ARTICLE: Vancouver Transit Strike now longest in history

27 views
Skip to first unread message

Hank Fung

unread,
Jul 30, 2001, 6:45:35 PM7/30/01
to
At 121 days, the Vancouver bus strike has zoomed past Whitehorse,
Northwest Territory, as the longest transit strike ever.

And finally, people are protesting.

Here's an article from the Vancouver Sun, posted without permission.

Note that there is a settlement on the table reached through mutual
joint mediation between the union and the transit company, that
TransLink refuses to accept.
It's posted at http://www.caw111.com/Vince_Recommendations.txt,
and at first glance, seems pretty fair to me.

--
Hours after both sides in the Lower Mainland's bus strike suggested that
they're done talking, nearly 200 people showed up in front of Vancouver
city councillor George Puil's house demanding a resolution to the
121-day-old dispute.

Billed as the Picnic at Puil's House, placard-carrying protesters called
on the chairman of the regional transportation agency, TransLink, to force
a settlement.

Talks between unionized bus drivers and TransLink subsidiary Coast
Mountain Bus Company broke down on the weekend just days after Premier
Gordon Campbell said the province would step in to end the dispute if the
two sides could not settle the four-month-old strike.

"It's important for people to be heard and to have a say in what's going
on," said Aiyanas Ormond, 26, a member of the Bus Riders Union Transition
Group and an organizer of Sunday's rally on Puil's doorstep. "This
[strike] is ruining people's lives."

Protesters took turns speaking and singing their minds through a bullhorn,
while five grim-faced police officers stood in front of Puil's Kitsilano
house.

Puil, who called police last week after someone dumped a load of manure on
his front walkway, was not home during the rally, and could not be reached
for comment Sunday.

However, Vancouver city councillor Gordon Price said he thinks that
protesters shouldn't have targeted Puil's house.

"I don't think it's a good idea strategically," said Price. "This thing
has become personal, and unfairly so."

Ormond was among the handful of demonstrators that tried to physically bar
Mayor Philip Owen and Puil from leaving the council chamber at Vancouver
city hall during last Tuesday's meeting. The incident caused councillors
to temporarily deny the public access to council chambers.

In an interview with The Vancouver Sun, Owen said that Ormond and the
other protesters at the meeting were trying to hi-jack the democratic
process with threats of violence.

But Ormond denied the mayor's allegations Sunday, saying that he and other
protesters have effectively been muzzled.

He said that's why he decided to take the protest to Puil's front lawn.

However, Peter Stanley, who was caught off-guard by the rally during his
afternoon walk, said he thinks protesters are wasting their breath in
front of Puil's house.

"It's not the city's problem," said Stanley. "The provincial government
are the ones that have to sort this out."

In fact, Coast Mountain Bus Company spokesman George Garrett said Sunday
that, "I think the next announcement will come from the government."

And Dave Harlow, financial secretary of the striking Canadian Auto Workers
local 111, said the union doesn't have anything left to negotiate. He said
bus drivers compromised when they voted last month to accept a mediator's
report and would not compromise any further. The bus company rejected that
report by mediator Vince Ready saying it would be too costly.

Both Premier Campbell and Labour Minister Graham Bruce said Wednesday they
would legislate a settlement if the two sides can not find one themselves.

Neither Campbell nor Bruce could be reached for comment Sunday.

"We're not going to allow or leave the people in downtown Vancouver [to
be] held ransom by two groups that just clearly aren't talking to each
other," Bruce said last week.

Then, on Thursday, Deputy Labour Minister Lee Doney shuttled between both
sides in private talks held at the Labour Relations Board headquarters in
Vancouver. No details were released about those meetings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Hank Fung fun...@ocf.berkeley.edu
University of California, Berkeley Go Bears!
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~fungus
From the Great State of Washington (despite what you see above)

testforecho

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 1:19:48 PM7/31/01
to
fun...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Hank Fung) wrote in message news:<9k4o2f$1js4$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...

> At 121 days, the Vancouver bus strike has zoomed past Whitehorse,
> Northwest Territory, as the longest transit strike ever.

Nope. The 1981 Quebec City transit strike was the longest in North
America at nine months.

> And finally, people are protesting.

People? Lunatics is a more apt description.


>
> Here's an article from the Vancouver Sun, posted without permission.
>
> Note that there is a settlement on the table reached through mutual
> joint mediation between the union and the transit company, that
> TransLink refuses to accept.

