Translink & 0.5% vote (merged)

Translink reform is off the table according to the Libs. Issue is a red herring.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-transport-minister-rules-out-translink-reform/article23514009/

That should help the yes side :lol:

The province doesn't seem too interested in committing to $250 million a year for the next 10 years.

The comments left on the Yes side's post on Facebook (which gets pushed to the top because they pay for that) are all about voting no. There's the odd comment that's kind of funny.

"“I wondered if in the comments to the story, Sun readers would be indicting TI Corp and the provincial government for their incompetence and mismanagement, calling for accountability, if not resignations. Imagine my complete lack of surprise to find nothing of the sort; that’s reserved for transit agencies. TI Corp will likely go on to finance the Massey bridge.”
Story here:
http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10755997

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:lol::lol::lol:

i found this rather amusing and just thought i'd share the info - take from it what you will. one of the leading voices (if not the leading voice) in the no vote out there has to be jordan bateman of the canadian taxpayers federation. well i would ask all of you what you think of the new port mann bridge, it's tolls, and it's projected $3.6 billion dollar debt - nearly half of what we need for the translink upgrades and proposals. one would expect that as a defender of the tax payer and responsible spending that mr. bateman would have been in opposition to a project such as the port mann.

"One of the leading proponents who campaigned for the construction of the new Port Mann Bridge was none other than Jordan Bateman, the self-appointed leader of the No side in the transit plebiscite. He was on the advisory board of a group called Get Moving BC, which made twinning the Port Mann its Number 1 priority."

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10755997

batemann also happens to be a councilor in langley, so one has to wonder if this big push on his part is part of grander political aspirations and a way to put his name in the spotlight on a topic that is a hot button for many in the lower mainland. ironically, mr bateman is also a proponent of some sort of light rail system serving communities on the south side of the river such as langley. strange then that he would be a strong opponent of a plan that includes improving transit service to areas south of the fraser river.

http://www.getmovingbc.com/Blog.htm

you can blame the province for the lack of accountability from translink, you the citizens are the ones who elected the mayors, and only a few months ago at that, so hanging them out to dry at this point seems a bit rich.

This is where the no side is clever enough never to go and of course, stupid entitled Vancouver snobs are too dense to, to, well, what'ya got? Eh?

http://www.news1130.com/2015/03/18/why-arent-road-improvements-being-put-to-plebiscite-while-transit-is/

Why aren’t road improvements being put to plebiscite while transit is
This comes after the province’s $2.5 billion announcement yesterday

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) The fact that the BC government has $2.5-billion to spend on roads while it is forcing Metro Vancouver to approve an increase in sales tax to fund transit hasn’t gone unnoticed. People online are wondering why road improvements aren’t being put to a referendum while transit improvements are.

Transportation planner Gordon Price understands the confusion. “The government has never adequately explained why there has to be a vote on transit but not on, often greater numbers in terms of dollars, money being spent on roads and bridges.”

Price says it’s politically popular to lay asphalt and cut ribbons on bridges, while transit has often been seen as a social service that’s a local responsibility.

Todd Litman with the Victoria Transport Policy Institute doesn’t understand why the province is prioritizing road projects. “This is very unfortunate because throughout North America, automobile travel is peaking. The amount of driving is not growing and so there’s less of a need to expand roads while demand for walking, cycling and public transit is growing. More people want to rely on walking, bicycling and public transit if those are high quality. And so it really does make sense for all levels of government to be shifting resources from expanding roads to improving walking, cycling and public transit and the provincial government is making that difficult.”

The BC government’s 10-year transportation plan includes $18-million for cycling improvements, but that’s ten times less than what’s proposed in the plebiscite plan. The latest Angus Reid poll shows about two thirds of respondents plan to vote “no.” Transportation Minister Todd Stone was asked about the optics, but he never really answered the question, saying the government hopes Metro Vancouver votes “yes.”

- i rarely use transit but when i do it serves me well

I would like to know what portion "yes" voters are in this situation. If you work and live in areas that are already well served by transit, you probably are probably in the "yes" camp too. Fair enough.

I think, however, that ultimately it is the design, planning and layout of communities and places of employment that is the key to tackling this issue (such as "nobody wants to work in New Westminster"). Show me an example of ANY place in the world where low-density sprawl is effectively serviced by mass transit. So long as suburban sprawl underpins planning and growth, transit service will be a problem. Planners are staring to realize almost impossible to build car-lite suburbs with transit alone.

I would like to know what portion "yes" voters are in this situation. If you work and live in areas that are already well served by transit, you probably are probably in the "yes" camp too. Fair enough.

that's one of the things i find perplexing; a significant portion of this plan is aimed at improving transit in areas that are currently no well served, so one would think that people in these areas would be more inclined to vote yes. from what i recall it seems a majority of people who are south of the fraser appear to be voting no.

I think, however, that ultimately it is the design, planning and layout of communities and places of employment that is the key to tackling this issue (such as "nobody wants to work in New Westminster"). Show me an example of ANY place in the world where low-density sprawl is effectively serviced by mass transit. So long as suburban sprawl underpins planning and growth, transit service will be a problem. Planners are staring to realize almost impossible to build car-lite suburbs with transit alone.

this is true and i would say that the lowermainland has been working towards the "town centre" model of planning for a few years; metrotown, coquitlam town centre, port moody, brentwood, lougheed, etc. i don't know why it never really materialized for new west, but it's a bit of a dead zone in terms of business/industry.

this is true and i would say that the lowermainland has been working towards the "town centre" model of planning for a few years; metrotown, coquitlam town centre, port moody, brentwood, lougheed, etc. i don't know why it never really materialized for new west, but it's a bit of a dead zone in terms of business/industry.

I feel like the way new west is moving this way though, lots of new stuff going up in the quay area,

…that ultimately it is the design, planning and layout of communities and places of employment that is the key to tackling this issue…

Thanks to real estate being the priority economy of the lower mainland.

http://www.news1130.com/2015/03/18/why-arent-road-improvements-being-put-to-plebiscite-while-transit-is/

Because road improvements would WIN a plebiscite hands down.

http://www.news1130.com/2015/03/18/why-arent-road-improvements-being-put-to-plebiscite-while-transit-is/

because goods and commodities cannot be moved by transit.

stupid question.

Because road improvements would WIN a plebiscite hands down.

Not necessarily.