Highway for the Rich?

[Ferryman]

Falcon's remark draws blunt TW response

'Rich people' not an accurate portrayal of Whistler guests, official says

By Reporter Jennifer Miller
[e-mail]

Tourism Whistler officials publicly responded this week to comments made by B.C.’s transportation minister that visitors to Whistler are “a bunch of rich people,” saying such misperceptions of the resort could discourage some people from considering Whistler as a holiday destination.

“I guess it’s understandable that some people may confuse expense with (Whistler) being rated No. 1 in the world,” Michelle Comeau Thompson, director of communications for Tourism Whistler (TW), said on Wednesday (Sept. 12). “We would like the minister to know that the diversity of Whistler visitors covers a very broad spectrum, not only in terms of economic status.”

Comeau Thompson was speaking in response to a statement made last Friday (Sept. 7) by Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon and reported in the Edmonton Sun.

Falcon was discussing the potential for removing tolls on the Coquihalla Highway during a visit to Kelowna when he was quoted as saying: “I would have loved to put a toll on the Sea to Sky Highway. There’s a bunch of rich people who go up to Whistler all the time, and they can easily afford to pay a toll.”

Because of a government policy adopted in 2003, motorists can’t be charged to use a new highway if no alternative routes are available, the Sun reported.

TW officials plan to contact the minister’s office directly to discuss his comments and “clear up any misunderstandings,” Comeau Thompson said.

Comeau Thompson acknowledged the possibility that Falcon’s comments may have been made in a context not reported in the article but, as they appear, they could have the ability to affect tourism.

“Misperceptions like this certainly can have an impact on our reputation,” she said. “It’s certainly not a message that we would want to have out there in the marketplace and not a message we would want key ambassadors like a minister putting out there.”

Both residents and visitors to Whistler come from a range of economic, geographic and cultural backgrounds and age groups, and that diversity is an important part of the Whistler experience, she said.

“If there’s a barrier in someone’s head that Whistler is only for the rich… they may not even decide to look into a trip to Whistler,” Comeau Thompson said. “We want people to know there are amazing offers and there’s something for pretty much everyone in Whistler.”

West Vancouver-Garibaldi MLA Joan McIntyre said of Falcon’s comment, “If it is true, it’s a very unfortunate remark and I will certainly be having a conversation with the Minister.”

Whistler Mayor Ken Melamed declined to comment on Falcon’s remarks.

www.whistlerquestion.com/madison%5CWQuestion.nsf/0/8B888EB83E025AD1882573550079F03E?OpenDocument

[Neil]

Well. I guess it's good to know that it's not just lower income people on coastal islands who suffer from Kevin Falcon's ignorance about transportation needs.

He doesn't discriminate; he's clueless and insensitive about everyone- rich, poor, or middle.

[Mill Bay]

This is pretty disappointing, but typical I'd say.
The rich people going to Whistler must all be Liberal MLAs though.

In my opinion, Kevin Falcon shouldn't even be transportation minister, because he has no idea what transportation is about.

All he sees is highways, and messing around upgrading old ones... ask him why there is only one route to Whistler even with the Olympics coming. And how many times has it been blocked this week right when the IOC gets to see it all.

There were no less then two alternate routes suggested for brand new highways following alternate routes that by this point probably might have cost the same amount or less then what they are putting in to the Sea-to-Sky, and they still don't have a contingency for any time little mother nature flexes her muscle.

[Retrovision]

Like BCFS's prudent utilization of a captive market for the sake of profits / paying-down debts as opposed to the customers they serve, let alone the deeply seeded connections they have still to their masters, our provincial government, I am constantly astounded by peoples' surprise at such things; but of course I simply have to remind myself of what province I live in to calm my surprise to mere disgust.

Kevin Falcon - Flyin' Falcon to me - is perfect for the job, the job that the BC "Liberal" Party needs him to do. He is the Flyin' Phil Gaglardi of our time, just as today's 'Gateway' plan is our version of W.A.C. Bennett's major transportation infrastructure spending fest of the 1950s and 60s; unfortunately today's 'Gateway' project is similar to transportation projects from the SoCred days of our province for more sinister reasons - it is a plan that could have been developed in the 1950s almost word for word and has not even a foot or even a finger in established sustainable planning of today that the Vancouver area itself has championed among major cities of North America and is still looked upto in many similar respects.