The Coast Mountain Bus Company. Translink *HAS NOT* refused to accept
the mediator's recommendations because TransLink is not the employer
of the bus drivers. See section 13 of the Greater Vancouver
Transportation Authority Act:
<http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/G/98030_01.htm#section 13>

> It's posted at http://www.caw111.com/Vince_Recommendations.txt,
> and at first glance, seems pretty fair to me.

Fair? It's biased. The union gets everything they want, CMBC gets
diddly. That's why CMBC refuses to accept it. Good on them!

<article snipped>

Protesting at Puil's personal residence was disgraceful. I'm appalled
at the behavior of some people in this city. Here's a related opinion
piece from the Vancouver Sun:

Headline: Targeting Puil's house a shabby, unfair tactic
30-Jul-2001

<http://www.vancouversun.com/newsite/opinion/5010267.html>

Tim Shoppa

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 8:32:38 PM7/31/01
to
testforecho wrote:
>
> fun...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Hank Fung) wrote in message news:<9k4o2f$1js4$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> > Note that there is a settlement on the table reached through mutual
> > joint mediation between the union and the transit company, that
> > TransLink refuses to accept.
>
> The Coast Mountain Bus Company. Translink *HAS NOT* refused to accept
> the mediator's recommendations because TransLink is not the employer
> of the bus drivers. See section 13 of the Greater Vancouver
> Transportation Authority Act:
> <http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/G/98030_01.htm#section 13>

This ever-increasing balkanization of responsibilities is a huge
step backwards. No bus service is provided for months, and you've
got the organization responsible to the public claiming that it
is powerless to do anything about it. THIS ISN'T PROGRESS, PEOPLE!

Tim.

Seymour_F_Butts

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 8:41:11 PM7/31/01
to
Actually there is bus service but it is limited to the few companies that are
still operating under different contracts to Translink. They are the Blue
Buses, Burnaby Heights shuttle buses and I guess you can count the skytrain and
the handy darts.

Translink could end the strike by declaring Coast Mountain is in breech of
their contract, fire them and hire some other company to operate the main bus
service.

SFB

John Mara

unread,
Jul 31, 2001, 8:49:35 PM7/31/01
to

"testforecho" <t4e...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:2425c643.01073...@posting.google.com...

> Protesting at Puil's personal residence was disgraceful. I'm appalled
> at the behavior of some people in this city. Here's a related opinion
> piece from the Vancouver Sun:
>
> Headline: Targeting Puil's house a shabby, unfair tactic
> 30-Jul-2001
>
http://www.vancouversun.com/newsite/opinion/5010267.html

I don't see anything wrong with it. If politicians don't want to deal with
the people they probably should seek some other kind of employment.

John Mara

Anthony Buckland

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 12:24:09 AM8/1/01
to
Forget the balkanization, just designed to divert you from
the real issue. The point is, you are owned reliable urban and
suburban transit service, you are being taxed for it, and you're
getting shit fuck-all for your money.

What makes me mad is not the cowardice and buck-passing
of our politicians. Since when have we expected anything more
from these suck-holes?

What makes me mad is the complacent,. one sheep licking
ass from the sheep in front, acceptance of this pile of shit
by the citizenry in general. You, we, them are owed a transit
service; and you, we, them are just sitting here.

So do you just intend going on while the union shit and the
political cowards you elected sit around their comfortable
board tables discussing whether they intend ever to do
anything else? Or do you intend to get off your ass and
demand the service you're entitled to and and are being
told to pay for whether you get anything for your money or
not?

Laura Halliday

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 11:56:10 AM8/1/01
to
Anthony Buckland <buck...@direct.ca> wrote in message news:<3B678469...@direct.ca>...

> Forget the balkanization, just designed to divert you from
> the real issue. The point is, you are owned reliable urban and
> suburban transit service, you are being taxed for it, and you're
> getting shit fuck-all for your money...

True.

A couple of points:

I'm told that B.C. labour law prohibits firing all
the transit workers and starting over.

I've been to cities where public transit is run by a
number of companies on contract to the city (e.g.
Newcastle upon Tyne). It seems to work. I've been to
places where each town has its own setup, but they
have regional coordination (e.g. Duesseldorf). This
seems to work too.

I don't care who runs the buses as long as they run on
time.

