A Liveable Region Coalition Initiative

Tel: 604-736-7732

(SPEC OFFICES)

Is this Good Value for your Tax Dollar?

Minister Falcon's plan to twin the Port Mann Bridge and widen Highway 1 to at least 8 lanes would be carried out with taxpayer money. This money comes from all British Columbians, from all parts of the province, whether they would use the new road space or not. At more than $1-billion this is an expensive project. But is it good value for the taxpayer?

The goals of the project are worthy:

• Improve the flow of goods and people and reduce the impacts on air quality due to congested traffic;
• It is also assumed that such an investment would generate economic growth which would in turn create new tax revenues in the future.

But does the construction of general-purpose road space really achieve those objectives? What are the overall taxpayer benefits, versus the costs, of general highway expansion? Has there been a complete costs/benefit analysis and comparison of the 'expand-the-highway' solution with that of other types of solutions?

Taxpayers should consider the following issues related to a road expansion solution:

• Expensive capital projects need to be financed over 25-30 years making the true cost to taxpayers 2-3 times the original estimates. Keep in mind that the new road space will likely be back to its original state of congestion within 4-7 years, long before the taxpayer has finished paying the bills! Is this sustainable transportation?
• The increased volumes of traffic generated by the new freeway will need to be handled by many road improvements in the adjacent communities. The costs associated with the highway expansion project are just the tip of the iceberg for the taxpayer.
• A number of other taxpayer funded projects are already planned for construction in the same time frame as Minister Falcon's highway expansion project: RAV, Northeast Sector transit, Sea to Sky Highway, Golden Ears Bridge, regional road improvements and Olympic facilities. By adding another mega-project to the list will put addition stress on existing labour and resource shortages, pushing up the relative cost of all projects.
• The viability of other taxpayer funded transportation projects, such as the Golden Ears Bridge, the Northeast Sector transit line, the Millenium SkyTrain line and others depend on developing a predicted level of paying customers. By providing more free road space distorts travel choices, and could negatively impact the bottom line of other taxpayer funded transportation investments. This increases the subsidy costs to taxpayers.
• As an existing publicly owned facility, the six-lane Highway 1 corridor is very inefficiently used. Low occupancy private automobiles, and not high value commercial vehicles dominate the route. All options to make more efficient use of existing facilities need to be explored. These could include priority and queue jumper lanes, transit alternatives, and transportation demand management measures. The Ministry of Transportation should aim to improve the efficiency of the existing facility before expanding capacity of general purpose traffic.
• Many of the goods movement problems could be solved by private industry which funds and maintains its own infrastructure. A taxpayer-funded freeway makes it more difficult for railways and marine transportation companies to contribute to the goods movement solution. These industries can help solve the goods movement problem and contribute to the tax base at the same time. Why should the taxpayer put them at a disadvantage by paying for a free freeway?
• What about future tax revenues generated by the expanded freeway? Tax revenues may be derived from highway-oriented developments on the farms and greenfields of the Fraser Valley. However, such developments would compete with, and drain revenues from, potential growth in the regional town centres (in contravention of the Livable Region Strategic Plan). Furthermore, taxes generated by highway development are offset by the much higher cost of providing services and infrastructure (sewers, utilities, roads) for new developments, especially compared to improving existing infrastructure in town centres.
• Governments may also expect higher gas tax revenues from increased traffic volumes and vehicles kilometres travelled. But these too are likely to be offset by other factors, such as higher pump prices, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and other issues that impact fuel consumption.

There are many ways to address congestion in the Highway 1 corridor. The taxpayer has a right to a full cost-benefit analysis of all transportation solutions as well as transparent decisions based on the facts generated from these studies.

A Livable Region Coalition initiative
Tel: 604-736-7732