Falcon does exactly what they need him to for their transportation agenda - he is belligerent, stalwart, steadfast and maybe even to quite a flaw but apparently the more frustrated his ways makes those against his ways of doing things is exactly what they want and apparently has proven quite useful to them, as demonstrated by the other flier of the past, Phil.

[Mill Bay]

I wonder about that ...

Back when Flying Phil was around, we actually did need highways, the difference is in todays awareness of sustainability, we really don't need the highways so much, especially not ones with a high traffic density running through urban areas as will the Gateway project.

You're right about the attitudes of the Liberals and Kevin Falcon though. The problem with this plan, however, is they are ignoring the needs of today. Instead of highways, the focus should be on sustainability, and transit oriented design and development in the urban region.

If they really want to build highways, they should build them where people actually need them, such as an alternate route to Whistler for their little Olympics, or upgrading other rural highways in the interior where people actually need to use their cars because there is no other way.

In the metro Vancouver region people should reasonably be expected to park their cars and take transit, if only we had the rapid transit infrastructure to facilitate such a dream... If he really wants to fly, Kevin Falcon should try to start turning the tide against cars and start looking at transit options.

Actually, the biggest problem when it comes to alternative transit, is getting people to change their mindsets and their lifestyles, but even when people have come up with alternative ideas, the Transportation Ministry seems pretty deaf to their ideas.

[Retrovision]

millbay said:

I wonder about that ...

Back when Flying Phil was around, we actually did need highways, the difference is in todays awareness of sustainability, we really don't need the highways so much, especially not ones with a high traffic density running through urban areas as will the Gateway project.

Actually I agree. We would not have had the impetus necessary to have the will to create the LRSP (Livable Region Strategic Plan) back in the 70s if we were preoccupied by dealing with a lack of any adequate transportation infrastructure. Personally I agree with the building of most major infrastructure that the SoCreds managed during the mid 20th Century, but like most of us these days, with half a brain when it comes to evolution, etc., atleast, I realize how rapidly these kinds of ways of thinking change, especially in this day and age, and like most can see that a transportation infrastructure plan straight out of the 1950s is as smart as tearing up all the streetcar and interurban rail lines during the same period of time, it's just as ominously in-favour of the automobile and smacks of backroom dealings just the same as then. After all, it's been proven that the tearing-up of streetcar and interurban lines around North America was in fact a conspiracy by autotomobile manufacturers; what will be uncovered as truth in another half century?

[Political Incorrectness]

Some people need to take a stroll down memory lane and look at what is going on with transportation systems and there is all something in common. They are nearly operating like private business though they are government agencies. Privatization has already hurt one transportation system very vital to small populations. Sort of reminds me of the czars back in Russia. They did not know of the people and just played them as if they were chess pieces. It is only when someone speaks up in the midst of wrong when something will be done.

[Ferryman]

The story posted in the initial posting of this thread was all over the airwaves of our local radio station yesterday. I listen to the radio all day at work, and the News comes on every hour, and I swear I heard everyone driving by at the time, yell the "F" word.

I'm actually not entirely against this. The reason being, aside from how blunt Mr. Falcon was, is how much this Highway is costing all of us. A toll could help pay for highway, similar to the Coquilhalla Highway, along with other maintenance to the road. On the Coquilhalla, the toll also helps to pay for the army of snow ploughs which are used to ensure that highway is kept open during the winter by making sure the road is kept clear of snow. On the Sea to Sky, the Snow is usually only a problem on the Squamish to Whistler stretch during the winter. There's only been one time where I was coming home from Vancouver one night during the past 4 years I've lived here, where a Snow squall came in, and I had to drive through 6 inchs of snow on the road itself, that the ploughs hadn't even touched, and the few cars ahead of me were the first to drive through the powder. The highway expansion project certainly making the highway safer to a certain degree. But the crazy drivers tend to look at it as a way of driving even faster on the road, because some of the tight turns are litterally being chopped off, and straightened out. I enjoy driving the 2 laned sections alot more than the 4 laned sections, because the 4 lanes are like really windy freeways where nobody follows the posted limit of 80 km/h. If there were a toll, perhaps this might filter out some of the joyriders who tend to drive the highway to test out their new crotch rocket motor bike, or whatever. But then again, if those people can easily afford those types of vechiles, then I'm sure the toll would simply be pocket change.