While I welcome Victoria's involvement, if that's the
only way to solve the problem, I'm dismayed that George
"Let them eat cake" Puil will then be off the hook, and
will be able to duck any responsibility for the strike
or its conclusion...

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 15.042 N 122 59.053 W - Hospital/Shafte

testforecho

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 1:07:15 PM8/1/01
to
"John Mara" <john...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:<zmI97.180330$T97.21...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>...

>
> I don't see anything wrong with it. If politicians don't want to deal with
> the people they probably should seek some other kind of employment.
>

So if you and I had a business dispute that we couldn't resolve it
would be okay for me to come and dump a pile of manure on your front
lawn and then have as many people as I could get together gather in
front of your house to protest?

Phone you in the wee hours of the morning to threaten you? I'm not
even going to attempt to count the number of offences I could be
charged with.

Whatever you might think or feel about their policies, politicians are
entitled to their private lives.

Cheers
Alex

Hank Fung

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 7:54:44 PM8/1/01
to
In article <2425c643.01080...@posting.google.com>,

On the other hand, it is the case that Translink has shut down public
comment at board meetings about the strike, and will not meet for
some time. I do agree that dumping manure is inappropriate and childish,
but protesting on public property outside a politician's home, which
in the US at least, is public information, is definitely appropriate.
Calling people in the middle of the night is HARRASSMENT, and already
is illegal, if their intent is disrupt. But I hope you aren't against
free assembly.

Hank Fung

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 8:02:52 PM8/1/01
to
The article is at:
http://www.vancouversun.com/newsite/notebook/5019264.html

This is news analysis, so there is some speculation present. I found this
passages interesting:

"When the former NDP government created TransLink two years ago, the
general feeling among municipal politicians was one of euphoria. They
could now control the financing and planning of their own transportation
system. They embarked on a massive spending program, ordering millions of
dollars in new equipment and buses, and went so far as to build fancy bus
shelters at $80,000 each which would not carry revenue-producing
advertising.

At the same time, in a signal to unionized drivers that it wanted to gut
what it considered expensive work rules, TransLink began contracting out
small services that had long been performed by Canadian Auto Workers
drivers.

It also misjudged public support for its ambitious expansion plans when it
tried to bring in a $75 vehicle levy to pay for the improvements. The NDP
government, sensing taxpayer outrage over the lack of public consultation,
reneged on an agreement to approve the levy.

Those events set off a chain reaction; TransLink couldn't afford its new
bus expansion. The public identified it as another tax-and-spend agency.
The unionized drivers and mechanics raised the war banner in their next
contract negotiations, categorically rejecting Coast Mountain's demand for
part-time drivers and changes to spare board rules to make the bus company
more efficient.

And, most importantly, the dispute showed fundamental flaws in
accountability for the service. TransLink attempted to deflect public
anger, saying the bus service was the responsibility of Coast Mountain.
Coast Mountain, on the other hand, doesn't hold public meetings and is
governed by three bureaucrats hired by TransLink.

While Rome has been burning for the last 123 days, so to speak, the board
was dealing with things like expanding the Albion ferry service and
whether to continue allowing pets on buses. When the cacophony of public
protests at board meetings grew too loud, the board simply adjourned and
threatened not to hold public meetings.

It is that latent public anger that now presents the biggest hurdle for
TransLink, Coast Mountain and unionized workers to overcome. If riders who
have made other arrangements for getting around stay away, the service
will lose more money and will be forced to cut more services than the
160,000 hours it had said it would eliminate this year to help balance its
budget.

David Stumpo, Coast Mountain's president, acknowledged recently he doesn't
know how much ridership will drop or how long it will take to woo people
back, but he does know many won't easily trust a system that has failed
them for a third of a year.

TransLink has suggested it could see 15-per-cent fewer riders over the
short term, made up mostly of commuters who have made other arrangements
such as car-pooling, walking, cycling or licensing a car.

The longer ridership is depressed, the less money TransLink will save from
the strike. It claims it is saving in the order of $160,000 per day, but
the union says the savings are much higher.

This is a service, however, that is used by only 11 per cent of the Lower
Mainland's travelling public, so it has poor support in the first place.

There is likely little residual goodwill left from all the years of "Go
Green" promotions by TransLink and its predecessor, BC Transit, as they
attempted to pry car commuters from behind the steering wheel. "
---

Looks like a massive public relations disaster of the highest magnitude.
Coast Mountain agrees to mediation, but then rejects the mediator's
report. Protests at board meetings that could have been confined and
controlled instead break out in front of councillor's homes and manure
gets dumped on people's yards because the board didn't want to just let
people vent for a while. The union comes out of this looking GREAT, since
Translink has wasted so much money, and Translink was unsuccesful in
portraying the union as being unreasonable.

