Bus Fare Hike

[lou_belle]

Originally Posted by -ff-

Well that should be enough right there. You dont see a problem with discrimination?

That said (if you'd bothered to read what I'd posted) it hasn't occured to you that the majority of impoverished people tend to be people of colour, immigrants, and first nations? Policies that affect the poor disproportionately affect these people - hence, systemic racism. Try getting your head out of that little box you keep it in and thinking through the implications for a second.

Immigrants, people of color and first nations???? Since when did Translink have anything to do with race??? Systemic racism? Thats a mouthful of cowpies. To even bring race into the whole jumbalaya is just creating a fight. Translink isn't even thinking about races when they make these decisions. They are thinking about profits.

A more reasonable argument would be the fact that they don't take into consideration the minimum wage vs. inflation. Their customer base is lower income residents, and they should be catering to THEIR needs, enabling them sufficient transportation that should be comparible to the benifits of driving.

Translink's problem, is that their systems are so unpredictable and are never exactly on time, it makes it nearly impossible to use transit to commute to work. In a city with reliable public transit, everyone uses the system and in turn they make more money to expand.

[e_BoY]

wow didnt know fares were so high no. im so glad i never have to take transit.

[lou_belle]

Originally Posted by thebobman

The GVRD can't make Vancouver an automobile-centric traffic system now, it's too bloody late; the land surround the major streets is already purchased and developed.
People with cars are already screwed. The only hope we have to eliviating the traffic problem is to decrease the number of cars in the city core and increase the number of buses. You don't do that with a Fare Increase, you do that by raising the taxes on CARS.

AGREED! The extra 25 cents should be for a limited time, but they never mention fare CUTS in the future. GOD they are making a MESS of this city!

[trance4life]

didn't affect me, but they shouldn't raise price

[Haze]

A progressive transit program would increase gas taxes

I believe that many drivers have paid for the busses quite a bit concidering that even with the transit strike a few years back there was no relief on the fuel tax; so that was raw profit.

As for the polluting the air stuff, what is your stand point on smokers? Should they be taxed more as well? I mean there is already a tax on cigarettes yes but why not raise theirs as well, they are causing the same effect on your lungs.

and what about bastards like me that use BOTH my car AND transit???


OH and P.S. whoever wrote in reply to "transit racism" THANKYOU!!!! Transit racism??? How outlandish....

- ë

[-ff-]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

Immigrants, people of color and first nations???? Since when did Translink have anything to do with race??? Systemic racism? Thats a mouthful of cowpies. To even bring race into the whole jumbalaya is just creating a fight. Translink isn't even thinking about races when they make these decisions. They are thinking about profits.

The fact that they aren't 'thinking about races' when they make policy doesn't mean that they aren't racist. Thats what systemic racism IS - its when a system is set up that discriminates against people in non-overt ways.

[wum]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

its sinking into the ocean..all those little boats pullote the shit out of the water which rots the foundations of the buildings.

plus venice has a permanant population of around 70,000 and is isolated and occupies a very small space geographically, a comparision to vancouver cannot be made.

I was only comparing their layout. In other words, a walking city where cars aren't allowed versus a highway congested one.

[Haze]

^^ that is true, much like how the regulations had to be changed for police a few years ago as the minimum requirements cut out many minorities and women just based on the fact that many don't grow to be the size of a caucasian male. *edit was for ff

However (yes get ready to freak out) I don't think that this should matter per say as it is not that high of an increase of $182.50 per year (if you were to ride both ways 365 days a year) I dunno if it is that much of a stretch maybe look at is as something to give you drive to get a better job or re-plan your finances... I know I was having troubles making ends meet for a bit so I had to find another way to make them meet.

- ë

[wum]

Originally Posted by Haze

^^ that is true, much like how the regulations had to be changed for police a few years ago as the minimum requirements cut out many minorities and women just based on the fact that many don't grow to be the size of a caucasian male. *edit was for ff
- ë

yay, compromise my safety so others don't feel left out :)

[Canar]

Originally Posted by -ff-

Try getting your head out of that little box you keep it in and thinking through the implications for a second.

Originally Posted by -ff-

The fare increase is an attack on the right to mobility of all bus riders. It is also a racist and sexist policy which will disproportionately impact women, communities of colour and Aboriginal people who are more likely to be transit-dependent because of low-income and lack of access to a car. The fare hike, like privatization, cuts and user fees in other necessary public services, exacerbates and reinforces the oppression and exploitation of immigrants, refugees, people of colour, and Aboriginal people.

Hm, let's try thinking about definitions instead of implications. Racism would be saying that all asians pay $2.50 for a 1 zone pass instead of $2.25. There we have a minority group being oppressed.