Anyways, it depends on how you look at it. Though it might look as if it was a cash grab, I one willing to believe that money would go towards benefiting other things, beides the MLAs salaries.

[Balfour]

The good side to this is that it would help pay for major road projects in this province such as twinning Highway 97through the Cariboo, and the Kicking Horse Canyon project.

The downside is the amount of traffic that travels to Whistler and the waits that could be seen.

[WettCoast]

qsandwich said:

The good side to this is that it would help pay for major road projects in this province such as twinning Highway 97through the Cariboo, and the Kicking Horse Canyon project.

The so-called 'Cariboo Connector' is not needed. There simply is not enough traffic to warrant it. The upgrades to the TCH #1 east of Kamloops to the Alberta border, however, are. That highway has sufficient traffic to justify 4-laning over the entire route. In some locations it should probably be re-routed entirely.

The 'Cariboo Connector' is nothing more than an election promise aimed obviously at buying the votes of folks who live in the area. There is a need, however, for additional passing lanes, road straightening, bridge replacements, and 4-laning near the larger communities. The same can be said for most of the other main two lane highways in the province.

[Retrovision]

I actually thought that this had been posted but can't seem to find it at first glance of recent threads. I guess we can't say that they aren't doing anything, and fortunately this will save lives to boot, i.e. isn't just to make the the provincial government look good...
www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e3ab457f-9712-47ec-aac0-01709a34e76b&k=44996

[Low Light Mike]

tsawwassenterminal said:

Like BCFS's prudent utilization of a captive market for the sake of profits / paying-down debts as opposed to the customers they serve...

Yes I did read Retro's entire post, but I would like to comment on the above quote from his preamble. The "paying down debts" is what raised my ire. I don't see this debt-paydown issue as something bad, or to be lumped in with negative appraisals of the BCFS system.

On the contrary, the focus on the ability to pay down debt is likely one of the good points of the current BCFS / Gov't structure.

Keep in mind that no matter how far up in the Gov't chain (all the way up to Federal) some debt is pushed, it's still citizens' debt, and debt can be a very bad thing. Or at least the consequences of debt are.

If it seems like debt paydown is a threat to customer-service, then there is a bigger issue to look at: High debt without a repayment plan is an indication that future customer service will likely be compromised. This is because in the future the scarce funds will need to be used for debt servicing, and not for operations. Debt can go on increasing indefinitely, without repayment. And repayment takes money. And if you think that re-integration with the Province's debtload is the answer, then you're kidding yourself, because Provincial debt has the exact same consequences on the ability to provide needed services.

As an example, just look at the debt interest payments that our Provincial Gov'ts and Federal Gov't are paying each year, and consider that those dollars could otherwise be spent on services and programs (such as health care, education, public infrastructure).

On a personal-finance level.....well I don't think I need to preach here about the perils of debt, and the greater perils of a lack of a repayment plan. Debt can cripple someone financially, and I'm sure that lots of the forum members here can relate to that.

[Retrovision]

I haven't read your entire post yet but after a first glance I feel that I should mention that I only think of things like repaying debts as a negative thing if they're put ahead of the "customer"/passenger when it comes to service they could be offered by an idle vessel or an added trip, etc., not as an overall negative.

[Retrovision]

flugelhorn said:

If it seems like debt paydown is a threat to customer-service, then there is a bigger issue to look at: High debt without a repayment plan is an indication that future customer service will likely be compromised. This is because in the future the scarce funds will need to be used for debt servicing, and not for operations. Debt can go on increasing indefinitely, without repayment. And repayment takes money. And if you think that re-integration with the Province's debtload is the answer, then you're kidding yourself, because Provincial debt has the exact same consequences on the ability to provide needed services.

Granted, but then we the people paying off that debt should have atleast some say in how much we'd like customer service to go by the wayside in favour of repaying debt to make service better down the line when we might not even be living - the global warming / climate change debate comes to mind here.

flugelhorn said:

As an example, just look at the debt interest payments that our Provincial Gov'ts and Federal Gov't are paying each year, and consider that those dollars could otherwise be spent on services and programs (such as health care, education, public infrastructure).

Thanks for the laugh as if those are exclusive alternatives to debt repayment, good one

[Low Light Mike]

I admit that my reply re the "debt repayment" quickly went off on a tangent. Funny how that happens with our various hot-buttons.

oops.