# Where do you stand on the “Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax"



## Clownloachlover (Apr 21, 2010)

I VOTE NO....UNLESS

- I, along with every other citizen in the area get to vote to elect the Board of Directors and the Executive of Translink
- I want every other bridge tolled in the lower mainland with a set toll of 50 cents per crossing and the Port Mann toll reduced to match those of all the rest of the bridges...that includes the Lions Gate, the Ironworkers, the Oak Street, the Knight Street, The Arthur Lange, The Airport Bridge, The Cambie Bridge, The Granville Bridge and the Burrard Bridge, The George Massey Tunnel, The Alex Fraser, The Golden Ears and Mission Bridge, The Pitt River Bridge, The Patullo Bridge.
- I want to see a complete project list and the budgets associated with each project
- I want the tax collected in each community to stay in the same community to help with the planned projects and "congestion" improvement
- I want a hard expiration date of the tax...2025 (or sooner), after that we revert to the old sales tax
- I want a complete and truthful explanation as to why the compass card process and skytrain turnstyle systems are still not up and running.

When Translink can give me everything listed above they will get my YES vote...otherwise I vote "NO"

Where do you stand?


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

Clownloachlover said:


> Where do you stand?


Pretty much right behind you....fair is fair only addition I'd add is maybe a per tire toll, so motorcycles are less then cars and trucks and then rigs pay that fair per tire price then straight trucks (gravel or box trucks) then tractor trailer pay a bit more.

Fair is fair, bus riders pay for the bus and drivers pay for fuel and tolls.


----------



## Diztrbd1 (Apr 21, 2010)

After seeing the ceo's salaries on the news last night.... I am pretty disgusted with Translink. New CEO makin 35,000 a month and they are keeping the incompitant one he is replacing on for another 6 mos at 39,000 per month as an advisor???? Ridiculous! Wonder what the rest of the board is making


----------



## Nobody1 (Dec 9, 2014)

Not only NO but NO. Did you see what other ceo's are making from transit? Ours are making a lot more and they are incompetent!


----------



## Arcteryx (Nov 23, 2011)

Did I hear the water cooler chat right? That the equivalent position in New York City is making a quarter of what our Translink CEO is making?


----------



## Plumberboy (Jun 2, 2014)

I agree completely. $0.50 tolls are minimal and I rarely cross the bridges anyway. If we do go into town, we usually take transit. No drinking and driving for me. Transit and road construction/maintenance need to be funded, but its the blatant waste that goes on. This ploy of letting go the head of Translink to convince us that changes are happening, is just that, a ploy. Its my understanding, he is still receiving his full salary!!!!!


----------



## jhj0112 (Jul 30, 2013)

Diztrbd1 said:


> After seeing the ceo's salaries on the news last night.... I am pretty disgusted with Translink. New CEO makin 35,000 a month and they are keeping the incompitant one he is replacing on for another 6 mos at 39,000 per month as an advisor???? Ridiculous! Wonder what the rest of the board is making


AND they are planning to raise monthly pass price!! NYC transit CEO gets $200,000/yr and our transit CEO gets more than double of the biggest public transit in north america CEO salary..... I was about to destroy the speaker ( listening to rock 101) when I heard that...


----------



## Niku (Feb 11, 2014)

I'm really torn on this issue. Really the only cut and dry piece is how ridiculous our ceo's salary is.

At first I was a hard no when I read this link No TransLink Tax

But there was a second link debunking this on my news feed this morning and a lot of the examples of over spending and poor choices are short sighted. even when you add all examples together it equals less then 1% I think of there over all budget.

I drive every where I go and pay a toll every day to and from work. But I also understand public transit is essential and very important to a lot of people.

As for the tolls on the bridges. I felt raw at the start over the amount but after the original sting of it wore off its really not all that bad I mean my fish and sports budgets per month normally dwarf my bridge tolls. I think $.50 is an out dated number for how much a bridge costs to make and maintain. Really the only thing I'm sore about now is the fact that all central city bridges aren't tolled and that it feels like an "outside of downtown" tax for entering the city.

Also the fact that the sales tax was left open ended to be adjusted up to 2% and we won't know where it exactly lies until after we vote it in felt like a blatant lie to the public about how much they want to charge us.

Still voting no but also torn on the issue


----------



## Steve (Mar 27, 2013)

No unless they make me the CEO!


----------



## fishdragon (Nov 8, 2010)

Vote NO for sure.


----------



## Momobobo (Sep 28, 2010)

I'll be voting no, primarily because I believe Translink squanders its funds like crazy.

While decreasing the salary of translink's management would not give any substantial increase in available funding, it is a step in the right direction in gaining public trust. Additionally, translink is planning to pay $7 million to run compass, a system that should be* profitable.*

Until translink gets their heads out of the sand (or their rear end) (and maybe take a look at how European and Asian translink systems run) I will definitely be voting no.


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

Money needs to be spent on upgrades and not obsolete technology and salaries. 

FYI $.50 may be out dated but applied to per tire fee it adds up.


