I’m not sure I understand why ‘Better Transit Now’ is bringing forward a petition calling for the Province to fund transit in Metro. Surely the response will be: ‘That’s why we’re having a referendum.’
So what’s the strategy?
Please sign the petition for Better Transit Now .
.
Here’s the full petition:
.
No More Passups. Increased Service. Better Transit Now.
Transit in Metro Vancouver is stalled and that’s led to service cuts, thousands of pass-ups on busy lines and increased congestion across our region. Whether it’s students trying to get to UBC, commuters trying to get to work from the suburbs, or people trying to get home after a night out, almost everyone in Metro Vancouver relies on transit.
Even those who do not use transit benefit from better service. Each person taking transit is one less person driving on our congested roads and one less parking spot at their destination.
One million more people are expected to move into the region in the coming decades. For Metro Vancouver to continue to grow and prosper, we need a properly funded transit system.
We the undersigned call on the Province to provide sustainable funding for better transit in Metro Vancouver, as outlined in Translink’s 10-year strategy.
The strategy seems to be Vision Vancouver outreach…
Is it a way to measure parameters of support?
I understand the petition: no referendum needed, just provide the funding and don’t ask the cities to help. Of course Vision Vancouver wants that because it means they don’t have to jack up taxes to pay for someone else’s project. They can take credit for supporting transit without having to pay the bill. Hmmm, that sounds suspiciously like every Provincial government I’ve ever known.
The Ministry of Transportation is great and announcing new projects with shaky or non-existent funding, coercing TransLink into borrowing to help pay for them, signing secret deals with private contractors, taking all the credit and then leaving TransLink to try to figure out how to pay the often massive operating costs with no new sources of funding.
A favourite phrase emanating from across Georgia Strait is “revenue neutral”. Treat that term as pure poison because it means they don’t want to talk about the cost implications. If it was really good for the bottom line they’d brag about it. Because they instead talk only about the revenue side of the income statement you can be sure it’s mostly manure and very little actual horse.
The U-Pass program is a great idea that’s gotten a whole generation to use transit and advocate for more of it. The problem with U-Pass is that it’s one of those “revenue neutral” projects that required the addition of dozens of new buses and drivers. It has dramatically driven up the cost of collecting the same amount of money, creating a loss for TransLink and the taxpayers funding it.
Who got the credit for helping students? The Provincial government
Who gets the blame for overcrowded buses? TransLink
And so we head toward a referendum that cannot be won because decades of propaganda have convinced the public that TransLink is incompetent.