Dear Editor,
I was confounded my Mr. Lundy's letter ("Why I'm voting 'No' in transit referendum" - Record, Jan. 22), where he states he supports transit expansion and thinks a small sales tax is the fairest way to pay for it, but he will vote NO, because "TransLink is broken." That sounds like responding to an underperforming public school by cutting its funding, punishing a hospital with unacceptable wait times by reducing its resources, or cutting off the nose to spite the face.
If TransLink governance has an accountability problem, it is because a board appointed by the provincial government replaced the board of accountable elected officials (the mayors). However, it is these mayors that are now asking you to support critical infrastructure improvements. Yes, the mayors have also asked to return to a more accountable TransLink governance structure, but instead they got this referendum.
Mr. Lundy is right to ask where "Plan B" is. There were several "Plans B" proposed by the mayors, including portions of gas tax revenue, carbon tax reallocation, and road pricing schemes. All were rejected by the province, which made it clear this is the only option. After a "No" vote, I have a hard time imagining the province would change their mind and choose one of those alternates.
People are angry. They are angry about a lack of action on this file and (real or perceived) wasteful spending, or because they are stuck in traffic and hate taxes. I'm angry too. I'm angry that TransLink has been poorly managed by consecutive governments. I'm angry that we need to go through a referendum to get rapid transit in Surrey when the Widest Bridge in the World runs a $3.6-billion deficit and we didn't get to vote on that.
I'm angry that two bus routes have been cut in New Westminster in the last two years, and the journey from Dunwood to Royal City Centre has become too difficult for some seniors. I'm angry that SkyTrain is packed to the gills every day, yet has to beg for expansion money, while a tunnel with declining traffic counts get expanded with no consideration of the cost.
I'm angry that the growing population of the region will have no option but to drive through New Westminster every day, clog up our streets and make our neighbourhoods less livable because our governments won't fund a transportation system that suits a modern metropolitan region.
Nothing I'm angry about will be solved by voting "No" on the referendum, but neither will anything Mr. Lundy is angry about. So I'm voting "Yes" - for a better transportation future for our region.
Patrick Johnstone, New Westminster