I think it will take at least two years for ridership to be back to
pre-strike levels.

From the other Vancouver,

- Hank

Albino Protester

unread,
Aug 1, 2001, 8:14:35 PM8/1/01
to
In article <2425c643.01080...@posting.google.com>, t4e...@vcn.bc.ca
says...
>

>Whatever you might think or feel about their policies, politicians are
>entitled to their private lives.
>
>

yeah, so says the Vancouver Sun in their sanctimonious editorial shaming the
people who protested and dumped at Puils house. Thats the same Vancouver Sun
that was peeking into Glen Clark's window to get a picture of him being
arrested in his kitchen to plaster on their front page...

John Mara

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 3:13:29 AM8/2/01
to

"Karl Pollak" <ka...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:3b677d31....@news.bluecrow.com...
> x-no-archive: yes

> "John Mara" <john...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> Headline: Targeting Puil's house a shabby, unfair tactic
> >> 30-Jul-2001
> >>
> >http://www.vancouversun.com/newsite/opinion/5010267.html
> >
> >I don't see anything wrong with it. If politicians don't want to deal
with
> >the people they probably should seek some other kind of employment.
>
> How would you like it if your employer's dissatisfied customers brought
> their compaints to your home?

I'm not a politician or political appointee. People protest in front to the
White House. It comes with the job.

John Mara

testforecho

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 1:38:11 PM8/2/01
to
fun...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Hank Fung) wrote in message news:<9ka4s3$obq$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...

>
> On the other hand, it is the case that Translink has shut down public
> comment at board meetings about the strike, and will not meet for
> some time.

Can you blame them? Public comment? It was public yelling and boorish
behavior which accomplishes nothing.

> I do agree that dumping manure is inappropriate and childish,
> but protesting on public property outside a politician's home, which
> in the US at least, is public information, is definitely appropriate.
> Calling people in the middle of the night is HARRASSMENT, and already
> is illegal, if their intent is disrupt. But I hope you aren't against
> free assembly.

Certainly not. I just question whether it's appropriate to assemble in
front of a politician's private residence and wonder what is
accomplished other than some filler for the media on a slow news day.

Cheers
Alex

testforecho

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 3:07:22 PM8/2/01
to
do...@spam.me.spammer (Albino Protester) wrote in message news:<LX0a7.13591$2J4.4...@news2.rdc1.bc.home.com>...

>
> yeah, so says the Vancouver Sun in their sanctimonious editorial shaming the
> people who protested and dumped at Puils house. Thats the same Vancouver Sun
> that was peeking into Glen Clark's window to get a picture of him being
> arrested in his kitchen to plaster on their front page...

(OT: not cross-posted to mtu-t)

And BCTV. Oh yeah, same thing. Don't you just love the Sun's idea of a
photo? A frame captured from BCTV.

I don't like the NDP and my opinion of Glen Clark as a smug and
arrogant bastard was formed back in the days when he was in
Opposition. Having said that I was disgusted with the local media
outlets that hounded him at his home. Inexcusable. And we wonder why
intelligent and competent people are reluctant to run for public
office.

While Glen Clark's shenanigans were newsworthly, the invasion of his
family's privacy to get a few pictures was unnecessary and unethical
by my standards.

Crass, tabloid journalism which is pretty much the standard here in
Vancouver.

If the rube Clark is aquitted I wonder if he'll sue?

Cheers
Alex

Albino Protester

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 6:33:27 PM8/2/01
to
In article <3b68e5d3....@news.bluecrow.com>, ka...@nospam.org says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes

>fun...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Hank Fung) wrote:
>
>>The article is at:
>>http://www.vancouversun.com/newsite/notebook/5019264.html
>>
>>This is news analysis, so there is some speculation present. I found this
>>passages interesting:
>>
>>"When the former NDP government created TransLink two years ago, the
>>general feeling among municipal politicians was one of euphoria. They
>>could now control the financing and planning of their own transportation
>>system. They embarked on a massive spending program, ordering millions of
>>dollars in new equipment and buses, and went so far as to build fancy bus
>>shelters at $80,000 each which would not carry revenue-producing
>>advertising.
>
>You may have found it interesting, but it is grossly inaccurate.
>

Typical Karl BS... its 'inaccurate' but he cant bother to post the
so-called 'accurate' information he wants you to believe he's privvy to.


