Vancouver council should appoint Geoff Meggs and David Cadman to Metro Vancouver board
Vancouver city council's influence on the Metro Vancouver board has been in decline ever since voters finished off George Puil's political career in 2002.
Puil, a former Metro Vancouver chair and long-time Vancouver city councillor, wielded enormous clout at the regional level.
He and then-Toronto councillor Jack Layton played leading roles in convincing the federal government to turn over part of its gas-tax revenue to municipalities for transit and infrastructure.
The federal gas-tax fund now delivers about $2 billion per year to local governments across the country.
Along with Puil, the NPA had several other councillors (notably Lynne Kennedy, Jennifer Clarke, and Gordon Price) who worked closely with other municipal politicians on regional issues.
People might have questioned some of the decisions of that era, such as allowing a lengthy transit strike in 2001. Then there was the water committee's ill-fated attempt to turn over control over the Seymour filtration plant to a private contractor in a public-private partnership. But there was no denying Vancouver's influence at the regional level.
That began to change after the Coalition of Progressive Electors, then led by Larry Campbell, won a landslide victory in 2002.
That council was marked by bitter infighting over the approval of the Canada Line and the placement of slot machines in Hastings Park.
Then-COPE councillors such as Anne Roberts, Raymond Louie, and David Cadman tried to ensure Vancouver's views were heard at the regional level, but they didn't carry much influence because they were divided.
Moreover, a suburban group of right-wing and centrist politicians from Richmond, Surrey, Coquitlam, and the North Shore outflanked the Vancouver delegation on occasion.
COPE politicians in that era were also shortchanged when it came to chairing committees. And the mayor of the day, Larry Campbell, appeared somewhat disengaged from regional issues with the exception of the Canada Line.
Vancouver's regional contingent was also on the outs from 2005 to 2008 when the NPA controlled the city. Several of the NPA politicians were rookies, which left them at a distinct disadvantage.
They were also at odds ideologically with a more progressive group, notably politicians from Burnaby and the City of North Vancouver, who helped elect Lois Jackson as chair of Metro Vancouver.
In 2008, the Vision Vancouver-controlled council was in a good position to reassert itself at the regional level.
But that hasn't happened. Vancouver has 27 percent of the regional population, but its politicians only head one of the 14 committees with a permanent chair.
Jackson named Coun. Tim Stevenson to lead the water committee. It isn't nearly as important in this term as some other committees, notably regional planning and waste management.
In addition, Mayor Gregor Robertson didn't endear himself to regional politicians when he ignored the port cities committee, chaired by North Vancouver City mayor Darrell Mussatto, and held his own public meeting on oil tankers travelling through Burrard Inlet.
Vancouver politicians were unsuccessful in trying to stop the Metro Vancouver board from voting to burn up to 500,000 tonnes per year of municipal garbage. It was another sign of their lack of regional influence.
Meanwhile, some wily political veterans in the suburbs have turned bashing Vancouver in the Metro Vancouver boardroom into a bit of a sport, because they know it plays well with their voters.
Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan and Surrey councillor Judy Villeneuve are two examples.
This has further isolated Vancouver, which is routinely criticized for receiving too much largesse from senior levels of government.
In the new Metro Vancouver draft regional growth strategy, the city suffered another indignity.
Metro Vancouver staff put Surrey ahead of Vancouver for a new rapid-transit line. UBC is the second-largest destination for commuters in the region.
Surrey's sprawl and lack of concentrated development make any rapid-transit project other than street-level light rail a dubious proposition, at least for now.
But that doesn't matter to many suburban politicians, who are itching to put Vancouver in its place.
Vancouver has lost influence because it hasn't fielded its best team at the regional level.
A case in point is COPE councillor David Cadman. He worked at Metro Vancouver for 19 years and played a major role in helping win public approval for the Livable Region Strategic Plan in the 1990s.
The Vision Vancouver-controlled council didn't appoint him to the board of Metro Vancouver after the 2008 election. He was deemed expendable even though he knew more about the inner workings of Metro Vancouver than the rest of them put together with the exception of Louie.
In addition, Cadman had spent three years on the board of TransLink, which enhanced his understanding of transit.
The Vision Vancouver group also kept its wiliest politician, Coun. Geoff Meggs, off the Metro Vancouver board. Nobody on council is better at horse-trading than Meggs, a veteran of labour relations. And horse-trading is exactly what's required to succeed in the byzantine world of regional politics.
Meggs sits on the housing committee and on the Labour Relations Bureau. But he's not a director, which means he doesn't get to negotiate with other board members in the corridor before important votes.
