i'm voting yes. i rather everyone pay including renters and cyclists.

I voted no because the changes don't really benefit me. I feel like people should vote more selfishly because then the vote is an actual indication of what the population wants and needs rather than a bunch of bleeding heart social justice warriors costing us money for stuff that we don't actually need. Because won't everyone think of the single moms that have to walk to work in the snow uphill both ways?

Isn't that the whole point of voting though? That people vote for things that benefit their personal agendas. Whatever those things may be, whether its making their own lives easier or doing what they perceive as helping the community. I don't see that as being "selfish" one way or another.

That being said, I wasn't aware that had to be a "bleeding heart social justice warrior" to think about, and care about others in their community... if you don't care about others at all you are pretty much a sociopath. Plain and simple.

despite the negative overtone, that is a good question for not only this referendum but also for most elections.

do you vote for what matters to you personally, or do you vote for what you think is right for the country/province/municipality over the long term?

if peoples votes are a personal reflection on what matters to them, and the vote loses, should the government go in a different direction? or are people too selfish and short sighted to be given that power?

Problem with this though, is that many if not most voters cast their ballots based on what they THINK they know, or what they've heard, rather than the full facts. I can't even count the number of times I've heard on radio talk shows, and even here on RS, things along the lines of, "I'm voting no because I don't take the bus anyway." Well Sherlock, this thing is about far more that just a couple new bus routes.

I'm voting yes for a whole host of reasons but one is that I drive a car and the modest cost to keep other cars off the road so my commute is better and so that I can go for a nice Sunday drive is well worth it (plus all the other incredibly valuable benefits like a more liveable city, better air quality and lower cost of living).

I benefit enormously even if I never step on a bus or take Skytrain or ride the Seabus (I take transit probably 10 times a year) because I'm a CAR OWNER.

You need to get out of your moms basement if you have the mentality that transit doesn't benefit you. A city's economical growth and propserity relies on its transit as the backbone. Moving people around spreads money

This isn't some evil scheme to steal ur money or to build a couple of more bike lanes. It's about having the ability to grow Vancouver into a city it needs to become to keep up with the rest of the world.

People who vote no are either too clouded with the negatives of translink (and I don't blame them) or just people like you, people who have a small and narrow minded thinking. But vote no al you want. But give a better reason than it doesn't affect you because that just makes you sound like a misinformed cunt holding the rest of us back

At least the people citing translink as the problem are voicing an on going issue that needs to be solved.

Ronin, that logic is so messed up that I don't even know how I can begin to explain. It's simply not the way a city functions.

It's not the way ANY public-funded projects or operations function.

I remember a few years ago when they were talking about some other form of region-wide funding to kick off Evergreen Line construction, and of course, there were the usual round of talk show segments to go with it. One woman phoned in (actually, this is a pretty common type of comment, but for some reason this one woman stuck with me, maybe because she was just direct about it) and said, "I live in Surrey and I never go to Coquitlam. I don't see why I should have to pay for their SkyTrain line when I'll never use it."

And all I could think was, "You selfish bitch, people in the Tri-Cities have been helping pay for YOUR SkyTrain line for decades, even though most of them will never use it either."

I wish the folks who are voting No b/c they want more Translink accountability would apply their energies to holding the provincial govt more accountable for the all the other kinds of crazy waste/theft that they participate in.

Oh, like how they built the widest bridge in the world (how the f*** did that happen?!?) that has over $3B in debt and loses $100M/year. Oh like how they raid ICBC and BC Hydro for hundreds of millions each year to fund their own programs.

The Port Mann was supposed to be paid off in 40 years (so said Christy Clark) but that was never gonna happen from day 1 - traffic volume was already dropping off for years before the bridge was to be built.

The bridge is a white elephant which we'll owe (at current rates) about $7.5B on in 40 years! All while charging people $100M in tolls each year.

And guess what? The Liberals are spinning up another project just like it to replace the George Massey tunnel. Who wants to bet that it'll also lose tonnes of money and we'll own billions on it?

Want to get mad and demand accountability from your gov't? Go fight the tunnel.

My commute is about 15 minutes each way along a route that is minimally affected by public transit. On the rare occasion that I take public transit, it works just fine. Why wouldn't I want the government to spend their time and resources instead of something that benefits me? The Yes side can give me all the doom and gloom they want but I'm not about to trust the foresight that tore up #3 Road to build bus lanes that were themselves torn up a few years later to build the Canada Line. They need more money? How about using the money they have? How is the Compass system not working yet? Wouldn't collecting fares from all the people that don't pay to use the Skytrain be a good chunk of change? I mean, after spending tons of money to install the Compass system...

They can say TransLink is run efficiently if they want but it obviously could be better. I'll vote no to keep the 0.5% in my pocket where it obviously serves me better.

voting no. I hate how the yes side keep saying if the no side wins then all of a sudden public transit in Vancouver will stop functioning all of a sudden. Guess what? Public transit will run just fine even if the no vote wins.

Also we pay enough tax already, how about make business and big developers pay for it? Oh right the mayor won't do it coz they need the big business fundings for their party. So they screw us instead.

