|
Two major transportation projects were completed in British
Columbia before Expo '86: the Coquihalla highway and the SkyTrain
rapid transit line. It is interesting to compare the two, since
doing so illustrates some of the different standards of judgement
used by the media, which seems to result in faulty public
perceptions.
The SkyTrain
The initial 21.4 km section of the SkyTrain line from downtown
Vancouver to New Westminster was budgeted to cost $854.3 million,
and actually cost $844.6 million. This cost includes $125 million
for the train control system and 114 vehicles.
The SkyTrain has since been extended twice - the first
extension to Surrey cost $164 million. Annual ridership after
that extension was completed was 35.3 million, with a total
operating cost of $31.7 million - i.e. 90 cents per rider. The
second extension was budgeted to cost $127 million (I do not know
what the actual cost was).
The cost of the original line plus first extension was $1.009
billion. Despite this, reports in newspapers at the time always
quoted the cost of SkyTrain as being $2 billion, with the cost
per rider being $8 - the implication being, of course, that every
time someone rode on SkyTrain it cost the provincial taxpayer $8.
This implication is, of course, faulty. First of all, the $2
billion figure is obtained by calculating the cost of the
facility including debt servicing. This is fine, as long as this
method of reporting costs is made clear and is used consistently.
For example, a house with an asking price of $200 000, by the
same token, really should be said to cost $400 000.
The simplistic $8 per rider figure is extremely misleading,
because it implies that greater usage increases costs, when in
fact the opposite is true. It is interesting that the mainstream
media never publishes the estimated operating cost per
rider, which is a much more useful figure. In fact, the 90 cent
per rider operating cost of SkyTrain indicates it may in fact be
turning a profit in terms of operating costs - hence the
more people who use it, the more money can be put towards capital
costs.
The Coquihalla Highway
The Coquihalla highway system is a new toll road connecting
Hope to Kamloops and to Peachland (south of Kelowna), plus some
upgrading of connecting highways. The Coquihalla highway project
came in significantly over budget, which resulted in an inquiry.
The following is from "Report of the Commissioner Inquiry,
Coquihalla and Related Highway Projects":
Determining these costs has not been easy. Costs are not
uniformly recorded in any one place, and alterations in
accounts have also needed to be reconciled. The Commission's
conclusions as to the costs are set out in the statement.
The referenced Statement of Costs gives the total cost of the
Coquihalla highway system as being $998.4 million. The Commission
implies a sort of cover-up at the Ministry of Transportation and
Highways, stating that "it is the Commission's opinion that
the publicly estimated costs for Merritt to Peachland would have
remained at $125 million but for the need to update them for the
Inquiry". The Inquiry established the cost of the Merritt to
Peachland section to be $268.7 million.
The Coquihalla highway is a toll road, and as such the common
perception is that it is being paid for by the users. This is far
from being true, since even just the interest cost of the highway
is much larger than the $31 million collected in tolls in a year
(figure from 1991-92).
Putting them on equal ground
Of course, the two projects are intended to satisfy demand for
two different types of transportation - one is for urban transit,
one is for intercity traffic. One provides a complete
transportation service (the cost of vehicles and maintenance
facilities is included), the other provides only a serviced right
of way and requires privately operated vehicles.
Nevertheless, there are some striking similarities, including
the fact that they were completed at the same time and cost about
the same. Both required the borrowing of huge amounts of money,
and both charge user fees which likely cover operating costs but
do not cover capital costs.
Why, then, does it seem fair game for the mainstream media to
report that public transit is "hugely expensive" and
question whether SkyTrain should ever have been built, whereas
the same questions do not seem to be asked of the Coquihalla
highway? Why is it there is a nice, neat "$8 per rider"
figure for SkyTrain, but no such subsidy figure has been
calculated for the Coquihalla, or any other roads? Why is it
implied that public transit projects are badly managed whereas
the same comments do not seem to be made about the Coquihalla?
Surely a project which came in well over budget (the
Coquihalla) should be accused of worse management than one which
came in under budget (SkyTrain).
If the media were truly interested in the relevant measure,
they would consider the benefits and drawbacks of the project as
completed versus the possible benefits and drawbacks of an
alternative. For example, how much would a road alternative to
the SkyTrain have cost, especially when environmental costs are
included? What about the social costs, and the issues of building
a manageable city rather than a seemingly endless sprawl of
houses and shopping malls over the rich agricultural lands of the
Fraser valley?
The issues are quite complex, and cannot be boiled down into
the common rag-sheet "TRANSIT TAB OFF THE RAILS" type
reporting.
The next tale of two projects?
The Vancouver Island Highway Project now underway has already
seen numerous upward budget adjustments - it is currently thought
the project will cost $1.4 billion. The proposed
Broadway-Lougheed LRT line is estimated to cost anywhere from
$500 million to $800 million. These projects will not likely
complete at the same time, since the LRT line is not even at the
planning stage yet - it seems there is no money available for it.
It would seem the pattern is continuing...
James Strickland
|
