Metro Vancouver Transportation & Transit Plebiscite

[Steveston]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

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).

A quote from Carl Guardino at last night's lecture: " I hate taxes -- but I hate traffic more".

[s211]

I'm not quite clear whether there's a shelf life to this tax or not. Is it proscribed that once the funds for the wishlist have been collected, the tax will fall away?

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by s211

I'm not quite clear whether there's a shelf life to this tax or not. Is it proscribed that once the funds for the wishlist have been collected, the tax will fall away?

Nope. It's permanent. This is why I think it's unlikely to succeed, or will just barely pass.

If it had a sunset clause that it would go away once the projects costs are completed, that would be one thing, but Surrey will never recover it's costs in under a century if it builds LRT. The Expo line already recovered its costs, so operating it instead of something else is more fiscally responsible. We'll have to wait and see about the Millennium/Evergreen line. The Canada Line likely will recover it's costs in 30 years.

This is why I suggest that any sales-tax be tied to a specific project and the tax would drop off once the capital to build it is paid off. Operational cost should come entirely from fares, while maintenance should come from property taxes. Likewise with the bridges, tolls should pay for the bridge but maintenance costs should come from the fuel taxes.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Nope. It's permanent. This is why I think it's unlikely to succeed, or will just barely pass.

If it had a sunset clause that it would go away once the projects costs are completed, that would be one thing, but Surrey will never recover it's costs in under a century if it builds LRT. The Expo line already recovered its costs, so operating it instead of something else is more fiscally responsible. We'll have to wait and see about the Millennium/Evergreen line. The Canada Line likely will recover it's costs in 30 years.

This is why I suggest that any sales-tax be tied to a specific project and the tax would drop off once the capital to build it is paid off. Operational cost should come entirely from fares, while maintenance should come from property taxes. Likewise with the bridges, tolls should pay for the bridge but maintenance costs should come from the fuel taxes.

Thank you for clarifying.

[st7860]

I read a random article on vancitybuzz (not related to transit) there was a comment, with a small blurb about translink.


Thats why I am convinced that if the provincial government had came out with a plan to a) have an elected board for translink like the parks board and b) set the tax at 1% instead of 0.5%, it would pass easily. There's just so much dislike for translink, that it cant be salvaged. The name is everything lol.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by st7860

I read a random article on vancitybuzz (not related to transit) there was a comment, with a small blurb about translink.


Thats why I am convinced that if the provincial government had came out with a plan to a) have an elected board for translink like the parks board and b) set the tax at 1% instead of 0.5%, it would pass easily. There's just so much dislike for translink, that it cant be salvaged. The name is everything lol.

I don't know why anyone would think Translink would be better if we put more meddling politicians on it. If the entire point is for it to operate like a private company to save costs from government bureaucracy then that is how it should be operated, and forget this nonsense about the mayors even being on it.

I'm being facetious when I say this, but transit something that you don't want the voter having a say in. The voter should only have a yes or no vote on approving the presence of a new transit line/route in their neighborhood and it should end there. Once you start letting the voter have a say, there will be calls for the voter to have more power, and we're seeing this already with the bellyaching over Translink executives pay. The next thing you know they will want to make all the infrastructure last decades beyond their safe life expectancy.

Almost a century ago, all transit was privately operated, and either made a profit or went into receivership. It was the advent of the personal automobile that changed things in the 1930's. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past of building infrastructure that is trendy somewhere else, instead of efficient for our climate and safety.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by Kisai

last decades beyond their safe life expectancy.

There's a guy in the Fraser Valley that bought a translink high floor D40 bus a few years ago and used it to provide tour bus service around Metro Vancouver. He said that translink sold him a bus with a new tranny and tires...

So whats the sense of retiring or selling old buses when they are still safe to run?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by st7860

So whats the sense of retiring or selling old buses when they are still safe to run?

Possibilities:

• He may have gotten the best bus of that model that Translink had left, but it wasn't worth maintaining them overall.
• Translink has a goal of having an accessible fleet and these high-floor buses didn't meet that criterion.
• It may be that the buses they replaced them with had better gas mileage and the savings made it worth replacing them.

The reality is likely a mix of these and other factors.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by st7860

There's a guy in the Fraser Valley that bought a translink high floor D40 bus a few years ago and used it to provide tour bus service around Metro Vancouver. He said that translink sold him a bus with a new tranny and tires...

So whats the sense of retiring or selling old buses when they are still safe to run?

I can think of a few reasons:
1. The parts are no longer available, eg the manufacturer has discontinued other parts that would be required to extend the life of the bus. Hence the maintenance costs skyrocket in having to source new parts or having parts made. I seem to recall that the buses just get sold to places in South America.
2. The most obvious reason is wanting to standardize on low-floor vehicles.
3. Overall wanting to standardize on as few different variations of buses as possible to reduce maintenance costs.