So bus fares increased. Let's think about implications, if only for the racism side of things (and the sexism side of things is even more far-fetched). That means that low-income families will have problems paying for the fares. Or does it? The fare hike isn't that high, and inflation happens. Okay, let's assert that it does and continue.

So low-income families will have problems paying for the new fares. Now let's explore the claim that the low-income demographic is biased towards certain groups. This statement is true, and somewhat inevitable. Variations in population will occur, statistically. You'll inevitably make the counter-claim that the low-income demographic currently exists due to racist policies. Okay.

Now we move onto the next claim, that the low-income demographic correlates with the demographic of racially-discriminated-against individuals. As I lack studies to show that this is true one way or the other, I will give you that assertion.

We move onto the assertion that ties it all together, slightly paraphrased to fit the structure of the analysis: Increased bus-fares are racist because they attack the low-income demographic, which is equivalent to the racially-discriminated-against demographic.

However, that claim isn't specific to just bus fares. As nearly any increase in the price of basic human necessities (in which category transportation barely fits) has the potential to adversely affects the low-income demographic, we end up with: Increasing the price of basic human necessities is racist because it attacks the low-income demographic, which is equivalent to the racially-discriminated-against demographic.

Let's go out on a limb and assert that this statement is true as well, and analyze the implications:

According to the above claim, any price increase on any human necessity is racism.

QED.

Increasing the price of food is racism. Overwaitea is racist because they charge more than Superstore. Economics is racist because inflation increases the prices of everything. Really analyzing implications, we end up with: Union workers working at grocery stores are racist because they cost more for companies to employ than non-union workers, causing the prices of food to increase.

And you still maintain yours is a sensible, logical argument?

[lou_belle]

Cutting back on Low Income services is racist because, generally...the low income residents are not whities???


LOllolooL>OLOLOlOL:PLOlOPfffHA Ha haha PPFFUckin HILLarioUS!

[wum]

Aparently my girlfriend owns a racist breed of dog. ah, gotta love things German :)

[-ff-]

Originally Posted by Canar

Increasing the price of food is racism. Overwaitea is racist because they charge more than Superstore. Economics is racist because inflation increases the prices of everything. Really analyzing implications, we end up with: Union workers working at grocery stores are racist because they cost more for companies to employ than non-union workers, causing the prices of food to increase.

And you still maintain yours is a sensible, logical argument?

Your logic is faulty. for a couple of reasons. First, the increase of prices in food because of wage-push is not something that can actually be controlled. With the bus fare increase, we're talking about a specific policy by the government. Imagine that the government brought in an increased consumption tax on food (regressive taxation). Economists would agree that this would disproportionately affect poor people, and by extension, it actually would be fair to argue that that does disproportionately affect minorites (people of colour, but also, for example, single mothers). This would be a policy of choice.

You are also missing the way transit differs as a system that people of colour are MORE dependent on, proportionally, than any other demographic. Any change to that system thus affects them disproportionately. Overwaitea on the other hand, serves the general public - people of all types shop there equally. So you are comparing apples and oranges. Imagine if the government brought in a policy that increased MSP premiums for trips to specialist doctors. Since women are more dependent on speicalists (ie, need to make regular visits to gynacologists) far more frequently than men, they would be far more affected, just by virute of their born status as women, something they have no control over. That would be structural sexism.

Anyway, this point is really peripheral to the main discussion. If you think that tranist is not structurally racist, thats your opinion - I obviously wont be able to change just by arguing on a message board. The main argument that an increase in fares is a tax on the poor, and goes to support the further privatization of our transit system still stands.

[COMATOS3]

soorta off topic but a bus driver got kicked off his bus and had to do a breathalizer test and he aparently had been drinking. i hope the fucker loses his job. i dunno the last thing id want to be in is a bus with a drunk driver. dunno about u guys.

[-ff-]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

Cutting back on Low Income services is racist because, generally...the low income residents are not whities???


LOllolooL>OLOLOlOL:PLOlOPfffHA Ha haha PPFFUckin HILLarioUS!

Actually, yes. Exactly.

[Senior]

First off does anyone bother to try and know what they are talking about? For those of you who did do a little research good for you.

Basically the issue breaks down into 4 main areas that all need to be considered. These are as follows, how our transportation needs effect the environment. What the side effects of our transportation needs are on the general populations health. How effective our transportation options are now and what that will look like in the future. With all of this considered we then need to decide how to pay for it.