----------



## Clownloachlover (Apr 21, 2010)

Niku said:


> As for the tolls on the bridges. I felt raw at the start over the amount but after the original sting of it wore off its really not all that bad I mean my fish and sports budgets per month normally dwarf my bridge tolls. I think $.50 is an out dated number for how much a bridge costs to make and maintain. Really the only thing I'm sore about now is the fact that all central city bridges aren't tolled and that it feels like an "outside of downtown" tax for entering the city.


Niku...50 cents per crossing could be considered out dated but when you factor in the total number of vehicles that cross bridges or use the tunnel everyday in the greater vancouver area that would add up to a lot of dollars on a daily basis. The inner city bridges need to be tolled as much as the suburban bridges do as they are equally as important to the movement of goods and the reduction of congestion as every other bridge in the area. The fact remains that Translink and other government bodies are unfairly punishing those folks that live south of the Fraser River, which coincidentally are those areas that are least serviced by transit and transportation infrastructure. I have no objection whatsoever paying tolls on bridges, highways or other areas, just make sure that the money goes to improve the system....Not handed out to some incompetent CEO and his advisors and lets be fare on the salaries and bonuses when you compare our transit network to other world class cities. And as far as the new Compass system is concerned, why would ever consider implementing a system that is designed to eliminate fare evasion and make transit easier to access when the system is not profitable...that is just stupid!


----------



## DBam (Aug 9, 2010)

Momobobo said:


> Until translink gets their heads out of the sand (or their rear end) (and maybe take a look at how European and Asian translink systems run) I will definitely be voting no.


Exactomundo. Take for instance the train system in Tokyo. Many more millions of people ride it everyday and the system is never down. Their service doesn't just bugger off for half a day like the Skytrains do here. And here they resolve that they need to upgrade PA systems to tell riders when trains are down and not moving indefinitely. How about starting with zero shutdowns and some professionalism and accountability? Other places move far more people with little issue.

Luckily Abbotsford is outside the GVRD and we don't pay into the same public transit.


----------



## charles (Apr 21, 2010)

My vote is NO.


----------



## Bunny (Oct 13, 2013)

If the tax is for expanding translink service then I think its good. However all the points the OP made need to be addressed.

Regarding the compass card I did read a few articles about it a few months ago. Apparently they made the mistake of hiring the same company that did the system in some other big city despite knowing that they screwed it up there too. The problem being that scanning the card requires an average of 3 seconds to register - the target time was supposed to be 0.3 seconds. Because of this lag time to scan cards it would cause massive problems trying to get in/out and on/off of buses and stations during rush hour. I think they should probably fire/sue the company that screwed it up and find someone better.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic (Apr 22, 2010)

Translink doesn't work and what they pay themselves in salaries and unearned bonuses makes me want to puke.

NO, NO, NO, NO, and NO.


----------



## dmaobc (Apr 24, 2010)

Simply "*NO*".


----------



## dmaobc (Apr 24, 2010)

The question itself is insulting. It just like "Hey, we give you choice. You must vote yes. Otherwise, do not blame us if no wins and congestion gets worse". Can't you have a better way to ask public opinion ? Another evidence of wasting taxpayers' money.


----------



## Niku (Feb 11, 2014)

Clownloachlover said:


> Niku...50 cents per crossing could be considered out dated but when you factor in the total number of vehicles that cross bridges or use the tunnel everyday in the greater vancouver area that would add up to a lot of dollars on a daily basis. The inner city bridges need to be tolled as much as the suburban bridges do as they are equally as important to the movement of goods and the reduction of congestion as every other bridge in the area. The fact remains that Translink and other government bodies are unfairly punishing those folks that live south of the Fraser River, which coincidentally are those areas that are least serviced by transit and transportation infrastructure. I have no objection whatsoever paying tolls on bridges, highways or other areas, just make sure that the money goes to improve the system....Not handed out to some incompetent CEO and his advisors and lets be fare on the salaries and bonuses


oh for sure its ridiculous the way it is now paying a penalty for living just out side the core. but even with the amount we pay for tolls now doesnt even pay the capital payments on the golden ears. so while diverting it over all the bridges might alleviate our pain initially once more bridges need to be re built or re conditioned its going to creep back up and be right around where its at +/- $1. i would like to see the local profit spending tho ... god knows in maple ridge we pay just as much fuel tax and translink property tax but we are always forgotten about in regards to skytrains and newer buses.

also with regards to tiered per tire tolling. they basically do this anyways its a low price for motorcycles and a high price for multi-axled delivery trucks and astronomical for semi's


----------



## effox (Apr 21, 2010)

I'll likely be living on the island within the next year, so well outside the GVRD. I'd still vote no right now regardless.

Local profit spending will never happen, unless they did in fact toll inner city. I doubt they'd ever get away with that if it was even murmured at a board meeting. What's the worst that's going to happen to Translink? Provide crappier more unreliable service, fire another CEO.

Rinse, wipe, repeat.

