Comments on: Metro Vancouver Transit Referendum (Group 2)

By: Sue Seward

Sue Seward — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:00:10 +0000

Dear Peter,
I agree, there are multiple ways that transit could be funded. Voting “yes” did not exclude exploiting other funding options, such as relying on developers. I really like your suggestion.

Your other comment highlights a serious issue that is, really, a red herring to the controversy about the improvement of transit: the integrity of the management of Translink.

Our frustration with the management does not erase the need for addressing the quality and availability of public transit.

Do not throw out the baby with the bath water – upgrade the bathwater! There is no reason why we cannot expect people working with Translink be subject to proper corporate evaluation, recommendations for upgrading of performance, the adoption of those recommendations, and, if not adopted, employment is terminated. Much of our concern for the mismanagement of finances relates to unwritten expectations of integrity and ethical behaviours. Why can’t we demand that these be addressed, regardless of the vote outcome? Please don’t tell me that voting “no” means that the management of transit stays the same.

Voting “no” because of current management practices is self-punishment for the poor behaviour of others. I have seen restriction happen, repeatedly, in larger organizations because of the fear of addressing individual or system-wide dysfunction.

Restricting the growth of transit because of the poor behaviour of others is an irrational decision based on feeling helpless in the face of dysfunction. There are ways of dealing with mismanaged organizations but it requires courage and the desire to not be driven by fear.

By: Peter McLaren

Peter McLaren — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 01:31:58 +0000

What consideration if any was given to the question of this method of determining public support? While the Mayors appear to have been given a short list from which to select the least evil solution, has there been any serious consideration on other funding solutions. As has been pointed out the local (GVRD) taxpayer his being hit for Transit levy assessments on parking, utilities, bridge tolls and more, yet everywhere a skytrain station is built or being built, the land within a km in every direction suddenly sprouts new high-rises, retail space and offices. One could almost think that it would be worthwhile for the developers to lobby for a station in their area, and they could pay for the infrastructure with the appreciation in local land values.

Regarding Transit management, this is the same team that repeatedly told us that the loss of fares without turnstiles was so insignificant as to not be worth the cost of installation. While I guess they were right, because the cost of installation only ranks second to the money wasted on the attempts to develop new computer software for Victoria’s BC Medical System. Was it this same management team that decided the Canada Line to Richmond should not be compatible with the other two lines, and that the Canada Line should only operate with two car trains, so the loading stations could be kept nice and small?

I have seen how other subway systems work way better. I would recommend hiring the team from Seoul Korea.

Guess which way I will vote on this regional/ provincial tax.

Living in Langley, we will see shoppers migrate to Abbotsford for any major purchases while the local mom and pop business shut down.