I'm voting yes because I believe rapid transit infrastructure development is beneficial to all individuals in communities when one considers the impact they have over the long term.

I'm also voting yes because the continuous, costly 'rehabilitations' on the Patullo bridge that extend its life by a couple years are not even close to cost-effective over the long term.

not sure if this has been posted already but,

http://i.imgur.com/HlsSzZH.jpg

No one said it's going to collapse. Only you. People has only said it needs improvements to handle increase service loads.

Transit will run. But service will decrease over the years as the population demand increase and people start moving further away. It sounds like you people voting no have no idea what this referendum is for.

I believe this has been discussed in other post. The expansion alone can't be supported by the population growth to sustain unlike other highly populated cities like NYC, Tokyo or HK. I believe expansion is a good thing, but in terms of self-sustainability......... hmmmmmm....... Not mentioning among 2.5 millions residents in GVRD, not all of us here could make use of the transit from home to work without spending alot of time walking to / from bus stop.

Instead of spending thousands of dollars buying poodle statue that serve no purpose, money can be spent wisely.......

But we're not just trying to more bus stops. It's about getting people on the street and moving people around. There is a lot of commercial area hat is a ghost town before there's no traffic there. The reason NyC Tokyo or HK have the sustainability that they have is that people are willing to walk and visit shops along the way, giving them a stronger economy and a lot more areas for commercial development.

All the comments about not voting no because one doesn't take the bus or use the skytrain regularly lead me to one question: will people ever understand that Translink does not only encompass transit but roads as well? The 600 kilometer major road network - including the Knight Street, Patullo, and Golden Ears bridges - are a part of Translink's responsibility and burden, like buses and the skytrain. You may not take the bus to work but unless you work from home, you're probably utilizing some part of Translink's network.

oh but you will pay and more than 0.5% u'd spend annually. you're kidding yourself if you think you're saving money by saying no.

i dont think people realize icbc base premiums, msp hikes, toll bridges are taxes.

as well, if they just roll it into more fuel taxes and property taxes thats more on top.

just saying

Moonbean did and so are the yes side. It was in one of his interviews he clearly stated if this funding doesn't get pass public transit will collapse.

Since you are voting yes tell me what projects they will start first if the yes vote goes though? Are you going to purchase more buses, start building the Light rail along boardway or the LRT in Surrey or building a new pattullo bridge or increase night bus.

There are no info as to which project will go first. All that's on the is table is a list of items they want to build or improve with no date, and time when it will start and complete. With different mayors they all want projects that benefit their cities first do you think they will agree so easily?

They should be maintaining those, yes, however they only allocate under $100m of their $1.4b budget to roads and cycling. That is not their main spending area, and as such, not their main focus for support.

to put these numbers in perspective, they allocate $30m to transit police. Public transit is their #1 priority.

My position in public transit has changed from 15 years ago. Previously I thought that it should be all user-pay. Now I'm actually leaning towards public transit should be free outright -- bold switch I know. IF transit was free, with expanded service for all, I would seriously consider paying my share towards that. However, with translink at the helm, there is no way in hell I would support it. A different accountable authority? then we'll talk.

That's not true.

http://mayorscouncil.ca/wp-content/u...t-Mar-2015.pdf

Table 1 shows which projects are in the first 5 years and which are in the last 5. It also calls out that only 1 project (rail to Langley) won't be completed in the first 10 years (it'll take 12) It also shows the capital and operating costs in 2015 dollars for each initiative.

So this proposed PST increase ... I'm assuming this affects the entire province (please correct me if that assumption is incorrect).

If that's the case, why do only lower mainland residents get to vote?

Negative, the tax although called the PST will only affect the lower mainland a.k.a. the Cities that get to vote.

Side note, people thinking they can save 0.5% in PST buying a new car by going to lets say Chillawack won't work. They have a thing in place for car buying where the 0.5% will be charged to where your addressed is registered which also means a Vancouver resident will pay the extra 0.5% regardless where they buy it in the Province where as a resident of Chillawack will pay the regular rate regardless of where they buy it.

To back this up, here's a bit written press, both from a centre right source, and far left source:

Yes or No: Gregor Robertson and Jordan Bateman sound off on transit plebiscite | Metro

Voting “No” is not a vote for the status quo. It is a vote to cut service per person: less buses, less SkyTrain service, and less Seabus service, because there won’t be any funding for the current system to grow as the population increases.

A “No” vote means no new transit service and therefore more traffic gridlock, more pollution, and higher transportation costs for many residents due to heavier car use.


Mayor Gregor Robertson warns a "no" vote in the transit referendum would be "brutal" for Vancouver | Georgia Straight Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly

“Nobody knows where we’ll be set back to,” he said in a telephone interview. “The population is growing by 40,000 people a year, and there will be no new transit service.”
Robertson suggested a “no” vote would not reset the region’s transportation ambitions to the day before the mayors unveiled their 10-year plan, but take plans for public transit back even further.
“A ‘no’ also sends a damaging signal about people’s willingness to invest in transportation and infrastructure more generally, which has brutal consequences for us as a city,” he said.