Metro Vancouver Transportation & Transit Plebiscite

[Tourist9394]

Originally Posted by Steveston

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

I am Chinese. There is the Translink levy in our property tax already, why is there a sales tax for Translink?

[Pinion]

Using the service and voting to pay more for the service are two totally different things. It would be a hard sell even if most people didn't think Translink is inefficient and corrupt.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by Tourist9394

I am Chinese. There is the Translink levy in our property tax already, why is there a sales tax for Translink?

Because the mayor's council refuses to raise the levy in order to fund the expansion of the Translink system. A sales tax is the new mechanism they decided on after the province said no to everything else that they came up with. At the end of the day, the money is still coming from local residents.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Kisai

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.

Can agree with pretty much everything you said.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Steveston

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

Republicans love their highways and roads, they use them all the time, yet they are against nearly any tax increase, willing to use and willing to pay don't always go hand in hand.

That being said, I feel many Canadian born Chinese will support the tax (many of them are young urbanites that have a far stronger emotional connection to the region) but many wealthy first gens will definitely be against it, as they largely have conservative fiscal beliefs.

And PS, recognizing that a culture / group of people are generally more right leaning / left leaning than another culture / group of people does not equate to racism. The same way some cultures ARE more religious than other cultures (but that is another battle).

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And PS, recognizing that a culture / group of people are generally more right leaning / left leaning than another culture / group of people does not equate to racism. The same way some cultures ARE more religious than other cultures (but that is another battle).

Especially considering the conditions in which many of those people came to Canada in the last two decades. i.e. $750,000 loan to the government.

To use a potentially less sensitive example, it's fair to say Cuban exiles in Florida are more right wing than the Cubans who chose to stay in Cuba. Their kids tend to go back towards the middle. It's not racist to acknowledge this and I'm glad we can occasionally have discussions about factual cultural differences without everyone freaking out and trying to censor it.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Especially considering the conditions in which many of those people came to Canada in the last two decades. i.e. $750,000 loan to the government.

To use a potentially less sensitive example, it's fair to say Cuban exiles in Florida are more right wing than the Cubans who chose to stay in Cuba. Their kids tend to go back towards the middle. It's not racist to acknowledge this and I'm glad we can occasionally have discussions about factual cultural differences without everyone freaking out and trying to censor it.

Many of the Chinese people living in Metro Vancouver did not immigrate under that plan. That's a gross exaggeration.

Back on topic now!

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

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"

He's fabricating this estimate based on some sort of ridership data sheet he refers to on bus routes crossing the Vancouver/UEL border - which doesn't account for any of the other ridership on the corridor, particularly in the Central Broadway areaa.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Many of the Chinese people living in Metro Vancouver did not immigrate under that plan. That's a gross exaggeration.

Back on topic now!

lol

[st7860]

Based on what I see in comments on other boards/places, it seems that the vote would easily pass, even at 1%, if translink was replaced with an elected(parks board style board with 5 to 8 people?) organization. It doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people that even if translink waste is only 5 to 50 million or whatever. Its the name and organization that people dislike.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

they should copletely get rid of the name "TransLink" and become the GVTA "Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority." Officially "Metro Vancouver" is still the "Greater Vancouver Regional District" and i think the average person would think that with the new name there would be restructuring when in fact you could leave it pretty much as is.

this new name would fit in well with the GVRD, Metro Vancouver's official name, the GVWD, the Greater Vancouver Water District, and the GVS&DD, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District. as an added bonus the name change of MVHC, the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, to GVHC, Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation, would be nice to keep the nomenclature the same. i was never a fan of the "Metro Vancouver" name myself, and officially, GVRD is still the name of the governed area.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

they should copletely get rid of the name "TransLink" and become the GVTA "Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority." Officially "Metro Vancouver" is still the "Greater Vancouver Regional District" and i think the average person would think that with the new name there would be restructuring when in fact you could leave it pretty much as is.

this new name would fit in well with the GVRD, Metro Vancouver's official name, the GVWD, the Greater Vancouver Water District, and the GVS&DD, the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District. as an added bonus the name change of MVHC, the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, to GVHC, Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation, would be nice to keep the nomenclature the same. i was never a fan of the "Metro Vancouver" name myself, and officially, GVRD is still the name of the governed area.

