defining in simple terms what the exact goals are, too, but then again that's probably a large part of the problem - what on earth are they going to do with this money, exactly? Are they just going to pass it on to the provincial government the way ICBC does with optional "profit" while raising rates on basic? Providing that clarity is largely what I thought executives were paid to do, after all. I'd put Translink's Board of Directors on the billboard, too, except nobody cares about Boards because Board members seldom make their living by being Board members and everybody knows it. If you want to get an organization lined up behind an idea or a plan, put the heads of those who run it on the block. Clarity suddenly becomes much easier to come by.

I'm not sure about about how to market this approach (cute cartoon characters? Animals? Kids (if that's a different thing)? Guys in white lab coats? Somebody who looks and sounds a lot like Il Duce (I mean, we're talking in part about making the trains run on time, here)? There are specialists for that stuff, but whoever and however, the message better be that both Translink and the provincial government are on the line here. If anyone thinks that the government does not meddle constantly in the running of things like Hydro, Translink, ICBC and so on they're very mistaken; I'm dead certain that a lot of the story behind how Translink got to this point goes to what the various provincial governments found politically expedient at various points, and I'm not just talking about the current government's campaign commitment on Translink taxes.

Okay, that should be enough to get things started...even I don't think it's quite "problem solved", in spite of the grandeur of this rant, but I still think there's some meat here.