Translink has stated that the (diesel) buses don't have a very long life span, and this is backed up in a report from the US FTA DOT that states 12 years or 500,000 miles minimum and a maximum of 20.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Use...-26-07_rv1.pdf , it also says that Low-Floor designs have less life expectancy.

As previously noted, the only market of customers requesting vehicles with expected life values
different than FTA minimums is the Canadian market, where vehicles are specified for 18-year
service life.

(In reference to TTC.)

Translink says "Conventional buses have a life expectancy of 17 years or one million kilometres."
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/docu...20summary.ashx

One thing to consider is that the lower mainland doesn't have a lot of snow days, and salt is the primary reason for chassis wear, so while Translink may be able to get buses to last 17 years, the same expectation could not be made of BC Transit's fleet in Kelowna, or any other bus fleet in another province.

[WarrenC12]

Somebody dug up this article from 2008 when Bateman was pushing hard for the Gateway project:

http://www.canada.com/vancouvercouri...#__federated=1

I think Gateway was a good project, but he's being pretty hypocritical supporting a $3B+ publicly funded transportation project then, and fighting against a transportation tax that won't generate that kind of revenue for decades.

I'm so glad we have the internet as a public record this type of thing.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Somebody dug up this article from 2008 when Bateman was pushing hard for the Gateway project:

http://www.canada.com/vancouvercouri...#__federated=1

I think Gateway was a good project, but he's being pretty hypocritical supporting a $3B+ publicly funded transportation project then, and fighting against a transportation tax that won't generate that kind of revenue for decades.

I'm so glad we have the internet as a public record this type of thing.

If you want to know what I think, it's all about the money.

The fact is, Bateman makes his living off of this criticism. When you allow people to take on that sort of position for cash, you get flip-flops and hypocrisy that may go unnoticed and then these people to go ahead and screw up the end result for everyone

To this I think of Paul Lee, the Surrey rapid transit project manager (i.e. the city's behind-the-scenes LRT advocate). Honestly I've talked with him a number of times and while we're on totally opposite sides of the "what-type-of-transit" chamber, he's never really been out there to throw me under the bus. He's heard my concerns on LRT including lack of business case, trade-offs not explored by Council - and he's even given me his suggestion as to how LRT could be overthrown. At the end of the day, he works for the city - it's his job, it's how he feeds and supports his kids. Being a part of city staff doesn't mean he gets to make the same decisions as the politicians on top do. He can't necessarily flip-flop to anything else - then the city might just have him fired in favour of somebody else. He might as well be a puppet, which would be sad, but that's just how it works. He's a part of the problem, but the real targets (and enemies) are the politicians who insist that it can't be done another way.

In the same manner Bateman might have become a puppet of his own organization. On the other hand, he's also a director (in-charge), so it's a little less certain - his views are essentially a mix of his own views from his time as a politician, and the views he must have as a part of the CTF. Nevertheless, the hypocrisy we've found is valid. It goes to show that as long as you make a living off of your voice and you're not a politician... the organization you're a part of might just take control of who you are entirely.

Of course you could also be as crazy as some of the RftV folks (-cough-Zweisystem-) who neither earn a living for what they do nor seem to be in it to actually get things to improve in their own lives/community.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Somebody dug up this article from 2008 when Bateman was pushing hard for the Gateway project:

http://www.canada.com/vancouvercouri...#__federated=1

I think Gateway was a good project, but he's being pretty hypocritical supporting a $3B+ publicly funded transportation project then, and fighting against a transportation tax that won't generate that kind of revenue for decades.

I'm so glad we have the internet as a public record this type of thing.

But the question is is this being reported by the mainstream media? Has the Vancouver Sun, Global News, and so on pointed it out to the public on what a hypocrite Jordan Bateman is?

Simply citing it in this forum is useless since you are preaching to the converted...

[Kisai]

New Poll results January 20th, 2015:

http://www.insightswest.com/news/yes...ut-plebiscite/

The Yes Voters

Seven-in-ten Yes voters (71%) concede that, while they are not satisfied with TransLink’s performance, they think the plebiscite is the best way to deal with current and future transit problems. Three-in-five Yes voters (63%) believe the plebiscite addresses the traffic, service and road problems we have in the Lower Mainland, and half (49%) think having annual independent audits and public reporting will promote transparency.

It is important to note that only 11% of Yes voters say they have confidence in TransLink to do a good job to ensure that these transportation projects are implemented properly, and only 17% trust the Mayors to make the best decision when it comes to funding these projects.

The No Voters

Three-in-four No voters (74%) think there are other ways to fund these transportation projects, and want TransLink to explain how funds are spent before residents vote on any tax increase. A similarly high proportion of No voters (71%) say they do not have confidence in TransLink to do a good job to ensure that the projects are implemented properly.

In addition, almost half of No voters (46%) do not trust the Mayors to make the best decision when it comes to funding these projects, and one third (35%) say they intend to send a message to TransLink and the Mayors by voting No.

