April 1, 2008 - Estimates Debate: Ministry of Transportation Estimates
J. Horgan: One of the challenges we have in the Cowichan area and in Langford is that B.C. Transit can't stop thinking about the bus. They need to think outside of the bus. We've had significant discussions and dialogue with B.C. Transit. They're a member of the Communities for Commuter Rail committee, which includes the chair of the CRD, councillors from Esquimalt and Victoria, the mayor of View Royal, the deputy mayor of Langford as well as other members from Colwood and Sooke and representatives from the Island Corridor Foundation.
I listened to the minister in his discussions with the critic about TransLink and the importance of ridership and density and the risks that were taken in Portland, the opportunities seized by communities working together.
I would argue to the minister that the Communities for Commuter Rail proposal, although it has been alleged that they lowballed the numbers in terms of the capital costs of upgrading the rolling stock, is doable and achievable. The private sector is at the table. The developers are at the table. So this notion - I haven't explored it with the critic, but I was listening intently to the minister's responses - of using real estate or development cost charges or some other tariff for development and the profit that would arise by providing densities along this corridor.... It's a golden opportunity in my community. It's a golden opportunity for south Vancouver Island.
I have a great deal of respect for the senior staff at B.C. Transit, but they've been doing buses forever.
Those of you who live on the lower mainland have the flexibility and the luxury of multimodal options when it comes to transit, whether it be a SeaBus or a train or a rapid transit system. Here in southern Vancouver Island we've been stuck with the bus, and people aren't using it. I don't think, based on the input from my constituents, that they're ready to get out of their car and get into their bus. But I hear an awful lot about the train, and so do other people in the community, not social democrats but members of the minister's party, who are enthusiastic about this.
I think that there are two issues at play here. There's the south-of-the-Malahat question, which is the flat land, the cheapest way to go. I think that it's 18 kilometres of track. It's relatively flat. There are a number of level crossings that have to be addressed. But that's the cheapest, fastest, quickest way to get the train established in southern Vancouver Island. The capital costs go through the roof as you start climbing up the hill.
I can understand that the minister would want to be cautious about that. But I did hear that he's on the way back to Ottawa next week or the week after to lobby for dollars for other parts of British Columbia. I would encourage him and ask him if, while he is in Ottawa, he's going to take the opportunity to talk to members from the Island, like the Minister of Natural Resources, about freeing up some dollars for commuter rail on Vancouver Island.
Hon. K. Falcon: Look, one of the things that I will always do as a Minister of Transportation before I ever go to ask the federal government for money is make sure that we've done our homework, because one thing that I'm not going to do is look foolish or silly or look like we haven't done our homework. I am very interested in the work that has been done by the folks that are involved at the Corridor Foundation. But I think even the member would agree that....
When the member talks about Vancouver and then Greater Victoria, this is not a unique situation. I mean, in the rest of the province one of the challenges we have is that you've got very sprawled growth. You know, the population of the whole Greater Victoria area is about 367,000 people spread over a very large area, so it's very difficult to service by transit. If you are going to make a commitment, especially what could be a very significant financial commitment to a rail option like that, I think that it certainly behooves us - certainly me, as the Minister of Transportation - to make sure that we've done our homework and that we've answered some questions.
For example, the member would know - if the member has read the report, which I'm sure he has - that they determine the ridership based on taking a percentage of what the automobile traffic is. The member will know well that any business case that's going to look at ridership is going to be looking at a lot more than just taking a percentage of the auto traffic, applying that and saying that that will be the ridership. Obviously, ridership is going to be determined by travel time. It's going to be determined by issues of convenience and a whole range of issues.
I'm not in any way being dismissive of the efforts. All I'm trying to do is be honest about the fact that before I would plunge forward and make any request to the federal government for dollars towards something like that, I would make sure that we've done our homework, as we would hope.... The member, I am sure, is very familiar with what happens when governments don't do their homework and plow forward with projects. That's not something we'll do.
So we will work with the Corridor Foundation. We will, as we are doing, review the case that they put forward. We welcome the work they've done on it. I think that it deserves a lot of credit. I know that it is the culmination of a lot of input from a lot of people that have thought very, very hard about these kinds of issues. We will make sure that we do a proper review.
Any further questions that we will need to have answered - issues related to travel time, etc., to ridership, to making sure that all of us collectively know what the real costs are going to be - are so that at least when we make a decision to say, "Yes, let's go forward with this project," we make that decision on the foundation of real knowledge, factual knowledge, real facts.
It's so that we know that when we make that commitment that all of the communities that would be financially contributing would know what their contribution levels are going to be, that the province would know what their contribution levels are likely be, that the federal government will know what they're being asked for and that the real estate opportunities that the member is talking about have also been looked at.
So, all I'm saying to the member is that I think it's a great recommendation that's been put forward, but let's make sure we do our homework. Let's do our homework properly. Let's work with the Corridor Foundation, and let's get those answers. I think once we get those answers, we'll have a better sense of cost and true ridership, and then we can make a decision about whether that's the best use of provincial dollars or not.
J. Horgan: One of the challenges that we have as a committee is that there's always guesswork involved. What is the senior government thinking? What are the senior levels of government thinking? I'm asked regularly by people in my community, whether they be on councils or ordinary citizens: "Why is it that the province isn't at the table?" I talked to the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, who is regularly in my community, and she gets the same questions and is in a better position to answer those questions than I. Nonetheless, she too says: "Well, we're working on it."
