How could Gordon Campbell get it so wrong? When he sent a message to all the voters outside of the Lower Mainland that he was willing to put them at risk with a blank cheque in order to proceed with the RAV line, I thought he must have done his organizing and assured himself that the TransLink directors would accept his offer before he risked the embarrassment of another rejection. The second time defeat for RAV ranks right up there with the Coquihalla as an example of Campbell being completely out of touch.

Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon was quick to condemn the TransLink directors, and Campbell followed with a little rant on Global TV about a failure of leadership. He's half right; his leadership failed. The directors showed that the regional model of governance works. They refused to turn key decisions over to the province on scheduling, fares, station locations and extent of tunneling.

Apologists for the Campbell government are quick to criticize TransLink directors as too parochial to be responsible for the broad needs of the region. Since the directors are appointed from their respective municipal councils, it is true that they are not directly elected for the purpose of making regional transit decisions. Once they are appointed, however, they can be held accountable for those decisions as well as for their municipal duties. Ask George Puil how his role as TransLink's chair affected his political career. Our MLAs and MPs have a first duty to represent their constituencies, so how is their broad responsibility for provincial or national affairs any different from the commitment of a TransLink director? The decision to stop senior levels of government from distorting the Livable Region Plan and making an uneconomic decision shows that TransLink directors have a level of courage and independence rarely seen in government backbenchers. Unlike the 75 Campbell clones, the TransLink directors accept the political consequences of their decision.

It would be wrong to think of the $10 million or more that has been spent on planning RAV as a waste of money. The offers from the federal government, the province and the Airport Authority, made it necessary to consider the project seriously. At a cost of at least $1.5 billion, the annual debt servicing costs at 5% would be at least $75 million per year; spending $10 million, even to say no, is a necessary investment in planning.

One of the most important lessons in both politics and economics is that "everyone's costs are someone else's income". There are people who would have directly benefited from any contracts awarded to build RAV. They will probably be far more upset than any theoretical traveler through the airport who will now have their transportation choice limited to a taxi, a bus, a limousine or an automobile. Taxpayers will never be able to fully appreciate what was saved as some other scheme is bound to come along to soak up every possible dime, but at least there is hope that competing projects will have to show that they are the best use of those dimes. If Campbell's sham of a "core review" was anything other than an excuse for cuts, he would understand real evaluation, and he would applaud the TransLink directors for doing their job.