Coincidentally, Meggs is the councillor whom Robertson appointed to deal with transit. It means that Vision Vancouver doesn't have its anointed transportation expert on the board to convince other directors of the wisdom of adding more transit capacity in Vancouver.
Anyone who pays serious attention to Vancouver politics knows that Meggs is probably the most capable of the bunch in bringing others over to his point of view. He is also the smoothest practitioner of media relations on council.
It was a mistake for Robertson and the other Vision politicians to keep Meggs and Cadman off the Metro Vancouver board. It's possible that Vancouver transit riders will pay a big price for this blunder.
{poll node='345594'}{/poll}{poll node='345595'}{/poll}
Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.
Comments
11 Comments
Cadman? definitely maybe Geoff for sure
Sep 11, 2010 at 2:47pm
Cadman on the Metro Board to represent us? Thanks to Cadman who was on the TransLink Board, we have harrowingly loud, extremely polluting as well as unwelcome and unhealthy soot blowing cancer and asthma causing B-Lines on the #17 trolley bus route. No thanks, and in fact, I can tell you that many in Point Grey along the B-Line route would like to string Cadman up by the trolley bus lines suspended over the B-Line route to UBC.
As for Geoff, the verdict is still out on whether he can turn things around in this city to get the diesel buses off our trolley bus routes. I hope he can and would favour Geoff for at least having the courage to ride a bike and put his money where his mouth is to be sustainable. I don't see Cadman cycling but he does look like your typical transit sloth.
tie is insulting
Sep 11, 2010 at 4:01pm
That Green tie on Cadman looks silly on someone who advocates operating non-sustainable fossil fuel burning diesel buses as a way to reduce GHG emissions on otherwise zero emission hydro-electric trolley bus routes to UBC. Take it off Dickman.
Darren T
Sep 11, 2010 at 5:58pm
Over the course of my life, I've moved back and forth between Vancouver and North Vancouver several times, and in my experience, the rest of the region comes by its resentment of Vancouver honestly. Too many people in Vancouver think that Vancouver IS the region, or that everyone should just feel lucky that they get to ride on Vancouver's coat tails.
I heard Jim Green on CKNW the other day. Bill Good put it to him that perhaps Gregor Robertson should have coordinated his China trip with other metro mayors, since it doesn't matter much whether a business locates itself in Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey or Coquitlam, since the region benefits regardless. Jim Green's answer was (I believe I'm quoting this correctly) "I care about Vancouver". That's the attitude that drives people from the rest of the region bonkers.
The reality is that most people, if they live here long enough, will live and work in many different municipalities in the region. We're all part of the same city, regardless of the municipal boundaries.
nachum
Sep 11, 2010 at 7:08pm
To the first 3 commenters. What a bunch of whiners, trying to play the blame game. Nothing constructive to say at all. I'll bet all 3 of you don't get along with your neighbours or your families.
The world I live in, we try to work it out with others and at all costs get along with everyone.
I have great respect Geoff Meggs, David Cadman and Jim Green, all of whom have shown a clear commitment to having a civil society. Something the first 3 commenters would have a difficult time recognizing, unless it fell on them.
To them I say, get a life!
Appoint Andrea Reimer
Sep 11, 2010 at 9:52pm
Andrea is the correct choice to represent Vancouver. She is bright, articulate and driven. She is a member of the Green Party and supports Greenpeace, I”˜m sure. She truly understands sustainability and knows that regional transit by TransLink is not sustainable because it encourages people to live far from work and to commute long distances.
Cadman is the worst choice to represent Vancouver. He does not openly support the Green Party and Greenpeace and he has proven to be nothing more than a puppet for TransLink to exploit. Under Cadman’s watchful eye as TransLink Director, TransLink has gotten away with operating diesel buses on the UBC trolley bus routes 85% to 100% of the time.
If you want TransLink to extend electric transit (more trolley buses, streetcars or light rail) you don’t let TransLink operate diesel buses on trolley bus route like Cadman did. You ban diesel buses rather than make residents breathe toxic emissions from diesel bus and suffer the injustice of screaming diesel buses. It looks as if Cadman is being defensive voting against the previous comments. Good. It shows that the comments are accurate.
Geoff go kick some TransLink butt
Sep 12, 2010 at 2:53pm
The air quality was never better than during the transit strike according to the GVRD data. So how is transit benefiting us?
What about air emissions in Vancouver? The City of Vancouver correctly points out the cancer and asthma health hazards of particulate matter (PM) from diesel buses then does a lot of hand waving and ignores the serious problem of diesel buses on our trolley bus routes which have been over run by diesel buses thanks in large part to the indifference of the City of Vancouver, and councilors like Cadman who have the wrong attitude and simply appease TransLink to "get along".