Transportation and the environment: While the pollution created by cars and trucks creates many different problems the biggest one is global warming. Not only as a region but as a planet it is our responsibility to find less polluting forms of transportation and use them. With the available options we should be putting pressure on our politicians to mandate that all new cars sold have a hybrid system that would create less than half the emissions of a traditional engine. The other obvious option is to vastly improve our public transit system. Major capital investments need to made in light rail systems, sky trains, additional buses, and more sea bus terminals. Beyond that regional planners need to implement development plans that make public transit as well as walking and riding bikes more realistic options. Higher density, mixed use zoning, and features such as side walks and bikes paths are key.

Trasportation and the publics health: With the drastic increase in the use of cars over the last 50 years their has been a corresponding increase in the incidence of lung disease. The associated health care costs are not insignificant and the ailments range from lung cancer to asthma. The other savings in monetary terms if we didn't have as much air pollution would be increased productivity from people not getting sick. As outlined above there are options available right now to reach this goal.

Transportation effectiveness: Over the last 20 years average commute distances have basically stayed the same at around 14 KM. However the time it takes for those commutes has risen drastically as the population increased. From 85-95 alone it increased from an average of 19 to 26 minutes. In cities across North America this is a common problem that has often been answered by building more roads. The problem is that you can only build so many roads and eventually when they become congested you're back at square one but with a larger problem. In Vancouver with an already worsening problem (we add an average of 30,000 new cars a year to the road system) we need to take action now to avert a transportation crises in the future. As said more public transit and better regional planning is needed.

How to distribute the costs: Right now we are paying for this structure almost entirely through taxes. Transit users are the exception but might not be for ever. One idea I have heard is to introduce user tolls for major bridges and to get into the downtown core. This would increase the available stream of revenues to fund the maintenance and building of roads, bridges and public transit. It would also encourage people to live closer to their place of work by making long commutes more expensive. To quote the Vancouver Board of Trade "the external costs of operating autos need to be better internalized so that auto use more fully reflects its private and public costs the way public transit is being forced to." Or in other words we need to make a direct connection between the amount of money being spent on the roads and the people using them. In addition to increasing the amount of residential property taxes that are going to roads and public transit an additional gas tax could be applied to meet these goals.

[-ff-]

^
Dude, where have you been!?
I've been waiting for you to get your ass into this thread!

[Canar]

Originally Posted by -ff-

You are also missing the way transit differs as a system that people of colour are MORE dependent on, proportionally, than any other demographic.

Sources, please. Hell, if I wanted to be snarky, I'd even demand sources supporting the link between low-income, racially-discriminated-against, and transit-user, as to you they all seem to be much more interconnected than my intuition tells me is necessarily true.

Originally Posted by -ff-

Imagine if the government brought in a policy that increased MSP premiums for trips to specialist doctors. Since women are more dependent on speicalists (ie, need to make regular visits to gynacologists) far more frequently than men, they would be far more affected, just by virute of their born status as women, something they have no control over. That would be structural sexism.

You're looking in the wrong place if you want to see discrimination in governmental policy. Look at the way we handle aboriginal issues: give them extra rights. That's wrong and racist to the core. Yet I don't hear the people who bitch about systemic racism (which is very indirect) bitching about the way the system is currently directly racist. Yet because it benefits minorities, it's acceptable. Don't get me started on the inequality of the amount of funding going towards men and women from the government...

Equality, to me, means exactly that. No special concessions are made for any minority. No rights are taken away from minorities.

[-ff-]

Originally Posted by Canar

Equality, to me, means exactly that. No special concessions are made for any minority. No rights are taken away from minorities.

Thats one way of looking at equality. The other way of looking at it is to ask what goals people are actually capable of accomplishing. Equality of opportunity, that is, real - fair - equality of opportunity often means granting more rights to underpriviledged people. If you start off on an unlevel playing field, then obviously you are going to need more in order to get to the same places that people who started from positions of priviledge do.

[BongMan]

Originally Posted by dekor

soorta off topic but a bus driver got kicked off his bus and had to do a breathalizer test and he aparently had been drinking. i hope the fucker loses his job. i dunno the last thing id want to be in is a bus with a drunk driver. dunno about u guys.

He wont loose his job not over 1 incident most likely 1 weeks paid probabtion..

[wum]

Originally Posted by -ff-

Thats one way of looking at equality. The other way of looking at it is to ask what goals people are actually capable of accomplishing. Equality of opportunity, that is, real - fair - equality of opportunity often means granting more rights to underpriviledged people. If you start off on an unlevel playing field, then obviously you are going to need more in order to get to the same places that people who started from positions of priviledge do.

woh, woh. are you implying that people of color have different aptitudes and potentials? kinda flies in the face of theories of racial egalitarianism doesn't it? :)

[Canar]

Originally Posted by -ff-

Equality of opportunity, that is, real - fair - equality of opportunity often means granting more rights to underpriviledged people.

