Metro Vancouver Transportation & Transit Plebiscite

[go_leafs_go02]

One other thing, which makes me realize that those commenting on news articles don't represent the total population:

3,058 people have pledged to vote NO on the "No TransLink Tax" website so far. This page has been up and running for the last 3 weeks or so. http://www.notranslinktax.ca/

2,109 people have liked the "Vote YES for better Transit Page" on Facebook so far. This page has been up and running for the last 5 days. https://www.facebook.com/bettertransitinfo

I guess we'll see where the tally is, and also realize that both numbers likely have people who live outside Metro Vancouver, when you look at the time & exposure the CTF has got in the media, compared to the time & exposure the YES vote has got so far, I'm starting to feel like this is far from over, even though what you seem to read online (outside of this forum) is a strong NO vote.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Good Vancouver Sun article on the CTF, exposes some of their hypocrisy.

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/...171/story.html

That's a terrific article!

[Geof]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

I'm starting to feel like this is far from over, even though what you seem to read online (outside of this forum) is a strong NO vote.

Check out the Vancouver Reddit.

[ssiguy]

I don't think it will pass as there is little support south of the Fraser.

The problem is that it will actually make car travel disproportionately more expensive for people in the area. This token of a new Pattula will make things worse. they will be replacing a current bridge with one with no higher capacity but the people will now have to pay for it. the reason volumes have increased on the bridge and have been falling on the Port Mann is due to the tolls which are awfully steep. With the new Massey bridge there will only be the Alex Frazer one will be able to cross without paying a hefty toll.

It's that kind of inequity that people don't appreciate. The Sea to Sky is toll free because it serves the wealthy going to Whistler for the weekend but the proletariats who need their bridges for everyday work will pay thru the nose. Why are the bridges that serve the city of Vancouver not tolled but the ones serving people in the valley are? Why did the Pitt Meadows get paid for 100% while people in the valley get no such treatment?

These are not new routes but rather just improvements of existing ones that should have be done 30 years ago. the province is pushing an entire new bridge on Massey and tearing down the tunnel to allow for bigger ships as opposed to just adding another tunnel for a quarter of the price. Why should people in the Valley have to pay all the cost of a new bridge just so bigger ships can be used? If [as they proclaim} will help all of the Greater Vancouver economy? Why is that massive extra cost being loaded on to this area yet the citizens in the city will pay nothing?

It may get more support if the upgrades to the current road network were being fairly applied across the region but they won't be and hence the push back. It is patently unfair that someone can drive from Mission to YVR free of charge but someone going from Ladner to Stevenson or NuWest to Surrey Central will have to pay thru the nose.

You can't expect region wide support for a tax when some areas are going to have to pay far more in that tax than others.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It may get more support if the upgrades to the current road network were being fairly applied across the region but they won't be and hence the push back. It is patently unfair that someone can drive from Mission to YVR free of charge but someone going from Ladner to Stevenson or NuWest to Surrey Central will have to pay thru the nose.

You can't expect region wide support for a tax when some areas are going to have to pay far more in that tax than others.

First of all, there are no major road upgrades other than the Patullo bridge. That primarily benefits people in Surrey and New West/Burnaby.

Second, the pre-approved GMT replacement and the Patullo, and any other bridge replacement will be tolled. No matter what happens with the vote. Voting yes only ensures the Patullo bridge will happen sooner rather than later.

Third, this tax is on consumption. Higher income earners will pay more of it. That means people in West Van and Vancouver (west side and downtown in particular) will pay more. South of the Fraser demographics show a lower income level, and so will pay less.

Fourth, the people getting the benefit will typically be the inverse of those paying more. Lower income people will use transit more, and will derive more benefit from the upgrades across the region.

The plan provides for the best upgrades based on what is in place today. So that means rail expansion for Vancouver and Surrey, and various B-Lines for other areas not well served by transit today.

The GMT replacement, while I don't agree with the nature of the decision, is the same as the PMB. It is essentially user-pay, with the huge up front cost coming from the government.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I don't think it will pass as there is little support south of the Fraser.

Really? South of the Fraser gets disproportional benefits. My area gets two bus routes and 10 minute seabus intervals which was promised 10 years ago.

Originally Posted by Geof

Check out the Vancouver Reddit.

Reddit is a bunch of teenagers who won't get around to voting even if they're old enough to. I'd bet most of them have never sent something via snail mail.

[queetz@home]

I really don't see what the issue is if the "No" vote wins. A "No" victory does not mean all transit expansion will grind to a halt. Surrey is determined to build their LRT regardless, and Patullo will still be rebuilt. And at the end of the day, the mayors will simply have to raise property tax to pay for everything else.