So my question directly to the minister is....The committee is active, and it meets regularly. Will he commit to assigning a senior staff person to participate in the Communities for Commuter Rail coalition?
Hon. K. Falcon: What I will commit to is that our staff will continue to liaise with the committee. We will continue to provide the benefit of our experience in terms of how to achieve the best possible and the highest possible ridership, and how to do it in a manner that is respectful of the taxpayer investment that would be required. We will, as we are doing, review the proposal that has been put forward. Allow us to have some time to review that.
Once we review that, we will make recommendations and continue to liaise with the corridor group to make sure that we ultimately all know what we're dealing with - what the real facts are, what the real costs are and what the real likely ridership results are.
Once we have all of that information, then we are all better informed on how we can best move forward to achieve the solution that everybody wants, which, by the way, is the answer to the member's first question. The answer to the member's first question is.... He wants to know where the government stands.
Well, where the government stands is that we have made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by 33 percent by 2020. We have committed to a provincial transit plan that is the largest, the most ambitious in the history of the province, that includes the rapid buses - the member knows - from Langford and the Western Communities into downtown Victoria and the university. That is one piece of the puzzle.
We're also increasing the fleet of B.C. Transit buses by 600. I get that the member opposite wants B.C. Transit to think outside the bus, as he calls it, but I would remind the member that buses are actually the backbone of a great transportation system. They always have been, and they always will be.
When we look at other options that we.... As this option has been put forward, we will definitely work. Our staff will liaise. We'll make sure that we do our homework. We'll make sure that we ask the right questions. It must be getting late in the day for the minister because I can see that my answers are sounding convoluted. The point is that we'll do our homework. We'll work with them and make sure that they ask the right questions and that we ask the right questions. Get that information. Then we all move forward on a foundation of knowledge and fact that we can all agree on.
J. Horgan: The minister talked about ongoing liaison. Can he quantify what that liaison has been to this point in time? My experience on the committee, which is very much hands-on, is that, aside from the very capable VP from B.C. Transit Mike Davis being an observer, there has been no MOT participation whatsoever, aside from receiving the report and belittling the numbers and not giving us any great sense of where we should go.
In our can-do community of Langford the issue is: "Show me where you want us to get to, and we'll get there." What we want to see from the ministry is: "Show us your road map, and we'll fill in the blanks." The guesswork makes it very difficult. The back-and-forth with documents without someone at the table saying: "You're going down the wrong track. This is where you should go. These are the reasons why."
You'll get a fairly receptive response to that. It's not happening at this point in time. So could you quantify just what that liaison function has been to this point in time? Maybe a name would help.
Hon. K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is that the corridor group has not requested subsequent meetings. We've actually been meeting with them whenever requested. My chief operating officer of the ministry actually brought over Doug Kelsey from West Coast Express to provide advice, not only to the corridor group but also to the ministry. Our chief operating officer rode the rail system from Victoria to Nanaimo on one of those specialized trucks that will allow you to ride on the rails, to look at the infrastructure, to look at the crossings, to get a better understanding of this.
We have always made ourselves available at the most senior levels of this ministry and will continue to do so. We get requests all the time. Our senior staff just had a meeting with another group. I understand that there may be at least a half-dozen groups out there that have one form of rail option they support or another. We're always willing to meet with all of them to try and get a better handle and provide whatever advice we can. We'll continue to do that going forward.
J. Horgan: There are a number of groups. The minister is correct, but there are two particular groups that should be of interest to the minister. I know the staff will be aware of the Island Corridor Foundation, which is a group of municipalities and first nations who secured public access to the E&N corridor. The minister is aware of that. His staff are aware of that.
The group that I've been working with most closely and most recently is the Communities for Commuter Rail, which is a collection of lower Island, below-the-Malahat municipalities, developers and others interested in this. They hired consultants. They accessed expertise at West Coast Express. They put forward a proposal, submitted it to government, and to my knowledge there has been no response back. That committee - very active, very committed, dollars on the table, private sector dollars, community dollars - looking for some direction from government....
The notion that RapidBus will resolve some of the transportation challenges within the lower Island is just not on. You could have the E&N corridor upgraded and taking commuters from Langford into town without disrupting the morning commute. It's an efficient way to go. It would help achieve the 2020 targets with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. Every corner of this project speaks to active participation from the ministry.
To this point in time, I'm not saying that it has been obstructionist. It just has been passive. What the communities that I represent like to see in their elected officials and in their public service is an active approach to these issues. The minister knows well how Langford approaches these things. I know that his staff worked very hard to come up with quite an innovative approach to accessing the Trans-Canada Highway. I don't want to get into that right now. I'm hopeful the minister won't take the opportunity to talk about it, because I've only got a few minutes left, and I'd like to move on to Sooke.
But just to finish off on the rail corridor.... Active participation by a designated individual in the ministry would be a tremendous asset to these communities so that there's someone they can go to on the end of the line and get a quick answer to a simple question, and they can advance the ball by trying to solve some of the challenges that the ministry sees in their proposal. That would be the request that they would make directly to you, and I make it on their behalf as their MLA.
