
Psychology of ‘no': Vancouver transit vote shows why good decisions are hard - qiqing
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/13/the-psychology-of-no-vancouver-residents-poised-to-make-a-decision-that-will-corrode-their-happiness/
======
function_seven
This is a terrible attempt to disguise a position piece as some sort of
insight into the psychology of voters. It presupposes that the tax increase in
question would be a strict positive for the populace, and argues based on that
premise.

Maybe the "no" voters see it differently? They're probably dubious that "the
mayor’s plan will shorten commute times on Vancouver’s most congested roads by
20-30 minutes per day, while transit riders will save up to half an hour."

> A report by HDR Consulting found that, even after the sales tax, the average
> family can expect to save about $360/year.

I'm going to bet that HDR Consulting was smart enough to provide the answer
their client was looking for.

I know I sound cynical here, but this article takes campaign-style promises at
face value, then cries, "Why can't they just see what's better for them??"

~~~
pkaler
"It presupposes that the tax increase in question would be a strict positive
for the populace, and argues based on that premise."

That's because it is a good plan. Every single mayor and a vast majority of
councillors are voting YES. [http://transit-vote.thetyee.ca/](http://transit-
vote.thetyee.ca/)

Almost every single organization, left and right of centre, has endorsed the
plan: [http://i.imgur.com/guVFQDa.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/guVFQDa.jpg)

It's a good plan. That's why the piece pre-supposes that point.

~~~
raquo
Why are they putting this on a vote, if it's such a good plan? Policymakers
should be making policy, not offloading blame for policy outcomes to the
residents. It's their only job.

The fact that local micro politics have a real chance of influencing the
outcome of the referendum more than the quality of the plan is exactly why
such a referendum is not a good idea.

Besides, what if the No vote wins? They will probably still do most of the
things in the plan, but somewhat slower and with less fanfare.

If I had voting rights in Vancouver I would just vote No in protest against
the referendum itself.

~~~
itsybitsycoder
IIRC because the premier promised not to increase sales tax without putting it
to a vote first; it was one of her election promises. Around the time she was
elected, there was a lot of controversy because the previous government tried
to enforce a major tax change (GST/PST to HST) that also caused the total
sales tax on some items to increase. People were pretty angry about it, and in
the end we had to pay the costs of switching from GST/PST to HST, and then
again the costs to switch back to GST/PST.

Apparently if people vote "no" on the sales tax increase, they will be
increasing property taxes instead:

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-
columbia/clark-w...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-
columbia/clark-warns-mayors-will-have-to-raise-property-taxes-if-no-vote-
prevails/article22851649/)

Voting no to "punish" the people putting it to a vote sounds like an
incredibly ineffective way of protesting. Nobody would know it was a protest
except you. If you live here, why don't you actually protest instead? You
don't even need voting rights for that.

I'm still unsure whether to vote yes or no. I think we need the transit
improvements and the money has to come from somewhere. OTOH property tax seems
like it would be less regressive than sales tax, and I'm not in favor of
regressive taxes in general. So if we're really voting on sales tax vs
property tax, a "no" vote would make sense, except I feel like the property
tax route would be more fraught with further political drama and other
difficulties and we might not actually get the needed funding.

------
acrooks
I live in Vancouver and will be voting Yes; but I am pretty confident that the
No-side will win this battle.

The group(s) that have been promoting the No vote seem to be using big numbers
and mostly baseless arguments. Statements like "Translink spent $30,000 on a
statue of a poodle", "The last CEO made $500,000 a year", "Voting Yes tells
Translink you are happy with their service" are among their key points.

It's unfortunate that the general public struggles to think in relative terms,
or to be forward thinking. $500k/year is a pretty low CEO salary for that size
of organization; $30,000 on public art for an organization with an annual
budget of almost $1.5 billion is all of a sudden not so outrageous.

"Voting Yes tells Translink you are happy with their service" is the ultimate
irony in it all. The reason this plebiscite exists is because the population
is _unhappy_ with the service and they want to make it better.

Of all of the large Canadian transit systems I've used - Calgary, Vancouver,
Montréal, Toronto - Vancouver's is without a doubt the best and most efficient
of them all, and Translink has developed a very good plan for what they would
do if the Yes side prevailed.

Oh well.

(the proposed transit plan given a successful Yes vote:
[http://mayorscouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mayors-
Co...](http://mayorscouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mayors-Council-
Vision-Document-Mar-2015.pdf))

~~~
rozap
Also from Vancouver, but will not be voting because I'm not a citizen. I'd be
on the fence about this decision. Not because of the statue or the CEO salary;
you're right, in the grand scheme of things they aren't very important and are
absolutely used by the "no" campaign to cause a knee jerk reaction in voters.

The more troubling thing about Translink is their apparent inability to
execute even the simplest of projects. Remember the Compass cards? Still not
in effect. Similarly, turnstiles in the skytrain still don't work, so many
people don't pay.

Building new rail service and adding more bus routes seems orders of magnitude
more complex than implementing a check in/check out card system or enabling
turnstiles in the skytrain stations. If they fail to execute simple tasks at
the cost of hundreds of millions, why would they be able to execute complex
tasks at the cost of billions?

This in addition to the fact that sales taxes are the most regressive taxes
you can have. Why not property tax? Only extremely wealthy people can afford
property in Vancouver. Seems like a better place to start...

Like I said, I have no skin in this game. Just trying to shed some light on
some of the more salient points from the No side.

~~~
acrooks
I agree with you that the Compass card project has been a failure, but I don't
think it is fair to fault their ability to execute a transportation project
based on their inability to execute a software project. Translink has a proven
successful track record in building roads and bridges and SkyTrains and bus
routes.

The Compass card project is undoubtably a failure, and Translink chose the
wrong contractor (the same company is responsible for another failed project
in Chicago). Software is hard, and I would say to a certain extent this is a
transportation company diving a little too deeply in a field for which they
have no expertise.

To the property tax argument - in general, the people that own property in
Vancouver probably also own cars. The largest users of public transit are
obviously those who do not have cars, so then raising property taxes would
largely affect people who do not directly benefit from a successful vote, no?

------
patmcc
I'm no longer a Vancouver resident, but I know people who are voting no not
because they think transit doesn't need the money (it definitely does), but
because:

1) Sales tax is a regressive way to tax people.

2) Translink, the company in charge of transit in Vancouver, is widely seen as
somewhere between incompetent and corrupt. (Corrupt by Canadian standards,
which is a pretty low bar).

If this was done as an increase in property and gas taxes, I suspect it'd be a
different story.

~~~
refurb
_Sales tax is a regressive way to tax people._

Aren't there numerous sales tax exemptions that make it less regressive? No
sales tax on groceries, school supplies, etc?

~~~
titanomachy
The PST in British Columbia (which would be raised half a percent) exempts
children's clothes, books, bicycles, medications, and most food.

Source:
[http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=78521DE3BD5D46C9A3B1...](http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=78521DE3BD5D46C9A3B17631207A0AD7)

------
kazinator
No-voting Vancouverite here.

Firstly, giving more money to Translink is like giving a credit card to a
reckless teenager. Or the keys to a powerful sports car to Justin Bieber.
Secondly, transit should support itself from the fares it collects: how about
that! I already pay a "regional transit levy" ... in my electricity bill, WTF?
Where is the connection between me running a fridge, computer and lights, and
someone else taking the bus?

I don't give a rat's ass about transit. I bike to work!

Okay, so there are bike lanes in this deal for me? Nope; I don't care about
those, and they won't build them where I commute. I will fend for myself,
thanks.

I also don't care about expanding the road infrastructure for motorists. Roads
should get slower and more congested, as an incentive for people to get out of
their cars.

My commute is already short and consistently so. I can beat transit by 100%
and even the average car trip time. I've made the 12 km trip to work in as few
as 22 minutes; whereas my best car time was around 15, and plenty of times
when traffic made that 45 minutes or more.

I don't care about a new bridge over the Fraser; just more ways for the
violent criminals from there to attack Vancouver homes, businesses and
individuals, and then make a faster getaway back over the Fraser, out of law's
reach. It's bad enough that a stray bullet can reach across the Fraser.

Hey, that last paragraph is a joke, no offense intended! :)

~~~
pkaler
"I already pay..." "I don't give a rat's ass..." "I don't care about those..."
"I will fend for myself..." "I also don't care about..." "My commute is
already..." "I can beat transit..." "I don't care about a new bridge..."

You've done a great job of making the article's point. You've fallen for the
cognitive trap that the article is describing.

You have not considered more complex effects. How does this affect your
family, friends, and co-workers? How does this affect the school and parks in
your neighbourhood? How does this increase population density? How does this
affect property prices? How does this affect pollution levels?

~~~
kazinator
I believe that the plan will affect most of those things negatively. More
traffic, more density, more pollution.

------
Canada
The steady flow of condescending articles attacking anyone who doesn't want to
let the politicians raise taxes now in exchange for something none of them
will be in office to deliver doesn't seem to be winning the "Yes" campaign any
friends. Maybe their crack team of psychologists could conduct a study and
enlighten us...

~~~
mikeash
We'd love to conduct such a study, but we need a small sales tax increase to
finance it....

------
kizz246
I think it's important to note that the transit plan won't change regardless
of whether we vote yes or not. The same light rail and bridges will be built
if we vote no, which will lead to the same results in happiness.

If we vote no it's just a matter of whether or not Translink can learn to
manage the money that they have now. They have historically been horrible at
this.

~~~
titanomachy
Source? I'm probably going to vote yes, since much of what I buy is PST-exempt
anyway (e.g. food, books) and I really believe that our city needs world-class
transit.

It would be great if we get the transit improvements either way. If that
belief is false, though, it's a very dangerous idea to be spreading.

~~~
kizz246
The plan has been touted in the metro and other papers since I moved to
Vancouver 5 years ago. I suppose it depends on how you want to define plan --
as talk from officials with no drafts or as a concrete plan with specs and
budgets. If we are using the latter definition it has been since around 2012.

I recall when the Canada line was being built for the Olympics there was an
outcry because it would push the plans for the rail to Langley(UBC? My memory
is not 100%) back by years as they were putting it on hold to make way for
rail to Richmond.