From Christy Clark....

http://www.news1130.com/2015/02/06/i...model-premier/

If they decide they do want to build transit without a yes vote in this referendum…mayors will have to fall back on the existing funding mechanism that they have. They’ve always had the ability to raise money for transit by increasing property taxes and I suppose that would be one of the options available to them if the referendum fails. But ultimately they’ll be the ones that make that decision.

Its really only fair, especially since the bulk of the money that can be raised via property tax would be the wealthy side of Vancouver. They would have the highest contribution, and the highest expenditure anyway with the Arbutus subway...

[Kisai]

This isn't reddit or tumblr.

If you want to take the temperature of the attitude people have on the plebiscite, don't even look at the comments on the newspaper sites either. What you do is look at non-transit sites when they are talking about something other than translink. If the general attitude is that they hate paying taxes, then you're going to get a certain "no" from them. You can likely use the HST as an example of the "no to all taxes" attitude.

Aside from that group. The "No" side is not winning, as most of the noise being made by the No side is astroturfing by Jordan Bateman to make Translink look worse than it is. But is the "Yes" side winning? Probably not either. The average person just does not care other than how much they will end up paying.

Like this entire silly thing could have been made more paletable by having the province raise the PST by 0.5%, and then implicitly set aside that for "operating public transit only" and it would only go to Translink or BC Transit with a mandate that it only go toward (new) capital projects, not operations for the metro core it serves. Operational costs must be supported by the local population fares otherwise it as may as well not even exist.

[ssiguy]

if you were to ask people South of Fraser about the new Pattula I would be willing to bet real money that most do NOT want what Translink is proposing. The new bridge won't increase capacity one little bit and won't be any faster than the current bridge except the new one forced onto us by Translink will cost us big bucks to travel across. It would be far better if they just fixed the current one and leave it toll free.

With the GMB this will leave just one bridge, the Alex Fraser, without tolls and it isn't even a freeway. One toll free bridge to connect with 700,000 south of the Fraser and they therefore think everyone who doesn't want to pay a toll has that one bridge as a viable alternative.

Why wasn't Sea to Sky or Pitt Meadows tolled as they are only about 6 years old? Why was the toll placed on the PM bridge as opposed to along the entire route so as to share the pain of paying for the entire HWY#1 project? Why should someone going from Mission to Whistler pay nothing but those from NUWest going to Surrey have to pay a hefty toll? The people of Ladner/Twas have only one real option for getting to Vancouver yet that will be tolled but somehow the Pitt River bridge is different.

It's not the taxes but how they are being unfairly applied across the region. If there is to be bridge tolls they should apply to EVERY major bridge in the region and not just a select few far from Vancouver.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

if you were to ask people South of Fraser about the new Pattula I would be willing to bet real money that most do NOT want what Translink is proposing. The new bridge won't increase capacity one little bit and won't be any faster than the current bridge except the new one forced onto us by Translink will cost us big bucks to travel across. It would be far better if they just fixed the current one and leave it toll free.

With the GMB this will leave just one bridge, the Alex Fraser, without tolls and it isn't even a freeway. One toll free bridge to connect with 700,000 south of the Fraser and they therefore think everyone who doesn't want to pay a toll has that one bridge as a viable alternative.

Why wasn't Sea to Sky or Pitt Meadows tolled as they are only about 6 years old? Why was the toll placed on the PM bridge as opposed to along the entire route so as to share the pain of paying for the entire HWY#1 project? Why should someone going from Mission to Whistler pay nothing but those from NUWest going to Surrey have to pay a hefty toll? The people of Ladner/Twas have only one real option for getting to Vancouver yet that will be tolled but somehow the Pitt River bridge is different.

It's not the taxes but how they are being unfairly applied across the region. If there is to be bridge tolls they should apply to EVERY major bridge in the region and not just a select few far from Vancouver.

The new Pattulo would include:
-Wider lanes which would make it safer, which is key here. The bridge right now is freaking dangerous.
-Would be able to accommodate 6 lanes shall New Westminster permits improvements on their side- McBride-Stormont Connecter would be ideal but this is pretty much never going to happen after seeing the issues with tunneling on the Evergreen Line
-Higher speed limit (70km/hr)
-A new interchange on the Surrey side which would eliminate the many lights and congestion @ 128th/Bridgeview Drive and Scott Road and allow for better connectivity to the SFPR. You'd also force more trucks to use the SFPR and head over to Alex Fraser

What Translink has proposed stinks, but they pretty much have their arms tied. Sure Translink can propose an 8 lane bridge, but where will all that traffic go? You'd still see congestion and people would once again blame Translink for screwing up.

