Transit referendum: How much would a “no” win suck? Listen to this traffic report from the future

    1 of 2 2 of 2

      Would a win by the "no" side in the ongoing Metro Vancouver transportation and transit plebiscite lead to fistfights breaking out in the 99 B-Line lineup at Commercial-Broadway Station?

      How about three-sailing waits for the SeaBus? 

      This is the grim future laid out in a satirical traffic report from the future.

      It's by the folks behind a previous video in support of the "yes" side called "This Sucks Vancouver!"

      Comments

      10 Comments

      Lewis N. Villegas

      Mar 30, 2015 at 1:04pm

      Don't let the "YES" folks fool you! Translink is not an elected body and neither is Metro Vancovuer (our regional "government").

      You want good governance? Here's a clue: No Tax Money Without the Right to Vote the Bums Out!

      OK not ALL government is bad.

      It is just that the kinds of decisions we have been seeing from Translink, and the kinds of noises coming out of Municipal Halls where Translink is making investments, has been horrible.

      Evidence?

      Well, how about the 99B-Line on Broadway... No dedicated lanes there. And it has to play steeple chase with the 9 Broadway.

      How about the 'improvements' to the King George Highway in Surrey that provided all kids of weird car amenities—like bulges to facilitate U-Turns and gigantic medians on the sides and centre of the road—but <i>nothing </i>for transit? Need a ride? Go away!

      Then, we will see 'blight' inaugurated some time soon on the 'Green Line' along North Road in Coquitlam, and down by the waterfront in Port Moody. Yeah... In Port Moody, the local council voted to have TWO chain link fences with razor blade wire on top, provide a continuous separation between the waterfront and their city. How will residents access the waterfront? On automobile bridges!

      The Evergreen line was supposed to be a surface LRT. The right-of-way was already dedicated in the Coquitlam neighbourhood of Eagle Ridge.

      But, Translink voted to do something else. And we have no power over their decision.

      <i>A "NO" vote in the referendum is a "YES" vote for regional elected governance. </i>

      To late

      Mar 30, 2015 at 1:05pm

      Its going to be a land side "no" win. I'm really happy they general public is smart enough to see through the "yes" side compaign and not give further funding to a department which has not shown fiscal responsibility.

      The fact they have some out and actually said they "have no plan B" only proves the point even further they are not responsible enough to be given more funds.

      400 ppm

      Mar 30, 2015 at 1:24pm

      Stephen if they know so much about the future ask them the score of the next Canuck/Whitecap game.

      Yada Yada

      Mar 30, 2015 at 1:54pm

      Well, now the straight has resorted to making up stuff to try and scare people into voting NO. What a bunch of lame ass juvenile logic. Don't worry boys, the developers will still buy up most of your advertising space.

      RealityCheck

      Mar 30, 2015 at 9:50pm

      The "Yes" campaign has been one of the most negative, anti-intellectual campaigns run in B.C. political history. It's shocking that so many millions of dollars have been wasted on such a nasty, ineffective campaign.

      Richard Campbell

      Mar 30, 2015 at 10:34pm

      @Lewis N. Villegas

      The nonsense is rather tiresome and certainly not helpful to the discussion. The Provincial government has authority over TransLink and they are elected.

      And, it was the Provincial Gocernment that made the decision to use SkyTrain on the Evergreen Line. It is pretty obvious that it is the best option but if you don't think it is, then at least complain about the correct organization.

      Richard Campbel.

      Mar 30, 2015 at 10:37pm

      @Yada Yada

      They are at least being honest about making this up which is far more than can be said for the nonsense from the No side.

      Oh there definitely is a Plan B

      Mar 30, 2015 at 11:36pm

      Plan B is Plan A.. it's called the Mayors' Transportation plan, it's on their website and its very very expensive. They plan to pay for it by gouging car drivers. The plan says ( read it ) that you WILL be charged 'mobility pricing'. Whatzat? It's an electronic means of tracking your car's movements ( use of the road ) and charging you rent for it.
      The rent goes to.. ( of course ) TRANSLINK and the Mayors' plan.

      You'll also be tolled for using a bridge or some roads.
      Car drivers will be gouged as long as possible until they have been driven off the road. That will lower revenue and your Translink addon to property tax will rise to compensate. Fares will rise, but that will be a last resort.

      It's Plan A and Plan B and it aint pretty. Go read it. Really. Go.

      If you're a car driver, you might be tempted to vote YES since people who dont drive cars are gonna help you pay for their VISION.
      On the other hand, there is no guarantee that any sales tax collected will lower the gouging of drivers and homeowners. I mean, it just gives them more cash to mess around with.

      Seriously?!?

      Mar 31, 2015 at 1:51am

      What a bunch of propaganda BS from an increasingly desperate "yes" side seeing their billion dollar dreams and fat fantasy bank accounts disappear. The only reason there will be more people living here and creating this fantasy chaos is because of zoning decisions made by local governments: huge boosters of the "yes" side. Don't want chaos? Stop promoting policies that make population growth plan A. The excuse now is "densification is environmentally friendly" and Vision have used that pablum to get "social justice" voters to support the highest profits developers in this city have had since WW 2 even as they excoriate the NPA as being the "developers party."

      The "yes" side know they are heading for a defeat and each week they get more desperate in their propaganda line. A few weeks ago it was that Translink has nothing to do with Transit; then it was time to declare Harper Cons were voting "no" and if you vote the same way you are helping the terrorists win; then it was the effort to spin the issue as generational and declare it was grey haired white guys who hate transit; then it was the "all these people are moving here and you better pay for it or else;" now it is the ever popular "broadcast from the future ...uture....uture....warning us of doom and gloom. I actually saw this in a horror film from the 80's with Alice Cooper and a guy from Simon & Simon.

      Wonderful propaganda from the "yes" side the last while and we have more time yet. Perhaps they could charter an aircraft to fly over the city Soviet style towing banners and broadcasting radio messages, like fake traffic reports: that would be a hoot! We could have troops of "yes players" spontaneously block traffic and perform scenes from the future, such as an ambulance stuck in traffic while a valiant cyclist bleeds to death after being run over by an old grey haired white guy wearing a Harper button and waving NPA campaign signs.

      The next propaganda line could well be health: a "yes" vote will make everyone healthier! By increasing the population and packing people into tighter areas we will all enjoy the benefits of communal living in our own private spaces. I am really enjoying the "yes" propaganda, and considering some of the money funding it was mine I might even believe they are getting value for money if there was hope of a "yes" victory. Sadly it is just more wasted money.

      Kraken

      Apr 13, 2015 at 7:26pm

      Soviet style propaganda for the planners' Soviet style central planning.

      A "no" doesn't stop building infrastructures - it means they would be building it at pace instead of rushing it for election cycles.