>Wrong again. Labour relations have never been all that great at BC Transit,
>but with ITU representing the workers they were manageable. Unfortunately
>for the then government, the ITU would not come to bed with the NDP. So the
>NDP was instrumental in the CAW raid on BC Transit. CAW came in with the
>claim that ITU was a bunch of whimps and CAW would really show the employer
>who runs the shop.
>
>I guess news like that does not filter down the Berkeley.

To any Berkeley readers: Karl is banking on the fact that you wont have
information to counter his lies and bullshit.

>4 months out on the street, and
>the ostensible main reason for the strike is off the table indefinitely.
>Totally pointless strike.
>

Pointless that it went on for 4 months if they were only going to give into the
union in the end anyway. Should've just settled the contract responsibly from
the start...


Seymour_F_Butts

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 6:23:04 PM8/2/01
to
>ka...@nospam.org (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>In the end, it was the union who begged the government to step in and put
>an end to the strike. And their Ontario Big Bosses are nowhere to be
>found. So if the bus drivers got fucked by theit Ontario Union Bosses,
>they get exactly what they had deserved. 4 months out on the street, and


>the ostensible main reason for the strike is off the table indefinitely.
>Totally pointless strike.

CAW bosses were crying in their beers back east, losing the vote to unionize
Toyota's Cambridge plant.

>Hello? You're going to operate the system full tilt but not get enough
>riders and that is going to save money for the company? They did save
>money by not operating. But once they go back into service, the only way
>they can get more money is to _increase_ the ridership.


>
>>This is a service, however, that is used by only 11 per cent of the Lower
>>Mainland's travelling public, so it has poor support in the first place.

One reason is because Transit has not been declared an essential service yet.
People who have cars are not given breaks for taking transit and have to pay for
double for transportation.

Three more years and another strike is coming if the issue of Part timers is
not resolved. Also Translink gets to contract out. But the Union has not said
anything about it. The union says they won based on Ready's report.

>Like duuuuh, man. But don't say things like that here. When I brought
>this figure out about 2 weeks ago, all sorts of transit freaks were having
>connuptions over it.
>--
>Greetings from Lotusland

SFB

Shel Scott

unread,
Aug 2, 2001, 11:12:54 PM8/2/01
to
Anthony Buckland <buck...@direct.ca> wrote:
>...do you intend to get off your ass and

>demand the service you're entitled to and and are being told to
>pay for whether you get anything for your money or not?
>
Car drivers pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, just on
gasoline and maintenance costs for their cars. Only a fraction of
this is returned in the form of new roads and bridges. If car drivers
aren't entitled to adequate infrastructure, nobody is entitled to bus
service.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
--
ab...@earthlink.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com
ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com

Albino Protester

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 1:04:45 AM8/3/01
to
In article <3b69ed2f...@news.uniserve.com>, ssc...@unispam.com says...

>
>Anthony Buckland <buck...@direct.ca> wrote:
>>...do you intend to get off your ass and
>>demand the service you're entitled to and and are being told to
>>pay for whether you get anything for your money or not?
>>
>Car drivers pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, just on
>gasoline and maintenance costs for their cars. Only a fraction of
>this is returned in the form of new roads and bridges. If car drivers
>aren't entitled to adequate infrastructure, nobody is entitled to bus
>service.

You are under the erroneous assumption that the gas tax is supposed to pay for
roads. It isn't. Whenever there is paving to be done, residents pay for it as
extra surcharges on their property tax. gas tax is like cigarette and alcohol
tax, its there to discourage you from using it, and the money collected is
supposed to go toward social programs.