Niku, I'd lose my "stuff" if I was in your position in M.R.. I think the buses are adequate in Surrey, and we have 3 sky train stations to get to, even though a majority only use 1 of 2 out of the 3 since it's the end of the line as of current. I think it's ridiculous it's painted with such a broad stroke, and that can't even suffice.

Give your head a shake Translink.


----------



## mikebike (Sep 8, 2010)

If my memory serves me correctly the Trans Canad Highway was set up to be toll free originaly.

The Port man is part of that highway no toll!


count me as a NO

I No longer travel where I am required to pay a toll.


----------



## randylahey (Jun 25, 2013)

Yes, the port mann bridge is part of the federal highway and should not be tolled. The ferries are technically part of that system as well.

Here's another example of translink ridiculousness:
http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10830242


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

Well since the islands been brought up and the thread revolves around ridiculous things (translink,bcferries) I might as well bring this up and if trans Canada is as defined above in others post then the island hwy would count too so why not build a bridge? The ferries are aging, slow, expensive to run and expensive to replace, fire them all and they can get ei. Build a bridge! It's job creation to complete a project like that so offing bcferries and creating a construction project makes the jobs "lost" moot. 

I'd pay huge per tire tolls for on demand infrastructure around the clock and skip the ferries. Just me

FYI even at $20/tire tolls + fuel it would be cheaper and more simple to load up and pile in the jeep and get to the island....don't think so? Add it up

-over height vehicle (jeep with loaded cargo rack)
-2,3,4 or 5 passengers
- fuel surcharges
- reservation fee

Well over $100+ like the hundred plus range is jeep and A, yes a person,taxes,fees so even that price paying $80 for the jeep $20/tire and my own gas I'm quicker and cheaper never mind passenger counts.


----------



## mikebike (Sep 8, 2010)

I was maintinence electrican on the building of the skytrain bridge towers on the Fraser river crossing.

Translink had a whole set of trailers and staff to manage the construction.
An expence I think could have been reduced by 90%.

I agree that BC has the technology to build a bridge to the Islands.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Apr 21, 2010)

Vancitycam said:


> Well since the islands been brought up and the thread revolves around ridiculous things (translink,bcferries) I might as well bring this up and if trans Canada is as defined above in others post then the island hwy would count too so why not build a bridge? The ferries are aging, slow, expensive to run and expensive to replace, fire them all and they can get ei. Build a bridge! It's job creation to complete a project like that so offing bcferries and creating a construction project makes the jobs "lost" moot.


Since I'm a geologist I'll bite. I think this is a good reason not to build a bridge.

Today's Earthquakes in British Columbia, Canada


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

2wheelsx2 said:


> Since I'm a geologist I'll bite. I think this is a good reason not to build a bridge.
> 
> Today's Earthquakes in British Columbia, Canada


Perfect an expert, because I'm just a realist so before I bother reading that answer this pei population compared to vancouver island? 
So significant difference right. Then after that we look at mainland population that could use it also and let's for get industry it's just "joe cars" here. Now in an expert knowledge let's compare environments they got icebergs we don't does that change design and cost. You bet it's cheaper for what we would need here as compared to whats been done there.

Just not enough people pull out maps and books and figure facts. Then you have to think for yourself and be realist for the mass population. Let's think realistic the jobs lost by selling ferries for scrap would be nothing compared to job gains in a project like that, everything from truckers to skilled trades and experts and project paper pushers in the office.

Maybe one day once word gets around that there's a better way.

Last year after our boat was delayed from arriving on time and after having reservation and showing up early and paying big bucks to sit on the car deck because we have a dog( don't even get me started on the canine zone on this water bus) after they read the notice over the load speak I started to chant very loudy "build a bridge , build a bridge!" Turns out I had a friend a couple lanes over who didn't know each other was waiting until after my chanting but any ways we discussed it with many people old timers rv types, trades and engineers(I know bca loves them)

It can be done but an expert opinion is alway welcomed, as for earthquakes dictation on life I guess we better convert the west coast like vancouver downtown core and evacuate Richmond! But don't build that bomb proof hill side bunker too far in the mountains can get landslides....just sayin. So can I borrow your foil hat before I get bca burned haha


----------



## davej (Apr 28, 2010)

How about the fact that our wonderful premier just dumped this in everyone's lap. If she is the "leader" of this province then why doesn't she lead? Instead she hid behind a referendum, that way she can place the blame on translink or the public for making the wrong decision. In my mind she is the biggest problem. Afraid to make a tough decision and hurt her standing in the polls. Something needs to be done, but what?


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

Vote? That's about it, speak up thats all one person can do.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Apr 21, 2010)

By all means buy a house in Richmond.  The constant flooding of the basements and liquifaction of the soil foundation refutes experts all the time....that's what I like about BCA. There are experts in all fields. Sometimes there are even experts who are experts in all fields at the same time.

Google up Second Narrows bridge failure videos before the Iron Workers bridge was built. I'm going now to research on BCA on how to get to Mars.