...
Results are based on an online study conducted from January 9 to January 12, 2015, among 643 adult residents of Metro Vancouver who are Your Insights panel members. YourInsights.ca is Insights West’s in-house access panel offering on-demand samples for both clients and research suppliers looking for Western Canadian populations. Results have a margin of error of +/- 4.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Click here to view the detailed data tabulations for this study.

Well no surprises there.

[GlassCity]

What do these people even mean by saying they don't trust Translink to implement this project properly? Since 2000, Translink has put in the Millennium Line, the Canada Line a bunch of B-Lines and is now working on the Evergreen Line. They've all been effective and built fairly quickly. What exactly is the concern?

I get the feeling that Translink has become guilty by reputation at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if people forget why they think Translink is a bad organisation: it's just become a fact that it is. I mean other than "overpaying their executives," which even if they did isn't a huge deal, why is Translink synonymous with evil around here?

[GMasterAres]

Not trusting the Mayors is actually quite amazing seeing as in practice the majority of Mayors in the region have their councils handling funds the best out of all other levels of government, even Vancouver handles its funds drastically better than the Province.

I'd trust the Mayors for handling tax payer money before the Province or even Feds.

[Xerx]

I don't get it, they trust their mayors with managing the funds for their cities, but can't trust them to manage Translink's funds?

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Xerx

I don't get it, they trust their mayors with managing the funds for their cities, but can't trust them to manage Translink's funds?

Surrey has been mismanged for decades. Do you really want that kind of mismanagement on Translink?

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/...ncil-1.1733965

Tom Zytaruk / Surrey Now
January 16, 2015 03:10 PM
...
Hepner said Surrey will have a “bold and vocal” voice at the council’s table. Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson was voted its chairman.

Too late.

The mayor of Surrey is vice-chair of Translinks Mayor Council. Mayor Moonbeam is the Chairman. So the Chairman and the Vice Chairman represent cities with large capital projects that could be scuttled if a NO vote prevails.

Like, at this point in time the two sticking points that makes me undecided:
- I don't want to vote for a tax that has no sunset clause
- I would rather see the Skytrain extended and no at-grade light rail ever built. I see Surrey's point about wanting something "now", but they're pulling pages from Portland's LRT playbook, which is not good for a livable region. If they build light rail, they will see their bus service scaled back substantially just to operate it.

As it is, I'm not really that concerned if it passes either, because 0.5% is "nothing" in the grand scheme of things, but it leaves open the door for it to be increased once introduced, without another vote (AFAIK.) That is disconcerting.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

What do these people even mean by saying they don't trust Translink to implement this project properly? Since 2000, Translink has put in the Millennium Line, the Canada Line a bunch of B-Lines and is now working on the Evergreen Line. They've all been effective and built fairly quickly. What exactly is the concern?

I get the feeling that Translink has become guilty by reputation at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if people forget why they think Translink is a bad organisation: it's just become a fact that it is. I mean other than "overpaying their executives," which even if they did isn't a huge deal, why is Translink synonymous with evil around here?

Bingo! Also Translink has been the whipping boy for any little problem. people just love to hate it, but if you ask most of them to detail why they hate it, they wont really know what to say.

The best is to ask those people who hate Translink so much what their alternative plan is...again, in detail.

[kylemacmac]

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!

Jordan Bateman is Rob Ford without the crack.

Same line of horrible ideas, but far less crazy funny crack-fuelled antics.

Unfortunately both get lots of media play.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Surrey has been mismanged for decades. Do you really want that kind of mismanagement on Translink?

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/...ncil-1.1733965




Too late.

The mayor of Surrey is vice-chair of Translinks Mayor Council. Mayor Moonbeam is the Chairman. So the Chairman and the Vice Chairman represent cities with large capital projects that could be scuttled if a NO vote prevails.

Like, at this point in time the two sticking points that makes me undecided:
- I don't want to vote for a tax that has no sunset clause
- I would rather see the Skytrain extended and no at-grade light rail ever built. I see Surrey's point about wanting something "now", but they're pulling pages from Portland's LRT playbook, which is not good for a livable region. If they build light rail, they will see their bus service scaled back substantially just to operate it.

As it is, I'm not really that concerned if it passes either, because 0.5% is "nothing" in the grand scheme of things, but it leaves open the door for it to be increased once introduced, without another vote (AFAIK.) That is disconcerting.

I'll definitely be voting "yes" just because it's needed so badly, but I share your concerns.
a) I really don't want to support LRT. But realistically, I only travel along the Surrey corridors (Fraser Highway) twice a year so it really doesn't matter me. I'm just opposed to it because I don't want to ruin our rapid transit network. Every municipality deserves the same: SkyTrain. But if that's really want Surrey wants, who am I to stop them.

b) I'm not so much against the lack of a sunset clause, seeing as there will be undoubtedly new projects needed by the time all of these are completed. I do share your worry that after this is voted in they'll just start raising it. Because while I do support funding transit, at some point you have to think enough would be enough. I have hope that this will be the final tax implemented, although I realise that's a bit naive.