Uhh...
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../7796/index.do

The appellant transit authorities, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (“TransLink”) and British Columbia Transit (“BC Transit”), operate public transportation systems in British Columbia.

GVRD also refers to Greater Victoria, which is also known as Capital Regional District. See the problem?

As for electing people directly to Translink... I think this is foolish. The Mayors are already elected, and they're the ones screwing around and not raising property taxes. Translink is essentially a private company that keeps being meddled with by politicians instead of being left alone to do what is best for the region. If there is no political will from the mayors to raise taxes, nor the province or feds for capital projects, then Translink should just raise all the fares or cut service to each region that isn't paying for the amount of services required. Translink has a government mandated monopoly on transit, and then some. I'm sure the South of Fraser feels they aren't getting their moneys worth, but that is because of the geography. It costs more money to run buses in less dense areas, because more buses are needed to get comparable service to North of Fraser.

Nothing is going to change that in the short term as long as communities South of the Fraser keep on urban sprawling. Any form of rapid transit is completely wasted without the transit oriented development. And picking the wrong kind of "rapid" transit, will not bring the right kind of development.

[urbancanadian]

Translink is very well branded, and changing their name would be pretty expensive since they would need to change everything that has their logo on it. They would have to keep the colour scheme too.

And I don't think its the GVTA anymore, is it? I thought it was changed to SCBCTA (South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority).

[jsbertram]

I already mentioned an idea to get around the "don't fund translink -- they'll just waste it" argument.

Have the GVRD (aka "metro") create a new entity like "Metro Infrastucture Construction", and have the new taxes dumped into that entity.

"Metro Infrastucture Construction" would be responsible for transportation capital construction projects in the GVRD paid for by the new taxes. When a transit project is completed Translink would be contracted for the ongoing operations of the new infrastucture.

ie: "Metro Infrastucture Construction" would build the new Broadway subway (and own the finished infrastructure) using the new referendum taxes, and Translink would operate their SkyTrain in the new Broadway subway. Translink would pay "Metro Infrastucture Construction" for use of the Broadway subway and stations, and if some ridership projections are correct Translink may generate a bit of profit from operating the line.

[WarrenC12]

^^^^^

Another layer of bureaucracy to solve a problem that doesn't really exist...

[st7860]

this is funny. but I never heard of the $5 glitch before...

http://www.notranslinktax.ca/

"$5 GETS YOU $20: TransLink took months to fix a glitch that saw its ticket vending machines treat new $5 bills like they were $20s. People would buy tickets and get more money back than they put in."

[MIPS]

It did happen, however there's no numbers on how many times it happened. There was only four reported incidents and the newspaper could not replicate the bug.

That whole website is bad. Awful HTML5 effects and no sources are ever cited so they're probably sensationalizing a lot.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by MIPS

It did happen, however there's no numbers on how many times it happened. There was only four reported incidents and the newspaper could not replicate the bug.

That whole website is bad. Awful HTML5 effects and no sources are ever cited so they're probably sensationalizing a lot.

That's essentially what Bateman and the CTF rely on, whether it's to do with TransLink or anything else. Snazzy talking points and flash but when it comes to actually substantiating their claims.. there's nothing there in terms of facts to back them up. Just right wing ideology. Durrr taxes r bad!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

That's essentially what Bateman and the CTF rely on, whether it's to do with TransLink or anything else. Snazzy talking points and flash but when it comes to actually substantiating their claims.. there's nothing there in terms of facts to back them up. Just right wing ideology. Durrr taxes r bad!

Don't overestimate here, he IS the CTF.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Don't overestimate here, he IS the CTF.

Well, yes, but I imagine that they have at least one other person. Somewhere. Maybe.