On page 58 of the Vancouver 2020 Bright Green Future link, the part about new diesel buses reducing PM by 99% is absolutely wrong. In fact, the new generation low NOX diesel buses which TransLink operates emit higher PM emissions than previous diesel buses. In any case, the factory emission levels are irrelevant once the diesel buses start to blow soot and many of the diesel buses operated by TransLink are soot blowing junk, most of the B-Lines for instance. Cars aren’t a serious health hazard and meet all AirCare requirements without blowing soot. The only place where air quality is a health hazard is on bus routes with high diesel bus frequencies: in particular on the 99 B-Line route which has 600 diesel bus trips daily. By the way, the 99 B-Line diesel buses don’t go through AirCare, too embarrassing for TransLink to show what a bunch of crap it operates.
From only one 99 B-Line diesel bus, PM emissions are over 40 micrograms/m3 and exceed all 24 hour emission limits in the table given on page 59 of Vancouver 2020 Bright Green Future link. Unsurprisingly, TransLink has not been singled out as the major polluter and health hazard in Vancouver so the City of Vancouver will meet all its air quality objectives targeting cars and other small polluters which have little influence on the air quality in Vancouver.
Mayor Robertson or Geoff Meggs, you really need to go down to your transportation department and kick some tail to get TransLink operating trolley buses 100% of the time on trolley bus routes, especially on the 99 B-Line route, because your transportation department is in bed with TransLink and doesn’t give a damn. Your clean air initiative is a bunch of crap without any substance and if you need me to help you do something about the air quality, let me know.
RodSmelser
Sep 13, 2010 at 10:07am
A case in point is COPE councillor David Cadman. He worked at Metro Vancouver for 19 years and played a major role in helping win public approval for the Livable Region Strategic Plan in the 1990s.
==============================
David Cadman was a PR man for the GVRD. He is, or at least was, a supporter of the SFPR.
Rod Smelser
Metro and Transit Lobby Clueless
Sep 13, 2010 at 11:34am
In the Lower Mainland, the transit lobby is strong and vocal. Unfortunately, this lobby is misguided and brainwashed. Only 12% of the 2.1 million population in the Lower Mainland uses transit; don’t confuse this with the 16.5% of the 1 million workers who use transit in the Lower Mainland. This percentage is often used by TransLink to mislead us. In total, fewer than 300,000 people use transit in the entire Lower Mainland, regardless of the millions of passenger-trips, boardings or passengers quoted by TransLink to give the illusion that everyone here is dependent on transit.
Since 80% of us drive, the best way to get the most bang for the dollar is to reduce vehicle travel times. We can easily do this by building east-west and north-south over and under passes at major intersections to reduce the number of stops at lights and in turn travel times by 50% to 70% in Vancouver where traffic congestion is rampant. This would reduce GHG emissions by up to 70% in Vancouver. Our Vancouver transportation planners can’t figure this out and see more transit as the best way to reduce GHG emissions.
If you want to console yourself and tell yourself that taking transit reduces GHG, lie to yourself but don’t lie to others. You are taking transit because you can’t afford to drive that BMW, Corvette, Mercedes, electric-car, hybrid-car, compact-car or whatever else.
Increasing regional transit expands the TransLink empire, but is not taking cars off the roads. It is attracting more transit dependent people here, though, and is predominately taking people who once walked or cycled in downtown Vancouver (or people who never lived here and lived in a distant impoverished country without a car in any case) out to suburbs to take transit. If the truth is too disturbing for you; suck it up and get over it.
RodSmelser
Sep 13, 2010 at 2:14pm
It is attracting more transit dependent people here, though, and is predominately taking people who once walked or cycled in downtown Vancouver (or people who never lived here and lived in a distant impoverished country without a car in any case) out to suburbs to take transit.
==========================
Would you call this welfare transit?
Rod Smelser
Green Party voter says: what would you call it Rod?
Sep 13, 2010 at 6:56pm
Rod, we’ve debated the merits of or lack of merits of transit many time here. This is an argument that can’t be won because the world includes freeloaders who vote NDP for more transit even though reducing vehicle travel times makes more sense. You are right and that’s that regardless of facts which show otherwise. Transit users pay 1/3 of their transit fare while drivers and others pay the rest. Call a spade a spade, transit is welfare intended for students and the needy.
I have much more respect for middle aged individuals who buy a low emission vehicle, bicycle or motorcycle than a deadbeat government employee who burdens society by having society continue to subsidize his or her transportation on public transit years after graduating from school, college or university. Kick back at 3:30 pm after doing nothing particularly productive tomorrow, hop on transit and enjoy your two hour transit commute back home.