Metro Vancouver Transportation & Transit Plebiscite

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Sure sounds like Tranlink's budgetary issues, forcing every level to 'do more with less' has led to running the skytrain like a discount airline. You're fine for 99.9% of the time, but when the lack of maintenance, lack of spare parts, lack of proper training and documentation catch up to you, you have people scrambling to fix things on the fly with left over parts, etc.

Of course, no the population is constantly fed BS from the Taxpayers Federation about how Translink's problem is that it has too much money...

People don't make the connection between proper maintenance means less damage and wear. When you start cutting costs by deferring maintenance, it costs a lot more money to recover from incidents.

Like the case with the control board that they had to grab from the simulator. They had the spare part available but obviously never tested it. They have a simulator, they can obviously test it without taking down the Skytrain system.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Kisai

People don't make the connection between proper maintenance means less damage and wear. When you start cutting costs by deferring maintenance, it costs a lot more money to recover from incidents.

Like the case with the control board that they had to grab from the simulator. They had the spare part available but obviously never tested it. They have a simulator, they can obviously test it without taking down the Skytrain system.

I agree, a good Preventative Maintenance and Work Management systems saves money. If you don't have a good handle on the design basis and you don't know what parts are in inventory you end up in the case where staff start on some activity and stall due to documentation or not having spares etc. Getting a handle on those items makes things far more efficient.

It is an issue of how they spend the money they have and the level of discipline and planning that is in place. In other words culture.

[SOSS]

No side has a nice looking website: http://www.notranslinktax.ca/
"Vote no, save your money, please donate" - brutal.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SOSS

No side has a nice looking website: http://www.notranslinktax.ca/
"Vote no, save your money, please donate" - brutal.

They need to put up a Chinese version of that site to tap into some hardcore anti-tax voters.

[Xerx]

Pretty sure Chinese attiitudes towards taxes more or less match those of the general population.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Xerx

Pretty sure Chinese attiitudes towards taxes more or less match those of the general population.

Richmond declared income rates suggest otherwise. They tend to be much more right wing than the average Vancouverite.

[SOSS]

I think they're recommended solution for raising the money need for capital is comical. They want to tap the anticipated growth rate of 4.8%. Hilarious! Growth of 4.8% means increased in expenses to service that growth. It's not like you get increased in revenue growth without growth in expenses. Pushing it to the municipalities like they want would increase property taxes; its that simple. Then they would be crying foul on that too.

Don't get me wrong, there are some cost saving measures to take; there is some pork that should be trimmed. But that is thousands and millions vs the billions that are required.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by SOSS

No side has a nice looking website: http://www.notranslinktax.ca/
"Vote no, save your money, please donate" - brutal.

Well, the website does have some very compelling arguments as to why we should vote no. I do agree that if Translink just save 0.5% of its future revenue, that could be a better solution.

Then again, as soon as you get to the bottom, they showed a link to Malcolm Johnston's Letter to the Editor which kills their credibility. Le sigh....when will people learn than using these nut cases will only hurt their cause....

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Well, the website does have some very compelling arguments as to why we should vote no. I do agree that if Translink just save 0.5% of its future revenue, that could be a better solution.

Then again, as soon as you get to the bottom, they showed a link to Malcolm Johnston's Letter to the Editor which kills their credibility. Le sigh....when will people learn than using these nut cases will only hurt their cause....

If Translink saves .5% that will not generate the same revenue as an increase in metro sales tax of .5%.

[WarrenC12]

The No vote is the same garbage being carefully spewed to convince the ignorant general public to vote against this tax.

Same as the Vanderzalm HST shit show.

[Gordon]

This $4.8% revenue increase for Translink & metro Van Governments over the next 10 years a net increase or a gross increase, because if it is a gross one than it is n a relevant number

[Kwik-E-Mart]

The No side unveiled their cards too early. Should Bateman & Co. combined the website with a forceful slogan like "ENOUGH!" less than a month before the voting begins, they could've had the chance to land a one-punch KO against the Yes side.

Now the Mayor's Council and the Coalition have more time to prepare for a response. And once again despite what the No side is saying, TransLink should keep a low profile and make sure there are no more breakdowns - regardless of how large or small - between now and the voting period. If the Compass problems are solved just before the vote, that would be a huge bonus imo.

Malcolm Johnston/Zweisystem should be given more of a role in the No side. I think he's doing a great cause for them (and yes, I am serious).

