A street car named undesire
It’s time to stop referring to the LRT for Surrey as rapid transit. LRT to Mayor Linda Hepner and Surrey First means Light Rail Transit at grade, which is nothing more than street cars.
Having lived in Vancouver when street cars existed, I can tell you from experience that there is nothing rapid about them. If there is an accident or power failure, street cars stop dead on their tracks. A bus can detour. If street cars are so desirable, why didn’t Vancouver bring them back?
What’s the point of spending money to exchange buses for street cars when the buses on 104 Avenue, 152 Street and Fraser Highway are running from almost empty to half-empty for most of the day?
Why did Dianne Watts and her council propose street cars for Surrey, and why does Hepner and her council persist with this idea? Why do they support a cheaper, less-desirable transit system when Surrey residents pay the same transit tax as the other cities? When you consider the size of Surrey’s population, Surrey pays more. Except for Vancouver, all the cities with SkyTrain have fewer people than Surrey. Why should Surrey subsidize the other cities superior transit system?
If TransLink is the transit authority for Metro Vancouver, it should veto Hepner and Surrey First’s plan for street cars so the entire system is compatible. If they can’t or won’t, what good are they?
In my opinion, Surrey First, is an oxymoron. They act more like “Surrey Second.”
Who will be a main beneficiary of a “yes” vote is a matter of opinion. Many people on the south side of the Fraser, Surrey in particular, think that they are being dumped on by their own council and TransLink.
Bud Jaheny, Surrey
TransLink squanders cash
I am totally opposed to the proposed 0.5-per-cent tax increase to fund TransLink.
TransLink is squandering tons of money. They are getting funds from so many sources, including 17 cents per litre of gas, 21 per cent on parking, and a transit levy charged on BC Hydro bills as well as from property taxes. It is a bottomless pit.
Cities are also spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of our tax money to promote the “yes” vote. (Surrey alone has budgeted $300,000). I don’t pay taxes to be used in such wasteful ways and for mayors to promote their own biases.
The other concerning factor is that there is no guarantee it won’t go up to one per cent, 1.5 per cent or even two per cent or more. Once it’s here, it’s here to stay.
I find it repugnant that TransLink has replaced its CEO, but he is still earning the astronomical salary he was before ($468,000 per year), and the new interim CEO gets $35,000 per month. We are paying two CEOs?
I encourage everyone to give serious consideration to how their life will be impacted if the increase is approved. It has been suggested if TransLink saved 0.5 per cent a year, it could fund this whole project without inflicting extra fees upon taxpayers.
I will be voting no and hope others will do likewise.
L. Mackintosh, Coquitlam
Vote yes for a good bargain
I am living in North Delta and we don’t really have good transit. I am voting “yes” because:
• I want to have better transit system.
• A sales tax is good option because everyone will pay.
• It will generate lots of money from tourism which will significantly reduce our portion of tax for the transit system.
• It will decrease congestion, which means a better-quality commute.
• It’s good for better health and the environment.
• There will be fewer cars on the road.
• There will be a better commute for commercial vehicles which means more jobs more money per capita – good for the economy.
Voting yes makes sense to me. Voting no means residents of the suburbs have to pay more money for future transit systems in terms of tolls, road pricing, vehicle levies, etc.
I believe voting yes is really a good bargain because everybody, including tourists, will pay, and it’s sustainable funding.
R. S. Parmar