Eric Florip, writing at The Columbian, demonstrates the complete lack of comprehension that has characterized the 'zine when it comes to transit - he gets it wrong in the very first sentence:
In the still-evolving debate over how to pay for maintaining new high-capacity transit systems in Vancouver, C-Tran leaders are so far sticking with Plan A.
That’s sending a sales tax measure to voters in November, which the agency’s board committed to last year.
Sorry, Eric, but light rail isn't "high-capacity", and although you briefly pay lip-service to flexible solutions like bus rapid transit, as you note yourself - Much of the conversation has centered around light rail. In other words, much of the conversation has centered around inflexible low-capacity, two-car fixed-rail toys.
Money could come from a fare-based model leaning heavily on riders, for example, or a city motor vehicle license tax. We know which option the politicians and planners are going to shoot for: fare evasion is rampant on light rail, so you know darned well that "riders" aren't going to be paying; it only makes sense, therefore, to steal yet more money from vehicle owners by adding another fee to their load. Drivers, after all, are already accustomed to having their fuel taxes and other fees diverted to pet projects like multimillion-dollar bicycle bridges; they'll just roll their eyes and hand over their wallets again.
Hey, the liars' budget is only $2.5 million a year to operate the choo-choo from the state line to Clark College. That has to be, like, four whole miles.
Alright, got that, really cool information, liked the thought. :)
Posted by: Kassandra | Labor Posters | January 31, 2012 at 11:22 PM