Albino Protester

unread,
Aug 3, 2001, 8:06:31 PM8/3/01
to
In article <3b69e285....@news.bluecrow.com>, ka...@nospam.org says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes

>t4e...@vcn.bc.ca (testforecho) wrote:
>
>>I don't like the NDP and my opinion of Glen Clark as a smug and
>>arrogant bastard was formed back in the days when he was in
>>Opposition. Having said that I was disgusted with the local media
>>outlets that hounded him at his home. Inexcusable. And we wonder why
>>intelligent and competent people are reluctant to run for public
>>office.
>
>When the sitting Premier of a Province is involved in a criminal case and
>has a search warrant exectued against his home, it is most certainly in the
>public interest to publicize the fact. It's not as if he was having a few
>neighbours over for a barbeque or somebody climbed over his fence to take a
>shot of he and his wife relaxing in their backyard.
>

I agree, and what Puil was doing is criminal so he deserves the poop on his
lawn

Duncan MacGregor

unread,
Aug 4, 2001, 3:20:24 PM8/4/01
to
Recently, Hank Fung (fun...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:

> In article <2425c643.01080...@posting.google.com>,
> testforecho <t4e...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>>
>>So if you and I had a business dispute that we couldn't resolve it
>>would be okay for me to come and dump a pile of manure on your front
>>lawn and then have as many people as I could get together gather in
>>front of your house to protest?
>>
>>Phone you in the wee hours of the morning to threaten you? I'm not
>>even going to attempt to count the number of offences I could be
>>charged with.
>>
>>Whatever you might think or feel about their policies, politicians are
>>entitled to their private lives.
>
> On the other hand, it is the case that Translink has shut down public
> comment at board meetings about the strike, and will not meet for
> some time. I do agree that dumping manure is inappropriate and childish,
> but protesting on public property outside a politician's home, which
> in the US at least, is public information, is definitely appropriate.
> Calling people in the middle of the night is HARRASSMENT, and already
> is illegal, if their intent is disrupt. But I hope you aren't against
> free assembly.
>

The "shutdown" occurred after members of the "bus riders' union" [*not* the
bus drivers] disrupted each of Translink's public meetings and threatened
Puil and other members of Translink's board with physical violence. It
seems obvious that the BRU was fomenting riots, and preventing reasonable
people from being heard.

When I complained about this tactic on a BRU mailing list, someone retorted
that "good cop, bad cop" tactics were necessary in order to hammer home
how damaging the strike had been to "ordinary people." Nonsense. Petitions
from businesses in downtown Vancouver, as well as loud complaints to your
local MLA [which I did, just after the provincial election] were probably
*far* more effective than any intimidation tactics I have heard of.

From now on, any advocacy on the part of transit from groups such as the
Vancouver BRU will be tarnished. Leaders will remember how easily they
resorted to violence during a stressful situation. This does not let the
Translink Board or their subordinates at Coast Mountain off the hook --
they should still be required to answer for their refusal to negotiate in
good faith. Likewise, the unions involved should be held to account for
*their* overly-combative stance towards the employer.

In short, nobody came out smelling like a rose ... and the only winners were
the autoholics, who were confirmed in their collective stuporstition. Pity.


>
> --
> Hank Fung fun...@ocf.berkeley.edu
> University of California, Berkeley Go Bears!
> http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~fungus
> From the Great State of Washington (despite what you see above)

Just another thought about a strike that's just about over, from ...
--
Duncan MacGregor | aa...@freenet.carleton.ca | #include <disclaimer.h>
Also at: "http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aa735/" | To err is human ...

Duncan MacGregor

unread,
Aug 4, 2001, 3:48:48 PM8/4/01
to
Recently, Shel Scott (ssc...@unispam.com) writes:
>
> Car drivers pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, just on
> gasoline and maintenance costs for their cars. Only a fraction of
> this is returned in the form of new roads and bridges. If car drivers
> aren't entitled to adequate infrastructure, nobody is entitled to bus
> service.
> --

Sorry, but motorists' taxes do *not* cover all the costs associated with
driving. In another recent post, I pointed out two costs that were left
out: policing the roads, and health costs due to traffic accidents. Other
costs (such as the damage done to the environment) should be considered
too.

If auto drivers were truly aware of how much their fair share costs, many
would consign their cars to the scrap heap -- where they belong.

One should also consider the cost of careless motorists. If every auto
driver were licenced to the standard that a bus driver has to meet, then
many if not most of them would lose their licence. Just what are these
people supposed to do? How are they to deal with current zoning laws,
which effectively require every North American city dweller to travel for
miles just to buy a loaf of bread? Or cope with miserable transit services
that shut down every day at 1900 [7 pm.]? If we stick with the current
setup of licencing almost every Tom, Dick, or Harry that comes along, are
we willing to accept the blame for the traffic carnage that has resulted in
42000 deaths each and every year due to traffic accidents in the US alone?
[Clue for the clueless: the average city dweller faces a much lower risk of
accidental death on a sidewalk or in a bus than in a private auto.]

