Ian Graham provides a good summary:
.
For reference, a collection of significant articles and commentaries on the aftermath of the failed transit plebiscite, which many of you have likely already seen. It is quite an astounding consensus of serious despair, with much of the usual glibness (from some of the individuals) put to the side. ·
Francis Bula, Globe and Mail, July 2, 2015, “Vancouver-region voters reject sales-tax hike to fund transit projects”, .
Gary Mason, Globe and Mail, July 3, 2015, “Vancouver’s transit plebiscite was doomed from the start” . ·
Stephen Quinn, Globe and Mail, July 3, 2015, “Lack of leadership on Vancouver’s transit leaves residents in the lurch”
Pete McMartin, Vancouver Sun, July 3 and 4, 2015, “The transit plebiscite: Bang! bang! You’re dead!”, and “The real Vancouver emerges (from the ruins of the plebiscite),
Vancouver Sun editorial, July 4, 2015, “Metro still needs plan for transit”
Jarrett Walker, “Hating your transit agency won’t make it better”
For the latest in Gordon Price’s blog (and “vigorous” exchanges of opinions), check out Price Tags. ·
And for balance (?), and a reminder of some arguably dubious presumptions, one of several Barbara Yaffe columns from March 12, 2015, “10 reasons for a No vote in transit referendum”.
It is sending some shockwaves through other cities. And I expect will be the source of countless articles and case studies in transportation policy, political science, and public communications, for a couple of decades.
McMartin’s article on the “real Vancouver” just confirms what I posted (in an apparently deleted) comment. There is a profound misunderstanding of what the majority of Metro Vancouverites want by those who live in a cluster around downtown, and those in the municipal planning bureaucracy. I’d say the referendum message isn’t that Translink was hated, it is that most residents don’t want the transit-focused high density living model.