Equality of opportunity is a pipe-dream. Granting rights won't heal a blind man, a deaf woman, a quadriplegic, a Down's Syndrome child, nor will it curb genius, stymy athleticism, or invalidate currency. Not all people are born equally gifted, and it's unwise to waste the gifts of the gifted on the ungifted in hopes of levelling the playing field, as it were.

[-ff-]

Originally Posted by Canar

Equality of opportunity is a pipe-dream. Granting rights won't heal a blind man, a deaf woman, a quadriplegic, a Down's Syndrome child, nor will it curb genius, stymy athleticism, or invalidate currency. Not all people are born equally gifted, and it's unwise to waste the gifts of the gifted on the ungifted in hopes of levelling the playing field, as it were.

gee, I guess you're right. why should we even try?

Oh yeah, thats right, because as a society we're better than that shit.

Anyway, believe whatever you'd like. I'm not going to get involved in the racism debate any longer, nor deal with the political-philosophical underpinnings of 'equality' either. I get enough of that shit at school, and its side-tracking this thread from what it is really about, which is the broader issue of transit, the fare increase, and the fare strike.

[-ff-]

Originally Posted by wum

woh, woh. are you implying that people of color have different aptitudes and potentials? kinda flies in the face of theories of racial egalitarianism doesn't it? :)

I said I wasnt going to post on this anymore, but this I'll do it anyway (because I didnt see your post, Wum/Thumper).

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying NATURAL aptitudes/ potentials, I'm talking about SOCIAL disadvantages (like being poor, having to overcome a language barrier, having to deal with structural racism, ect). Think before you post my man, think.

Anyway, that is my LAST post on this topic.

Back to transit!!!

[lou_belle]

Originally Posted by Senior

First off does anyone bother to try and know what they are talking about? For those of you who did do a little research good for you.

Basically the issue breaks down into 4 main areas that all need to be considered. These are as follows, how our transportation needs effect the environment. What the side effects of our transportation needs are on the general populations health. How effective our transportation options are now and what that will look like in the future. With all of this considered we then need to decide how to pay for it.

Transportation and the environment: While the pollution created by cars and trucks creates many different problems the biggest one is global warming. Not only as a region but as a planet it is our responsibility to find less polluting forms of transportation and use them. With the available options we should be putting pressure on our politicians to mandate that all new cars sold have a hybrid system that would create less than half the emissions of a traditional engine. The other obvious option is to vastly improve our public transit system. Major capital investments need to made in light rail systems, sky trains, additional buses, and more sea bus terminals. Beyond that regional planners need to implement development plans that make public transit as well as walking and riding bikes more realistic options. Higher density, mixed use zoning, and features such as side walks and bikes paths are key.

Trasportation and the publics health: With the drastic increase in the use of cars over the last 50 years their has been a corresponding increase in the incidence of lung disease. The associated health care costs are not insignificant and the ailments range from lung cancer to asthma. The other savings in monetary terms if we didn't have as much air pollution would be increased productivity from people not getting sick. As outlined above there are options available right now to reach this goal.

Transportation effectiveness: Over the last 20 years average commute distances have basically stayed the same at around 14 KM. However the time it takes for those commutes has risen drastically as the population increased. From 85-95 alone it increased from an average of 19 to 26 minutes. In cities across North America this is a common problem that has often been answered by building more roads. The problem is that you can only build so many roads and eventually when they become congested you're back at square one but with a larger problem. In Vancouver with an already worsening problem (we add an average of 30,000 new cars a year to the road system) we need to take action now to avert a transportation crises in the future. As said more public transit and better regional planning is needed.

How to distribute the costs: Right now we are paying for this structure almost entirely through taxes. Transit users are the exception but might not be for ever. One idea I have heard is to introduce user tolls for major bridges and to get into the downtown core. This would increase the available stream of revenues to fund the maintenance and building of roads, bridges and public transit. It would also encourage people to live closer to their place of work by making long commutes more expensive. To quote the Vancouver Board of Trade "the external costs of operating autos need to be better internalized so that auto use more fully reflects its private and public costs the way public transit is being forced to." Or in other words we need to make a direct connection between the amount of money being spent on the roads and the people using them. In addition to increasing the amount of residential property taxes that are going to roads and public transit an additional gas tax could be applied to meet these goals.

Senior...you are missing ff's most logistical point! What about racism? What about the fact that most of the people riding busses aren't white? Why is Translink being so Racist towards their customers?

What we should really be looking at is why their are so many aboriginals, and foreigners riding the buses.....then we can get to the root of the problem. And THEN we can raise the fares!