[SFUVancouver]

What I find frustrating about Jason Bateman and the 'No' side's idea of all the municipalities directing a portion of future tax revenue growth in lieu of the plebiscite's PST increment is that the former is just an idea plucked out of the air while the latter is the plan and the consensus of the region's municipalities. To some media outlets, and a lot of uninformed people, the two will be considered equal in merit and viability and, perhaps, voting 'no' will get option 2. No, voting 'no' means there's no new funding for transit and non-provincial road and bridge improvements for years to come.

The effort it takes to come up with BS is an order of magnitude smaller than the effort it takes to refute it. Misdirect, misinform, and stall; that's the game plan of the 'no' side.

[WarrenC12]

Their "latest news" includes 2 CTF BS articles, Malcolm J saying Broadway subway will only transport 6000 pphpd, and Barbara Yaffe saying that there isn't much support for a Yes vote "after canvassing friends". Good grief.

I'm glad Peter Ladner is speaking out in favour of it. He's a reasonable guy, and hopefully well respected among people who might normally vote No.

MJ is also quoted as saying Surrey's LRT is a bad idea... LOL. I guess it's Chilliwack or bust for him.

[GlassCity]

The dangerous thing is that people have a preconceived idea about TransLink so they will believe outright lies they hear from people like Malcolm Johnston, like that SkyTrain has less capacity than LRT.

[dpogue]

There's a rebuttal here that provides some numbers. All the savings proposed by CTF would only save 0.13%.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The dangerous thing is that people have a preconceived idea about TransLink so they will believe outright lies they hear from people like Malcolm Johnston, like that SkyTrain has less capacity than LRT.

Malcom Johnston would have more credibility if he would leave his hate for the Skytrain at the door. Occasionally he says something worth researching, but not very often.

Malcom wants to see a tram to Chilliwack, and would like to see the WCE operate all day. Who knows what else he would waste money on.

One detail that he has mentioned a few times that I think is more validation on why Light Rail is a bad idea for Surrey in General, is that Surrey isn't trying to convert car drivers to rapid transit riders at all. No Surrey is trying to use Light Rail as a way to push development like how Burnaby got all the transit-oriented development activity from the Millennium Line. Rapid Transit Line's to nowhere.

Like it or not, the reason Metro Vancouver is developing the way it is, is because of the Rapid Transit lines, not because of the choice of technology. The technology is only the second bullet point on how people would evaluate where they want to live.

If someone wants to live, car-free, they are not going to live in Surrey, as the only place in Surrey that isn't a pain in the ass to get to are the 4 Skytrain stops. It would make logical sense to let the Skytrain go to Langley to complete the "Rapid Transit" backbone before rolling out anything else that serves Surrey-only. Surrey doesn't want to wait 30 years, but budget-wise that's how long it would take. Surrey is literately trying to force translink to build what only serves them, and maximize what they get for the budget.

At-grade surface rail is a bad choice for the long term. When you look at the Ottawa o-train and the Seattle Light Rail, you quickly realize the cost of attempting to only partially grade-separate it. It's almost as expensive as just building a subway to begin with. If you could separate all the grade crossings for LRT, you might actually save enough money from not having to repair every train a few times a month from collisions with vehicles, and get some reasonable headway. But we know that won't happen, light rail is what is built when a city tries to maximize the amount of infrastructure without regards for the operational and safety costs.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Their "latest news" includes 2 CTF BS articles, Malcolm J saying Broadway subway will only transport 6000 pphpd, and Barbara Yaffe saying that there isn't much support for a Yes vote "after canvassing friends". Good grief.

I'm glad Peter Ladner is speaking out in favour of it. He's a reasonable guy, and hopefully well respected among people who might normally vote No.

MJ is also quoted as saying Surrey's LRT is a bad idea... LOL. I guess it's Chilliwack or bust for him.

Fuck me, where did he pull than number from? His ass must be getting sore. Is there a little asterisk next to the number that says "During a half day of only operating 2 car MI trains"

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Richmond declared income rates suggest otherwise. They tend to be much more right wing than the average Vancouverite.

For example, my friend who receives $70,000/year in "gifts" from his parents in China, when in reality this is income from their company.

[Steveston]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

For example, my friend who receives $70,000/year in "gifts" from his parents in China, when in reality this is income from their company.

Chinese support transit -- buses and Canada Line -- in big numbers. I would be very surprised if they did not support the Yes side wholeheartedly.