Think about it the next time you reach for your car keys.

Some more good reasons for not owning a car, from ...

WooF

unread,
Aug 4, 2001, 4:14:03 PM8/4/01
to

On 4 Aug 2001, Duncan MacGregor wrote:

> Recently, Shel Scott (ssc...@unispam.com) writes:
> >

> Sorry, but motorists' taxes do *not* cover all the costs associated with
> driving. In another recent post, I pointed out two costs that were left
> out: policing the roads, and health costs due to traffic accidents. Other
> costs (such as the damage done to the environment) should be considered
> too.

I think the largest cost that motorists' taxes do not pay for is
the maintenance of streets within city limits. Although most
gasoline is burned on city streets, it is city sales and city
property taxes that pay to maintain, control (traffic lights &
signs), and police those streets.

George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com


tnr

unread,
Aug 4, 2001, 4:58:42 PM8/4/01
to
In article <9khjj0$7ih$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, aa735
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...

> Recently, Shel Scott (ssc...@unispam.com) writes:
> >
> > Car drivers pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, just on
> > gasoline and maintenance costs for their cars. Only a fraction of
> > this is returned in the form of new roads and bridges. If car drivers
> > aren't entitled to adequate infrastructure, nobody is entitled to bus
> > service.
> > --
>
> Sorry, but motorists' taxes do *not* cover all the costs associated with
> driving. In another recent post, I pointed out two costs that were left
> out: policing the roads, and health costs due to traffic accidents. Other

The former would still be necessary, at least in part, even without
passenger cars and the latter is covered by insurance, e.g. ICBC.

> costs (such as the damage done to the environment) should be considered
> too.

I agree.



> If auto drivers were truly aware of how much their fair share costs, many
> would consign their cars to the scrap heap -- where they belong.

Disagree. The per passenger subsidy to the Westcoast Express is enough
to buy each reggular rider a new car every 18 months or so.



> One should also consider the cost of careless motorists. If every auto
> driver were licenced to the standard that a bus driver has to meet, then
> many if not most of them would lose their licence. Just what are these

I've seen many bus drivers do careless and illegal things - no more so
than car drivers but they are hardly paragons of virtue.

> people supposed to do? How are they to deal with current zoning laws,
> which effectively require every North American city dweller to travel for
> miles just to buy a loaf of bread? Or cope with miserable transit services

Huh? The enarest corner store to me is 200 feet away. There is a Safeway
10 minutes by foot, etcetera etcetera. Even in the burbs it is unusual
to have to walk for miles to get a loaf of bread.

> that shut down every day at 1900 [7 pm.]? If we stick with the current
> setup of licencing almost every Tom, Dick, or Harry that comes along, are
> we willing to accept the blame for the traffic carnage that has resulted in
> 42000 deaths each and every year due to traffic accidents in the US alone?

Apparently people are willing to accept this.

> [Clue for the clueless: the average city dweller faces a much lower risk of
> accidental death on a sidewalk or in a bus than in a private auto.]
>
> Think about it the next time you reach for your car keys.
>
> Some more good reasons for not owning a car, from ...

Not really.

tnr

unread,
Aug 4, 2001, 4:59:32 PM8/4/01
to
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.101080...@unix2.netaxs.com>,
owls...@netaxs.com says...
Which streets would you eliminate?

Vlad Petersen

unread,
Aug 4, 2001, 7:33:37 PM8/4/01
to
JohnDoe wrote:
......

> do you believe that if autos were eliminated, that roads wouldn't need
> to be policed?

Just think of lost speeding tickets revenues..

- VP

Paul Keenleyside

unread,
Aug 4, 2001, 11:59:42 PM8/4/01
to
> You are under the erroneous assumption that the gas tax is supposed to pay
for
> roads. It isn't. Whenever there is paving to be done, residents pay for
it as
> extra surcharges on their property tax. gas tax is like cigarette and
alcohol
> tax, its there to discourage you from using it, and the money collected is
> supposed to go toward social programs.

Fuel taxes were originally intended to pay for roads, but now it is placed
into general revenue. A dollar collected in fuel
tax does not mean that an equated dollar is taken out of the tax pool to pay
for roads.

Gax tax is not a "sin tax" like taxation on cigarettes and alcohol is. It
is intended to draw from the consumption of petroleum products to provide
additional tax revenue for the provinces and federal guvmints.