----------



## mikebike (Sep 8, 2010)

The biggest hurdel to building a bridge is the NIMBY 
Not In My Back Yard
many island resident moved to the islands because they are hard to get to and more secluded.

They don't want a bridge/roads over their property.

If they can build long bridges in Japan they can build them here.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Apr 21, 2010)

mikebike said:


> The biggest hurdel to building a bridge is the NIMBY
> Not In My Back Yard
> many island resident moved to the islands because they are hard to get to and more secluded.
> 
> ...


Actually the biggest obstacle is cost. You can a bridge anywhere. Or a tunnel, for that matter. Just like we can get to the moon. But at what cost? Van Island doesn't even have the population of one city in Japan, let alone their whole nation.

That's the reason why there is no bridge to Vancouver Island. Not because it's an engineering impossibility, but because the cost to make it earthquake stable would make it cost prohibitive. in Asian countries the populations overwhelm the costs to do anything. Look at the Japanese subways, roadways and ferries. And yes, they have tolls everywhere, even with their population base because to make those roads earthquake stable is expensive.

In most big cities in Asia, there are more cars than there are parking spaces, so standard practice is to double park and expect at least a ticket a week. I don't think anyone would find that acceptable here, would they? My friends in Hong Kong pay more to have a parking space than I do for my mortgage per month.

So yes, they can afford to build that bridge. Can we? i bet if they engineered and costed the bridge and asked people to pay it out of their taxes it would kill the discussion right there. I mean, how many people go back and forth to the Island a week? Calculate that with say a $10 billion dollar bridge and we can quickly see how long it would take for all of us to pay extra taxes for. For me, at my age, I won't even be driving by the time the bridge would be finished, even if they started tomorrow, so why would I want to pay for it?


----------



## Momobobo (Sep 28, 2010)

^Agree wholeheartedly. Its all about the $$$. I saw a paper detailing the costs and it was...a lot  The problem is ferries are too expensive right now, not the efficiency of the system.

Im not even sure if I support the Broadway corridor expansion. Coming from a student whose commutes 3 hours a day through it, im not sure if the skytrain would be much more efficient (especially cost efficient) compared to the current system. The 99-B line is veeeery efficient.

I just got an e-mail saying that the money from this tax is going straight to the provincial government and can only be used for direct use into the mayor's plan. Not sure if that makes me trust it more...


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

Have to disagree not so much money or lack of, or even NIMBY. That only applies to social projects and ignorant yuppies. 

IMO it's more about how people think, they can't think beyond their nose or see a bigger picture beyond their needs but that boils down to users pay. So bus riders pay for busses with tickets and not motorists with carbon tax and everybody with a sales tax. Won't work, but if drivers pay cost associated to them like ins., gas and bridge tolls and transit users pay the tolls, fuel, operation costs and system upgrades are paid by ticket sales?? User pay system then people aren't double paying. Why should I fund a wasteful un efficient system I don't use??? Exactly! That's the thinking I'm talking about see......you bus riders want to chip in on my fuel bill?? I know you don't use my truck or car but hey if we all pay for what we don't use

Bottom line is build good bridges highways and toll the hell out of them. Then if you transit people wants to go here and there you pay for your buses and skytrain a and turn styles by jacking up ticket costs to a more appropriate cost. Everybody pay for their own choice not everything for nothing attitude like selling my tank everyone wants it cheap and with lights filter ect not realizing that I could have done that but it easily doubles the cost, what? "Ahhhh no too much" they want it all and for less! That's the problem here the moronic I want it all but don't want to pay world we live in today applies to do much. That's why China's booming we want junk and cheap they sell up crap, we could but quality but it's more.....same reason lfs get squashed by petsmart lol I could go on forever really


----------



## tony1928 (Apr 22, 2010)

Momobobo said:


> ^Agree wholeheartedly. Its all about the $$$. I saw a paper detailing the costs and it was...a lot  The problem is ferries are too expensive right now, not the efficiency of the system.
> 
> Im not even sure if I support the Broadway corridor expansion. Coming from a student whose commutes 3 hours a day through it, im not sure if the skytrain would be much more efficient (especially cost efficient) compared to the current system. The 99-B line is veeeery efficient.
> 
> I just got an e-mail saying that the money from this tax is going straight to the provincial government and can only be used for direct use into the mayor's plan. Not sure if that makes me trust it more...


Yeah, the days are gone when I was able to drive from Main and 33rd to UBC in 25 minutes in morning rush hour. Not to mention parking doesn't really exist at UBC anymore either. I would definitely take transit if that opportunity was available to me but like with most people, the transit that we have isn't the easiest to get to or is simply unavailable in the area. Not convenient/available usually means people aren't going to use it. Our ferry system could be a lot cheaper if it didn't have to continue to operate massive money losing routes. They could easily optimize which routes are most effective and operate at capacity. Yes, that means that some routes will not be serviced anymore, so be it.

Personally I don't have any issue with paying more for transit, whether you are a public transit user or a driver. It affects us all. A better transit system (roads and public transit) means better movement for everyone. I think like most people we just don't trust the idiots known as Translink to spend our money wisely.


----------



## Diztrbd1 (Apr 21, 2010)

tony1928 said:


> I think like most people we just don't trust the idiots known as Translink to spend our money wisely.


That hit the nail dead-on the head lol


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

tony1928 said:


> Our ferry system could be a lot cheaper if it didn't have to continue to operate massive money losing routes. They could easily optimize which routes are most effective and operate at capacity. Yes, that means that some routes will not be serviced anymore, so be it.


Ok so then who's going to pay to replace ambulance and ferry combo with medi-vacs lol missed the nail on the so be it part that worse then nimby geez guys think for a minute can we have trans Canada and say sorry reduced hours of travel available, it's the only road but you could fly. Same as ferry only option or fly $$$$

So if that's the option "to so be it" then maybe our gov. Should buy out their houses above maket value+ moving expens and so on.... You want to fund that with taxes?? I'd rather not... But so be it I guess we all can pay lol


----------



## slipstream (Apr 25, 2010)

little bit late seeing as how the topic has somewhat changed, but I am voting a strong yes. Dont get me wrong, i agree that Translink has some major changes to its structure that needs to be done in the immediate future. However, this tax will be controlled by the mayors council, so in effect, we are voting in the council members by electing our city reps. Transit WILL NEED MORE MONEY than it is getting right now. Asmore and more people use it, the demand goes up, as does he cost for upgrading, operating, and replacing. Without this tax boost, the cost for all of that down the road gets higher and higher the longer you wait. not to mention the cost of maintenance on an older fleet of buses, and trains. 

So many people going all gung-ho about not paying more taxes, yet they still want more services offered. That is ridiculous in the extreme. Thats like offering NOT to pay your mortgage and still keep your house.


----------



## effox (Apr 21, 2010)

Not quite the same as the mortgage analogy. I'd be fine with paying $10-20 a ticket when I use translink, because I rarely do. I'd like to see more weight on the shoulders of the regular users of the service and accountability with the company itself.


----------



## Momobobo (Sep 28, 2010)

I have no problem with paying more taxes IF they are being allocated properly. My ideologies are with countries, like Germany, with much higher taxes but you can see the free health care and education and better infrastructure and green energy.

Over here, our mayor managed to set a record in party election spendings while failing to finish through with his bike share (whatever happened with that anyways?) and all homeless off the streets by spring 2015...

Over here, our local transit conglomerate messed up Compass (a system that has been running smoothly and *profitably* in Hong Kong for nearly TWO DECADES now) and continue to drive people away from our ferry system with exuberant fare prices and thus lowering profits even more...

I really really do want to see improved infrastructure but I have yet to see why I would trust them with my money.


----------



## tony1928 (Apr 22, 2010)

Vancitycam said:


> Ok so then who's going to pay to replace ambulance and ferry combo with medi-vacs lol missed the nail on the so be it part that worse then nimby geez guys think for a minute can we have trans Canada and say sorry reduced hours of travel available, it's the only road but you could fly. Same as ferry only option or fly $$$$
> 
> So if that's the option "to so be it" then maybe our gov. Should buy out their houses above maket value+ moving expens and so on.... You want to fund that with taxes?? I'd rather not... But so be it I guess we all can pay lol


Missed my point completely. My point was that people need to accept that there's a cost to everything as there's no free ride. So if we feel it is right to maintain services for all British Columbians then we also must all bear the cost of this.


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Apr 21, 2010)

On the money Tony, pun intended. So many people rant and rave about not having services but then are unwilling to contribute to pay for those services. The model where people pay lower taxes and no fees for anything but get more services only occur in dreamland.


----------



## randylahey (Jun 25, 2013)

I dont want to get off topic but, we could legalize marijuana and tax it.
Colorado pulled in $76 million just in end user taxing and saved $145 million in fighting the illegal trade. Who knows how much more revenue is made from business licensing, income tax and etc. off the growers and on down the pipeline to the retail shops. Shut down the illegal trade and pay for translink's blunders with some of that revenue. 
Our current medicinal system is a joke. You can walk into a dispensary and talk to a naturopath. $40 and 10 minutes later, you have a card. They even have "day passes" with no medical check. 

Washington state expects to pull in $594 million in tax revenue by 2019. Alaska and Rhode Island are the next two states to legalize.

I know its not for everyone but, give people a choice. Alcohol prohibition didn't work and marijuana prohibition is not working.


----------



## effox (Apr 21, 2010)

I don't smoke marijuana but alternate tax methods I'm okay with. I don't use the system, and if I'm not seeing improvement in the area I live in and would actually use it if I were to, doesn't make intrigue me in the least to pay additional taxes for it. Hell increase taxes on cigarettes again for all I care and put that into this bumbling system.


----------



## Diztrbd1 (Apr 21, 2010)

Geez Chris dont say that..im a smoker and cigarettes are already too high priced lol to my knowledge the high taxes from that is supposed to pay for the healthcare for the smokers down the road. Atleast that was what i was told why every other month they raise the tax on them.
Alaska legalized it in the last 24 hours Greg. I totally agree with what you said and have said the same thing myself.


----------



## mikebike (Sep 8, 2010)

Interesting program on CH 285 right now.


----------



## rwong2k10 (Dec 27, 2010)

randylahey said:


> I dont want to get off topic but, we could legalize marijuana and tax it.
> Colorado pulled in $76 million just in end user taxing and saved $145 million in fighting the illegal trade. Who knows how much more revenue is made from business licensing, income tax and etc. off the growers and on down the pipeline to the retail shops. Shut down the illegal trade and pay for translink's blunders with some of that revenue.
> Our current medicinal system is a joke. You can walk into a dispensary and talk to a naturopath. $40 and 10 minutes later, you have a card. They even have "day passes" with no medical check.
> 
> ...


I'm a big fan of this approach!


----------



## Momobobo (Sep 28, 2010)

rwong2k10 said:


> I'm a big fan of this approach!


As am I...legalizing all narcotics and putting the distribution under government control has been proven to lower crime rates, the cost of housing possession only criminals, AND lower the number of drug users. This is all while pulling in big bucks taxing the hell out of it so its really a win win...

Its only the old people and others who see it as "bad" and "immoral" who are against it and don't look at the facts anyways. Its like those Stephen Harper Conservative attack ads and Partnership for a Drugfree Canada ads on the radio. They make me want to rip my hair out


----------



## 2wheelsx2 (Apr 21, 2010)

Momobobo said:


> As am I...legalizing all narcotics and putting the distribution under government control has been proven to lower crime rates, the cost of housing possession only criminals, AND lower the number of drug users. This is all while pulling in big bucks taxing the hell out of it so its really a win win...


I'm a little confused by that stat. So you're saying if you legalize it fewer people will want to use it? Or do you mean illegal drug users? I can't see legalizing it lowering drug users. If it's legal why would anyone stop using it? That's the only way you would get a lower user count once it's legal, is if current users stop using it.


----------



## effox (Apr 21, 2010)

2wheelsx2 said:


> I'm a little confused by that stat. So you're saying if you legalize it fewer people will want to use it? Or do you mean illegal drug users? I can't see legalizing it lower drug users. If it's legal why would be stop using it? That's the only way you would get a lower user count once it's legal, is if current users stop using it.


Over doses on hard drug use. Problem solved. Let's stay on topic though, we can pop this into another Aqua Lounge thread as long as it stays "family friendly" even being another hot topic.


----------



## Vancitycam (Oct 23, 2012)

All about taxes, pay better wages and raises all kinds of taxes. 

FYI I hate people who bag on smokers for causing health care issues but the eat bad foods and are lazy both of are equally hazardous to health. 

Bottom line......live and let live, raise minimum wage, raise taxes, get people educated, give free heroin to addicts(programs are shown to work), it's just about perception.


----------



## Momobobo (Sep 28, 2010)

2wheelsx2 said:


> I'm a little confused by that stat. So you're saying if you legalize it fewer people will want to use it? Or do you mean illegal drug users? I can't see legalizing it lower drug users. If it's legal why would be stop using it? That's the only way you would get a lower user count once it's legal, is if current users stop using it.


This will be my final word on the topic as to not derail. From what I've read, since everybody goes through the government, they can keep a database of everybody using drugs. Through this they can provide direct support services to help these individuals quit and stay sober. Another factor is people are more likely to seek help if they don't run the risk of being arrested for it. Much like prostitution, cheaper and far safer to legalize so you don't have rampart sexual assaults, murders, etc...and they'll actually call the police for help if they need it instead of not doing it because they are scared of being arrested.

Either way, people are going to do it either way...better to keep it off the streets and out of the hands of gangs and other "hard" criminals. Keeping addicts and homeless on the streets actually costs more than actually giving them housing and care too, but again, people don't look at the facts. (Hospital fees are cray cray for anybody wondering why).

Now, does anybody know what happened to the bike share thing?


----------



## randylahey (Jun 25, 2013)

Back to translink! 

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/...s-skytrain-canada-line-built-nearing-capacity

With all the development of high density housing down the cambie corridor, it will be over capacity sooner rather than later.

I thought we start already giving translink all our money?

Straight from translink:

TransLink will be funded using an approximate ratio of 1/3 of revenue from fuel taxes, 1/3 of revenue from property taxes, and 1/3 of revenue from other non-government sources (e.g., fares, advertising, property development).
TransLink will hold the power to increase funding from fuel tax from 12*cents per litre (55*cents per*Imp*gal*or 45*cents per*US*gal) to 15*cents per litre (68*cents per Imp*gal or 57*cents per US*gal). In 2012, the rate was increased to 17 cents.
TransLink will increase funding by raising property taxes, parking sales taxes, and other sources of revenue (e.g. advertising, fares and property development).

First its congestion tax then pothole tax then bus oil change tax then this tax and that tax and then, I have no money left for fish 

Bike share?!

Bixi, the company that was supposed to supply the equipment and technology went belly up. The other company, Alta is trying to find someone else to supply the goods.


----------



## Clownloachlover (Apr 21, 2010)

well before Translink decides to take another chunk of our hard earned dollars, why don't they look for other sources of revenue...perhaps additional bridge tolls on all the bridges...toll the sea to sky highway...yes it would mean more money to all of us instead of just those living south of the Fraser River


----------



## effox (Apr 21, 2010)

Clownloachlover said:


> well before Translink decides to take another chunk of our hard earned dollars, why don't they look for other sources of revenue...perhaps additional bridge tolls on all the bridges...toll the sea to sky highway...yes it would mean more money to all of us instead of just those living south of the Fraser River


That's what I'd like to see. I feel I'm paying enough taxes for a service I don't use in my area as it already is, when the improvements (not service\maintainence) aren't being made on this side of the bridge anyways. Tolls to get into Vancouver from outsiders is annoying, I'd like to hear people not raise their voice when tolling inside of that part of the GVA happens (if it ever does).

When they extend the sky train line through Surrey to Langley, then they can increase taxes on our side of the woods. (I realize this compartmentalized thinking isn't plausible when they can't even function with the current blanket taxing).

Be a shame if they shook upper MGMT up and brought in competent people from other areas. That'd be one pay increase I wouldn't mind seeing if they were able to exponentially able to make things more efficient without cutting wages and services.


----------



## mikebike (Sep 8, 2010)

We have a million $ unused park and ride lot in S Surrey they could sell and raise millions.

Bad spending of TL $ is the problem. Non of the options that TL transportaion work for me.

I moved here because the bust \stop was near and frequent every 20 min.
With their cut back it is now hourly at 10 after.

But I have seen it 7 min early if you are planing on following a shchedule it has to be met.

Count me as a loud NO


----------



## stratos (Apr 21, 2010)

I don't like translink and I don't like flat taxes applied to everyone. However, I think what stands to be gained with a Yes vote outweighs the cost of the tax and disgust for Translink waste.

Below is a post I got from another site that spells out the benefits of a YES vote:



> A
> YES
> vote means:
> 
> ...


----------



## rwong2k10 (Dec 27, 2010)

Clownloachlover said:


> well before Translink decides to take another chunk of our hard earned dollars, why don't they look for other sources of revenue...perhaps additional bridge tolls on all the bridges...toll the sea to sky highway...yes it would mean more money to all of us instead of just those living south of the Fraser River


That's a great suggestions, a lot of big cities do that but they do have a lot more route options also. It's a pain travelling to Richmond from Coquitlam when there's one accident and I'm stuck in my car for a few hours without any other alternatives or not that many.

I don't mind paying more taxes or tolls but build me more roads and make sure these guys are held accountable, ceo at 35k per month is fine but come on only if things are getting done

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Clownloachlover (Apr 21, 2010)

stratos said:


> I don't like translink and I don't like flat taxes applied to everyone. However, I think what stands to be gained with a Yes vote outweighs the cost of the tax and disgust for Translink waste.
> 
> Below is a post I got from another site that spells out the benefits of a YES vote:


Wow that is quite the list, now lets pick it apart.

The 400 more buses are already available, Translink chooses not to run them because they do not feel the ridership will support the cost, so all of a sudden once the new tax is introduced the ridership will support the 400 new buses...sounds "fishy to me" Too bad Translink and the BC government did not consider this when the 2010 games were on and they spent millions of dollars on some hydrogen buses that ran around Whistler during the games (which I might add are now out of service and for sale) They could of bought 500 new Natural gas fueled buses for the same price they paid for the hydrogen buses...more government and Translink waste.

wow 11 new B line routes...from where to where...Surrey to Vancouver that makes sense...Maple ridge to Vancouver that makes sense...Downtown to UBC...that has been in service for years...11 new routes in a populous of 2.5 million people...a pebble in the ocean solution

More routes with service every 15 minutes...will that include outlying areas such as aldergrove and mission and parts of Surrey and Richmond where the service is every 45 minutes to an hour now?

50% more seabus service....sounds good...the seabus is pretty much empty during work hours and peaks in the morning and evenings so 50% more emptiness is a good thing in someone's eyes.

80% more nightbus service...see my first point...translink has the ability to deliver that now they just don't feel the ridership is there to support the costs.

30% more handydart...awesome idea...increase this to 50% more service as the people that use this service need it and often complain they cant get it when they need it. All in favour of this one!

More skytrain cars...nothing like investing in obsolete technology...why not get it break down proof first before adding additional opportunities for more service breakdowns...

New Rapid transit projects connecting Surrey to Langley and Broadway in Vancouver...In other words light rail south of the Fraser and Mayor Moonbeams Broadway corridor subway... lets invest in better bus service first and see if in fact the ridership would support such huge cost expenditures.

300 KM of protected bike lanes...wow that will give even more routes for the 12 people that use the bike lanes now to chose from...waste of time and money...cars and bikes can run together like they do in every European and Asian city in the world, they do not need to be protected and take away from existing car and transit lanes.

lets not forget the new Patullo bridge...slated to be 4 lanes wide...wait it is four lanes wide now...there's congestion reduction at its finest...build the same problem over again...rocket science folks, rocket science.

pedestrian safety improvements...what more push button operated cross walk signals to slow traffic down even further, that's congestion reduction at its finest, lets slow down traffic even more so it bunches together and gets even more congested...how about pedestrian over passes or underpasses...or sky bridges between buildings or underground mall space in dense downtown cores that allow the user to get from one end of the city core to the other without every worrying about a cross walk...such a concept...glad Calgary and Edmonton have been using this idea for years.

VOTE NO...THEN VOTE TO GET RID OF TRANSLINK WHEN THAT REFERENDUM COMES AROUND...Keep the tax dollars in peoples pockets where it belongs!


----------



## mikebike (Sep 8, 2010)

that info on what will come if we vote yes does nothing for me.
They say there is not enough usage to offer more than hourly service for part of the day in my area.


----------



## am3ience (Jul 21, 2014)

I vote YES, I commute bus, and skytrain everday. If voting yes gives us better, and more frequent service, then i'm all for it. 0.5% additional tax is not much in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Clownloachlover (Apr 21, 2010)

trust me...that .5% now will be 3% in two years time...how do you feel about that?


----------



## effox (Apr 21, 2010)

Clownloachlover said:


> trust me...that .5% now will be 3% in two years time...how do you feel about that?


A 3% tax increase for users of transit (especially strictly) still sounds like a great deal for them.

Don't mean to be cold hearted, but I used to not own a car and had to take transit to work (very much as my current situation) however I think Translink is a joke with the way they manage projects and spend our tax dollars and fare. A 0.5% isn't going to fix a damn thing about that.


----------



## am3ience (Jul 21, 2014)

Clownloachlover said:


> trust me...that .5% now will be 3% in two years time...how do you feel about that?


No, it won't. That's just an excuse to hate on Translink. You guys don't seem to realize we have it lucky here in Vancouver. We have one of the best transit systems in North America, when it comes to reliability and speed.


----------



## effox (Apr 21, 2010)

am3ience said:


> No, it won't. That's just an excuse to hate on Translink. You guys don't seem to realize we have it lucky here in Vancouver. We have one of the best transit systems in North America, when it comes to reliability and speed.


From what I've read they've made no statement that they wouldn't raise it from proposed 0.5% on PST in the near or distant future. I won't put words in his mouth, however I dislike Translink, but not for this specific reason. They'd be even more short sighted to state they wouldn't increase this tax in the future. I couldn't do a better job myself than them, but than again, I'm not running their company, so although I won't blame them for not stating that, I still don't have confidence in them.


----------



## Clownloachlover (Apr 21, 2010)

here is what I have to laugh at...this is supposed to be a congestion reduction tax...so they feel adding more buses...a light rail system down the middle of the road...more frequent bus service...is going to reduce congestion...where has all this new ridership come from all of a sudden? Do they truly believe that people are all of a sudden going to jump out of their cars and onto transit? If that is the case then I say they have been drinking copious quantities of their own bong water. Another thing to laugh at...the biggest cause to congestion in this city is intersections and traffic lights...they build this wonderful new road south of the Fraser called the South Fraser Perimeter Road...great strip of road...but they add intersections instead of proper on and off ramps and over passes...what does this do? two things...adds congestion and given the way some of the intersections are built they create huge hazards for trucks that are turning causing them to flip...so now they have to go back and rework the intersections...more roadwork causing more congestion...brilliant boys just brilliant! oh and lets not forget increased pedestrian safety...let me guess...more button activated cross walk signals...more reasons to cause cars to stop in traffic...more congestion...see a trend here? Come on folks...wake up this is not going to reduce congestion...it is a way for that gutless Premier of ours to look good so she does not have to make the tough decision to add tax to the taxpayers...instead she pawns it off on the Mayors and Translink...come election time she will brag how her government did not increase taxes...HELLO FOLKS...this is a way for her to shirk her fiscal responsibility as the leader of this province...sometime you have to be the bad guy and give the bad news to your citizens for the greater good...nut not Christie Clark...she should have the nickname of the Teflon Premier cause nothing sticks to her!


----------



## The Guy (Nov 26, 2010)

South Fraser perimeter road Hwy 17 is packed at rush hour with people coming and going to the Pattullo bridge and Alex Fraser to avoid the ridiculous high toll on our wonderful new Port Mann Bridge so what does that cause more congestion, what a joke this province can't figure it out and hold the folks in the Fraser valley hostage. It's a simple fix toll all the main bridges in the province and make it lower toll like 50 cents to 75 cents a crossing and let the whole province share the cost and bring in a hell of a lot more money a lot faster. Oh ya I don't see any kind of toll on the sea to sky Hwy! why not? It's just not a fair playing field at all. We could go on forever with all this, what people need to do is remember at voting time what's gone on in our province and not accept what's being jammed down our throats.


----------