New Westminster is pretty much making life hell for the rest of the region by blocking any high capacity proposal.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

The new Pattulo would include:

-Would be able to accommodate 6 lanes shall New Westminster permits improvements on their side- McBride-Stormont Connecter would be ideal but this is pretty much never going to happen after seeing the issues with tunneling on the Evergreen Line

It would probably be cut and cover anyways. Boring a 4 lane freeway requires a huge TBM or multiple bores. Take a look at Seattle's tunnel for scale.

Burnaby already has the right of way set aside. They would just need to cut a trench in then put a roof on it.

[ssiguy]

I don't think you are seeing my point.

As myuch as I do not support tolls on existing routes, for the sake of fairness why wasn't the entire cost of the HWY#1 corridor tolled based on mileage as opposed to just the bridge? It would have been far fairer and would have raised more revenue and yet spread the pain over a larger number of people. The PM serves one of the lowest income levels in the LM but they have to pay yet the wealthy taking the Sea to Sky pay nothing.

Why can someone go from Steveston to Mission MR pay nothing but that person who is going just to Ladner will get stung? Vancouverites very much seem to support tolls but that's because they don't pay any.

The new PB and GMB will result in just on toll-free bridge..........the ever congested AFB. As part of the provinces so called equity everyone can take it if they need a toll free route. Now just imagine for a second that going into Vancouver City Centre on the Granville, Burrard, Cambie, and the Viaduct were all tolled at $3 with Pender closed so the only toll-free route into downtown was by a completely beyond capacity Hastings. Imagine telling the tony Westsiders that in order to get to downtown toll free they now had to spend an extra half an hour getting to Hastings and then stalled in traffic...................all hell would break loose.

This is exactly what the people in the Valley are being asked to do.

If they were to toll by even $.50 every bridge in the district.............Gran, Cam, Bur, LG, IWM, PR, Oak, Knight, Airport, GMT, Pat, PM, AF then the revenue pulled in would be far higher and yet far more equitably distributed.

I have no problems with tolls on brand new routes like the Golden Ears but definitely not for existing routes. If Vancouverites have no problem with that then they should not have a problem with tolls on all their bridges either.

Until there is a more equitable approach to the road tolling system this plebiscite will be hard sell in the Valley who are expected to pay a disproportionate amount of the funds.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have no problems with tolls on brand new routes like the Golden Ears but definitely not for existing routes. If Vancouverites have no problem with that then they should not have a problem with tolls on all their bridges either.

I've said this before but I honestly believe if we could get a new 4-6 lane Lions Gate and/or eight lane Ironworkers with upgraded interchanges and river/creek bridges and more lanes up the cut, north shore residents would gladly pay tolls. I don't think it's hypocrisy as much as the idea of paying tolls for the current shit show is laughably cruel. We look at the Port Mann/Gateway improvements with envy.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I've said this before but I honestly believe if we could get a new 4-6 lane Lions Gate and/or eight lane Ironworkers with upgraded interchanges and river/creek bridges and more lanes up the cut, north shore residents would gladly pay tolls. I don't think it's hypocrisy as much as the idea of paying tolls for the current shit show is laughably cruel. We look at the Port Mann/Gateway improvements with envy.

I don't think we will ever see Lions Gate upgraded again. Suspension bridges don't seem to be as fragile as one would seem.

It's on the National Historic Site registry. It's likely to get the same treatment again if the road surface needs replacement.


I think there would be more protest about replacing the Lions Gate than replacing the Second Narrows (Ironworkers Memorial) bridge... as the Second Narrows is one of the "unfixable" designs, the original bridge collapsed, and there's been recent collapses of nearly identical designs:

I-35W Mississippi River bridge in 2007:


The Second Narrows is OLDER than this bridge.

This is what short-sighted thinking gets us. The Lions Gate somehow is an engineering marvel, while the rest of the bridges and tunnels around Metro Vancouver are disposable.

[ssiguy]

You say that the NS people would gladly pay a toll for upgrades in their area but why are the people of Vancouver and Burnaby paying for part of the upgrades to HWY#1? Why was 100% of the cost shifted to people in the Valley? That Surrey/Abbotsford corridor has one of the lowest income levels in the country while the Sea to Sky is free for wealthy tourists and Westsiders going to Whistler for the weekend.

The Lions Gate was upgraded......no toll, the Oak Street was updated........no toll so why are the people in the valley being treated differently?

The idea of tolling already existing routes is offensive and is a "get out of jail free pass" for the province because they refused to update the roads and bridges over the last 40 years. If Translink wants money then EVERY bridge should be tolled at a MUCH lower rate so the pain is shared equally.

If Vancouverites agree with tolls for transit then they should have to put their money where their mouths are. It's easy to agree with tolls when you aren't paying any.

[red-paladin]

I don't think the North Shore population would support any increase in bridge lanes whatsoever. They would fight any new bridge with more lanes tooth and nail.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I don't think the North Shore population would support any increase in bridge lanes whatsoever. They would fight any new bridge with more lanes tooth and nail.

That's absurd. It's the one thing we all agree on - traffic is a mess, and almost entirely due to bridge width. Old dumb people blame condos, everyone else blames lack of transit and traffic infrastructure.

The north shore loves driving and wants it to be faster. It's Vancouver proper that resists any more lanes coming into their territory.

Skytrain expansion would face a fight from certain circles for sure - the same types that didn't want Canada line down Arbutus.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

why are the people of Vancouver and Burnaby paying for part of the upgrades to HWY#1? Why was 100% of the cost shifted to people in the Valley?

because it costs an absurd amount of $$$$$$ to install sensors/cameras/data centers/servers/wages for people to monitor every single onramp/offramp/HOV lane exit/HOV lane entrance. and then more $$$$ for software that can process car X went from exit 1a-2b and car Y went 1b-2b and exit 1a-2b is 2kms while 1b-2b is 2.3kms. at $0.50/km car X=$1.00, car Y=$1.15. now lets also throw in the car/truck/trailer/motorcycle/semitrailer variables and it gets harder. there would need to be a crazy amount of data stored and processed in seconds for all these cars. from a logistics stand point, it is NOT easy.

it is a ton easier and cheaper to use a bridge for tolls as there is only 1 way on, and 1 way off. car X went on-off and car Y went on-off. on-off = $3.00. car X=$3.00, car Y=$3.00

there was no grand scheme of "hey, those poor losers in the valley, lets make them pay more!!!" "ya lets do that!!!" no, it was "what is the easiest way to collect a toll." and a bridge is the easiest, as mentioned up top. bridges have no variables. you are on, you pay $3.00. then other vehicles are different.

i realize you have massive envy and hate to people who you think are stuck up rich people, but come on, use some common sense.

[Metro-One]

I must say I agree that all bridges, old and new, should now be tolled (along with the Sea to Sky corridor since it has so many pinch points where one cannot escape a toll akin to a bridge).

I feel $3 and above it too expensive for our region (and being a flat tax restricts the lower income people much more than the higher income people).

Instead, any old major bridge structure (lets say, completed before 2000) should be a dollar per crossing.

All new / replaced major bridge structures (completed after 2000) should be $2 per crossing.

Therefore everyone pays, and those who have the luxury of newer / safer / better designed bridges pay a little more, but not so much where it deflects too much people to older structures.

This way there is no crowding on "free" alternatives as well.

[casper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

You say that the NS people would gladly pay a toll for upgrades in their area but why are the people of Vancouver and Burnaby paying for part of the upgrades to HWY#1? Why was 100% of the cost shifted to people in the Valley? That Surrey/Abbotsford corridor has one of the lowest income levels in the country while the Sea to Sky is free for wealthy tourists and Westsiders going to Whistler for the weekend.

The Lions Gate was upgraded......no toll, the Oak Street was updated........no toll so why are the people in the valley being treated differently?

The idea of tolling already existing routes is offensive and is a "get out of jail free pass" for the province because they refused to update the roads and bridges over the last 40 years. If Translink wants money then EVERY bridge should be tolled at a MUCH lower rate so the pain is shared equally.

If Vancouverites agree with tolls for transit then they should have to put their money where their mouths are. It's easy to agree with tolls when you aren't paying any.

I have some bad news. I live in Victoria, I used the silly bridge and received a bill for doing so. I go over it about once a month and have the silly ID tag on my windshield. As you stated the purpose was "100% of the cost shifted to people in the Valley" I now want my refund as a tax paying resident of Victoria, I don't live in the Valley, yet they still send me a bill.

I am not certain the Sea-to-Sky is exclusively used by the rich going to Whistler. I know some people who live in Squamish that are not that well off financially and also use the highway. Most of the people who work in Whistler are in the restaurant or hotel service business and frankly don't make that much money.

Tolls are nothing new for the north shore. The Lions Gate bridge had tolls when it was built. They fell out favour and were removed at some point in time. The Coquihala is another example where for the first number of years it had a toll to pay for itself

Now that Transitlink has found tolls as a revenue source they will use it on any major pinch point they create.