By H. Russell Dorfman

For those who haven’t mailed in their ballots in our transit referendum yet, I want to offer a few points for consideration regarding the assertions of the “no” side and an example of what happened in one jurisdiction where the voters followed that lead.

The “no” campaign is being led by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), which presents itself as an objective watchdog over government spending. In fact, the CTF is nothing more than an ideologically driven economic think tank. Being “economic”, their arguments are only as good as their underlying assumptions. But when generated by an ideologically driven group, these assumptions are not required to have any basis in reality. The CTF is free to pull out of its hat any abstract standard of management and efficiency it wants without regard to whether that standard reflects anything existing in the real world—as long as they satisfy the organization’s ideological bent.

The CTF accuses TransLink of total incompetence and gross mismanagement. TransLink does have some acknowledged problems, recognized by a large number of citizens—including many who intend to vote “yes”. Most prominent in the current debate are the Compass card program and the current leadership transition. But rejecting this referendum will do nothing to solve the Compass card problem, and having two CEOs on the payroll is the unfortunate result of TransLink listening to its critics’ demands to fire the first CEO before his contract was completed. Outspoken critics must be careful what they wish for because they just might get it.

This referendum addresses the building of new capacity, and given TransLink’s performance history of constructing new light rapid transit lines, the CTF’s argument reflects the delusional thinking of an insular, elitist think tank. Let’s compare SkyTrain construction with light rapid transit (LRT) construction in the Seattle/Puget Sound region. This will provide a real-world perspective on TransLink’s ability to manage such projects.

My wife and I moved to Seattle in 1986, initially for a short stay, but one that lasted 19 years. When we arrived, the region was already considering a comprehensive LRT system similar to our SkyTrain, which was held up as a model of public transportation. The initial line was to run from Sea-Tac Airport through the downtown, the University District, and to the Northgate Shopping Center. Ultimately, LRT would extend into the northern suburbs and over the Lake Washington bridges into Bellevue and Redmond.

The need was obvious. Traffic congestion regularly stretched a 20-minute freeway commute to an hour or more. Express bus service was limited and infrequent. Automobile commutes took three or four times longer on the buses. People wanted a rapid transit system, and they elected politicians to carry out their wishes.

Sound Transit was created in 1996 with a board of directors composed of the state secretary of transportation (appointed by the governor), and 17 elected municipal and county officials—the type of elected oversight advanced by critics of TransLink. Excise and sales taxes were approved. A comprehensive transit plan, including LRT, was proposed. The LRT routes, engineering analyses, cost estimates, construction schedules, budgets, and funding formulae were discussed, debated, analyzed, and scrutinized. Interested parties had ample opportunities to address all aspects of the project. LRT enjoyed broad public support, and the plan was ready to proceed expeditiously.

That’s when the “tax rebels” came out in force. Unelected, self-styled taxpayer advocates, disdaining the elected proponents of the transit proposals, attacked every attempt to raise the local revenues required to actually build the system. They condemned the current transit system as being inefficient and the proposed system as too expensive. Executive salaries were too high. The proposed system could be paid for if waste, fraud, and abuse were eliminated. Government was too wasteful. The proposed system was a boondoggle. It couldn’t pay for itself. It required subsidies. Tax money should be directed to roads because that’s what drivers wanted. And on and on it went—the same tired clichés the CTF and allied think tanks have dumped into our current Lower Mainland referendum.

When the Puget Sound politicians pointed out that a “no” vote would set back LRT construction for years, the tax rebels scoffed and assured the voters that the politicians had a phantom Plan B waiting in the wings. Unfortunately for Puget Sound transit, the voters rejected a number of comprehensive transit tax measures only to approve smaller, piecemeal measures in subsequent ballots. The result of this tax rebellion is reflected in the current LRT situation in the Puget Sound. And a comparison to SkyTrain is enlightening.

The initial line from Sea-Tac to Northgate could have been completed by now. Instead it’s 2015, and Sound Transit has an LRT line that runs from downtown Seattle to Sea-Tac (13 stations, 25.1 kilometres). Sound Transit expects to extend its LRT service to the University District in 2016 (two stations, 5.6 kilometres) and hopes to provide service to Northgate by 2021. The proposed 2021 line will run almost 35 kilometres.

TransLink was created in 1999—three years after Sound Transit. Since then, TransLink has put both the Millennium Line (13 stations, 16 kilometres) and the Canada Line (16 stations, 19.2 kilometres) into operation, for a total of 29 stations and 35.2 kilometres of track added to the preexisting SkyTrain system. Thus, during the years when both Sound Transit and TransLink have controlled expansion of their existing systems, Sound Transit—with its board of elected officials—has provided 16 fewer stations and 10 fewer kilometres of track than TransLink’s appointed board. And if we look to projects expected to be completed in 2016, Sound Transit will add two stations and 5.6 kilometres of track in its University District extension, while TransLink will add seven stations and 11 kilometres of track when the Evergreen Line opens. Completion of the 2016 projects will give TransLink a 21-station, 15-kilometre advantage over Sound Transit.

Despite the groundless ranting of the CTF, the performance of SkyTrain’s appointed board in constructing LRT services has been significantly more productive than Sound Transit’s board of elected officials. But then again, when considered from a real-world perspective, TransLink also does an excellent job operating our rapid transit service. The SkyTrain cars are basically clean, the service is basically reliable. There have been a few long delays on the system, but that’s the point, such delays are “few”, and all transit systems in major metropolitan areas have a few occasional failures that cause inconvenience.

I defy anyone to name a rapid transit system serving a large metropolitan region for as long as SkyTrain has been in operation that has never had occasional long delays. Only the magical thinking of the CTF—an elitist think tank—could conceive of such a system and then use their fantasy-world standard as a cudgel to attack TransLink and the SkyTrain, which functions as well as can be expected of any real-world transit system.

I urge those who still haven’t voted in the transit referendum to vote “yes” to support the proposed comprehensive plan for Lower Mainland transportation.