The money collected from fuel taxes does not directly go to nor has it ever
been intended to for social programmes. Social programmes are paid for out
of general guvmint revenue.

Albino Protester

unread,
Aug 5, 2001, 12:29:18 AM8/5/01
to
In article <3b6cc534$0$13...@fountain.mindlink.net>, pl...@paralynx.com says...

>
>
>
>Gax tax is not a "sin tax" like taxation on cigarettes and alcohol is. It
>is intended to draw from the consumption of petroleum products to provide
>additional tax revenue for the provinces and federal guvmints.
>
>The money collected from fuel taxes does not directly go to nor has it ever
>been intended to for social programmes. Social programmes are paid for out
>of general guvmint revenue.
>

its so cute the way you say 'guvmint'. I just want to pinch you and go
COOTCHIE COOTCHIE

Martin Edwards

unread,
Aug 5, 2001, 5:19:44 AM8/5/01
to

>
>I think the largest cost that motorists' taxes do not pay for is
>the maintenance of streets within city limits. Although most
>gasoline is burned on city streets, it is city sales and city
>property taxes that pay to maintain, control (traffic lights &
>signs), and police those streets.
>
>George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
>
>
Also many of the drivers pay their property taxes in different
jurisdictions, while making their money in the city. The proles
subsidize the Babbits yet again. In London, eg, some of the poorest
people in the country live a few hundred yards from the offices of
people who commute from the fat cat county of Surrey. I understand
that LA County has some equally choice examples.

******Martin Edwards.******

Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel

-Eddy Valiant

John

unread,
Aug 5, 2001, 6:56:07 PM8/5/01
to
--
___>^..^<___

"Vlad Petersen" <vlad...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:3B6C8651...@uniserve.com...

Kind of like the impact of smoking on health costs.


NotMe

unread,
Aug 7, 2001, 10:03:11 PM8/7/01
to

That's total bullshit and you know it. You're just a fucking
loser troll.

Albino Protester

unread,
Aug 8, 2001, 8:41:01 AM8/8/01
to
In article <3B709EA1...@here.please>, NoS...@here.please says...
>
>

>> >Car drivers pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, just on
>> >gasoline and maintenance costs for their cars. Only a fraction of
>> >this is returned in the form of new roads and bridges. If car drivers
>> >aren't entitled to adequate infrastructure, nobody is entitled to bus
>> >service.
>>
>> You are under the erroneous assumption that the gas tax is supposed to pay
for
>> roads. It isn't. Whenever there is paving to be done, residents pay for it
as
>> extra surcharges on their property tax. gas tax is like cigarette and
alcohol
>> tax, its there to discourage you from using it, and the money collected is
>> supposed to go toward social programs.
>
>That's total bullshit and you know it. You're just a fucking
>loser troll.

Whats total bullshit? I was agreeing with your statment "Only a fraction of
this (gas tax) is returned in the form of new roads and bridges".

Hey if agreeing with your assessment of the facts makes you abandon your
erroneous conclusions, I'll have to try that strategy more often!

NotMe

unread,
Aug 9, 2001, 5:49:34 PM8/9/01
to

My call of "BullShit" obviously wasn't to that statement,
but rather your statements that - " You are under the


erroneous assumption that the gas tax is supposed to pay for

roads. It isn't.", and - "Whenever there is paving to be


done, residents pay for it as extra surcharges on their
property tax. gas tax is like cigarette and alcohol tax,
its there to discourage you from using it, and the money
collected is supposed to go toward social programs."

The "Gas Taxes" were in fact originally labeled "Road Taxes"
and were for the particular purpose of constructing and
maintaining a road and highway infrastructure. It's only
over the past few decades that our insatiably greedy and
wasteful Federal Governments realized what an incredible
"cash cow" they had, and started cranking up the tax rates
and diverting huge amounts of it to "General Revenues" to
try and offset some of the results of their own fiscal
mis-management.

The Feds collect Billions of dollars a year from "Gas
Taxes", and only put less than 5% of that back towards Road
and Highways. Funny thing is that of that 5%, over 95% of it
is allocated to Ontario and Quebec.

Also, if you bother to take a look at any Historical
photographs of long established North American Cities, they
*ALL* had very extensive road networks (pretty well exactly
the same as today) that were planned and built a long time
*before the car was even invented*. So much for these
idiotic arguments that the cyclists and transit users are
being raped of their tax moneys to build and maintain roads
for the rest of us.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages