I read the propaganda that you referred to and for every so called expert on the "YES" side there is one on the "NO" side.
In reality this is really a "class" issue as with it is with most public funding issues.
Just as Miss*Bijou is anti oil pro green and left ..... I am pro cars and oil, anti green and definitely to the right. We both have the right to support and express our views.
I have no interest in funding more unionized jobs or public transit. Some who lean to the "left" are interested in having everyone fund everything.
I am not calling those that don't agree with me "willfully ignorant and remain angry troglodytes". I will leave that up to you in this case but the truth is I have been known to throw the name "morons" around more than a few times.
Here is an editorial from an "expert" supporting the "NO" side in today's Province:
Over the next two months, residents of Metro Vancouver will vote Yes or No in a transit tax plebiscite — but the proposed tax hike to finance what are mostly public transit projects is at best questionable from a transportation economics perspective. For worse, it could cause more harm than good.
If properly designed, built, maintained and operated, public transit systems can serve a vital role in enhancing mobility and accessibility in dense metropolitan areas.
Unfortunately, the overwhelming international evidence suggests that many public transit systems are, in fact, improperly designed, built and operated, with disastrous results manifested in gross underutilization and costs overruns, requiring further infusion of capital funding.
In general, the efficiency and effectiveness of public transit systems is location-based. While highly effective in densely populated areas, its accessibility and economic efficacy effects are reduced significantly in sparsely populated, suburban-type locations, which typifies some communities on the outskirts of central cities, such as Vancouver.
The tenet that public transit is always superior to other forms of transportation, mainly highways, is wrong. In fact, it has been shown that outside the central city, save for targeted transit services, the capacity and quality of the outlying road network provides superior accessibility and better economic growth effects than public transit.
Before approving the proposed tax hike, residents should ask: Is this capital spending of $7.5 billion justified? Do all of the planned public transit projects outlined in the plan offer the best value to residents? Were they shown to be superior to other less-expensive alternatives? The merit of the plan largely hinges on the answers to these questions.
Even if we assume that the huge proposed investments are justifiable and will transpire with no cost overruns, this amount still does not represent the true cost.
First, on an annual basis, experience elsewhere suggests that, once completed, we should expect at least an additional 10 per cent of the total capital costs to go to maintenance and operating costs, entailing an extra $750 million per year over the lifespan of the projects (which, incidentally, are more than the amount the proposed tax hike will fetch).
Second, transit systems require periodical upgrading and use of new technologies, suggesting additional costs each year. Then, depending on how the projects are financed, debt service costs must be accounted for.
Presently, the annual coupon rate on a 10-year government bond for B.C. municipalities is 2.45 per cent, which means an additional annual cost of almost $184 million.
But these expenses still do not cover the entire cost of the proposal since taxation carries real efficiency and equity costs to the region and its residents. Put simply, the additional tax entails less revenue to commercial enterprises, less purchasing power for consumers and a less attractive economy for out-of-region businesses and tourists.
So these losses to the economy in the form of reduced sales, lost income and a less-competitive regional economy cannot be overlooked as they impose additional real costs caused by the proposed tax hike. Likewise, the regressive impact of a sales-tax increase cannot be ignored. It means that lowand middle-income groups will pay a higher share of their income than more affluent groups.
Given the expected revenues from hiking the PST — on the one hand, with the true total costs to the economy of the proposed projects, combined on the other hand with the economic and social costs of the tax on the other — one cannot escape the impression that it’s a poor deal.
There are better ways to pay for capital-intensive transportation projects. This includes eliminating unnecessary projects, a more rational pricing of transportation services (highways included), rationalized user fees, the use of less distorting taxes, capitalizing on the positive impacts of the projects such as an increase in property values and the use of private-sector financing in the form of public-private partnerships.
All of these options should be carefully considered before approving the proposed dubious tax hike.
Joseph Berechman is a Marvin Kristein professor of economics at the City University of New York, and formerly the CN chair professor in transportation and international logistics at UBC’s Sauder School of Business. He has also published policy studies with the Fraser Institute.
We can spend hours and hours quoting so called experts on both sides.
Don't forget the one absolute truth - the population:
Hong Kong - 7.2 million in 2014
New York - 8.4 milliion in 2013
London - 8.4 million in 2013
and
Vancouver - .6 million (603,502) and of Greater Vancouver (east to Maple Ridge) - 2.3 million
So perhaps we don't have the population density to fund a "world class" transit system.
Compared to the average wage they are above average but not grossly overpaid like you claim. The point about overtime is pointless, if sales people exceed their targets they get a bonus, the cops at a film shoot make overtime. How is that different from any other job that has overtime/bonus/sales targets?
