The Premier and the Professor Agree to Agree
Tags: condon, debate, E2, harcourt, LRT, SkyTrain, Transportation
Perhaps Vancouver is a little too forward-thinking to be a model for the rest of the world. Or maybe it’s simply that debates over the merits of various public transportation options attract an audience of like-minded folk. Regardless, the battle between Patrick Condon (pro-LRT) and Mike Harcourt (pro-SkyTrain) highlighted a difference nearly as stark as that between violet and lavender.
Now please understand, I’m a believer in these things (publicly-funded people-movers), but I wonder whether the frame for debate truly encompasses public sentiment. After all, not everyone views the world through the lens of a planner and some people even love their cars. Many out there probably liken the LRT v. Skytrain debate to a foosball match between twin brothers. (Says Vanessa’s partner, “Isn’t the SkyTrain a form of LRT?”)
The event was informative if nothing else.
For his part, Condon made some very strong points about the viability of streetcars for Vancouver’s future. Beyond the economic advantages of LRT, he painted a clear rationale for streetcars; mainly that livability and eco-consciousness coalesce only at smaller scales, thus the long-distance travel for which SkyTrains are designed is a bit myopic and detrimental to overall sustainability. His argument called for a re-imagining of society as a series of urban villages built throughout Vancouver’s transit corridors.
Harcourt couldn’t seem to agree more…or at least disagree less. The former Premier seemingly wanted to avoid a fight with the more factually and philosophically certain professor. As a good politician, he clearly understood the audience to whom he was speaking. This materialized in recognition of both the SkyTrain’s strengths and limitations, and a vision utilizing a variety of options (including LRT) to address transit needs. Still, there didn’t really seem to be a plan, but instead a sort of glossary of transport possibilities.
The major philosophical contrast in this debate between a sustainability planner and a politician was predictable. While Condon’s vision deliberately structured transportation as a means to shape growth, Harcourt emphasized transportation development as anticipatory and accommodating of population trends. (Hardly surprising that a politician would prefer to accommodate rather than curb growth)
In the end, the event was less a debate and more a gospel of public transport, with LRT stealing the show. I have to wonder whether Shaw Cable’s coverage garnered much viewership. Somehow I doubt that this clash of titans significantly shifted public opinion in one direction or the other.
I’m not completely sold on streetcars holding a significant edge on electric BRT, though I am moving in that direction. They are indeed sexier than buses and the Portland example shows that they have a significant impact on property value due to the supposed permanence of their routes (though this also produces a variety of problems). Vancouver’s Olympic Line streetcar experiment, which will connect Granville Island to the Canada Line, could be a boon for streetcar advocates.
Other things:
- Linguistic Gymnast: Harcourt was a little rough on an anti-Gateway activist in the post-debate Q&A, calling the Gateway opposition “naïve” and citing that Vancouver was established as Canada’s western “gateway”. That argument may explain the name of the provincial program, but doesn’t do much to justify its contradiction of regional plans.
- As our good friend Silas noted, despite his political aikido and assault on the Gateway opposition, Harcourt came out of the debate as one of the good guys–The mark of a successful politician.
- Harcourt held that democratic institutions work well in BC, while Condon was less enthusiastic…Score one for the professor.
- Learn more about Portland’s streetcars at E2 (go to Webcasts > Transport).