From 2014: [http://www.bcbusiness.ca/manufacturing-transport/an-expo-
lin...](http://www.bcbusiness.ca/manufacturing-transport/an-expo-line-
to%E2%80%A6-langley) From 2013:
[http://www.surreyleader.com/news/195701621.html](http://www.surreyleader.com/news/195701621.html)
From 2012: [http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/7340/surrey-mayor-
derails...](http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/7340/surrey-mayor-derails-
skytrain-expansion-talk/) From 2008: (When it was just talk)
[http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=ea3c45d3-d3b6-48fc-8b18-...](http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=ea3c45d3-d3b6-48fc-8b18-7fa4dbce4f63)

------
moonshinefe
I think a lot of Vancouverites would be more willing to pay more money for
transit if they actually believed the promises would be delivered. Translink
is notoriously incompetent and wasteful.

For instance, their "Compass" system, despite being pegged for deployment by
2008, STILL hasn't been fully implemented. It's been plagued by technical
issues and is now running over $200 MILLION dollars, far higher than the
original cost. All to stop non-paying passengers (they'll be losing more money
on the compass system than missed ticket payments).

Not to mention many of the "transit police" they increasingly employ have 6
figure salaries. They're basically security guards who call the cops if
anything serious happens. I've seen them maybe checking tickets 3x a year max
in all my years riding Translink.

So yeah, if Translink wasn't already blowing millions of dollars when it
shouldn't have, I think Vancouver would vote yes. As it stands, they're
justified in saying no, in my humble opinion.

Sources: [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/compass-
card-...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/compass-card-program-
delayed-again-by-translink-1.2701045)

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/translink-
sal...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/translink-salaries-too-
high-taxpayer-group-says-1.1316199)

~~~
kazinator
> _I think a lot of Vancouverites would be more willing to pay more money for
> transit ..._

By the way, the money-losing Golden Ears Bridge shows that Vancouverites (or
"Lower-Mainland-ites", rather) are willing to drive an extra 40 minutes to
avoid paying a small toll. The project didn't see that one coming, haha!

------
steven2012
The main reason I would say no is because I don't trust the government to
spend the money properly. Politicians have squandered any ability for people
to trust them, as far as I'm concerned. There's all these promises of a better
tomorrow, but there will be so much waste, so much corruption, that people
would rather not tax themselves.

What this is a vague promise of better transit, but no real plan, no budget
with accountability, etc. Also, unless I missed something the tax is forever.
How often have we seen taxes meant for one thing to be diverted to another
thing?

~~~
acrooks
It's fair that you don't trust the government to spend money properly, but if
the government has no money to spend then this problem is left unsolved.

Here is a document outlining the plan and budget: [http://mayorscouncil.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/Mayors-Co...](http://mayorscouncil.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/Mayors-Council-Vision-Document-Mar-2015.pdf)

------
PhantomGremlin
Government spending is too wasteful, by orders of magnitude. I don't blame
voters for saying no. Fix that problem first, before spending billions of
dollars.

In Oregon we recently had a transit proposal to build a new bridge over the
Columbia River between Oregon and Washington. About 30 years ago we spent $170
million for a very fine bridge.[1] Now we were being asked to spend $2800
million[2] for a replacement for a parallel bridge (revised down from $3500
million but surely overruns were guaranteed). I know we had some inflation in
the intervening years. But nowhere near that much!

According to the govt CPI calculator, $170 in 1982 dollars is $412 in 2015
dollars. But our Oregon "leaders" wanted to spend $2800. Fortunately the
Washington legislature killed it.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_L._Jackson_Memorial_Brid...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_L._Jackson_Memorial_Bridge)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_River_Crossing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_River_Crossing)

~~~
BrainInAJar
Except that the government is more than happy to spend billions on bridges, in
a time when vehicle miles driven is declining rapidly, it's only mass transit
that gets put to a vote. After blowing a billion dollars on a north Fraser
crossing ( which is nearly empty all the time ) the government proceeded to
blow $4 billion on the main highway crossing ( Port Mann ) to bring it to 8
lanes, it's totally empty all the time. And now they're going to blow another
$3-6 billion replacing the south Fraser crossing (Massey Tunnel -> bridge)

~~~
PhantomGremlin
Ouch. That's much worse than in the USA.

The Oregon <\--> Washington bridge that they wanted to replace is heavily
used. It is for I-5, which is the primary North <\--> South highway for the
west coast.

------
refurb
_The cost: half a penny added to the provincial sales tax._

I don't understand this quote. The BC sales tax is a percent, right? 7%? How
do you add "half a penny"? Is that an extra 0.005%?

~~~
Dylan16807
Half a penny per dollar. 7.5%

~~~
refurb
Why don't they call it that then? Because saying you're increasing the sales
tax by 0.5% (almost 10% increase) sounds worse than "it's only half a penny"?

~~~
Dylan16807
I feel the opposite way, odd. If you say "percent" I'm unsure if that's based
on the existing tax or not. If you say "penny" I know instantly you mean per
dollar.

~~~
refurb
Sure. They couldn't say the sales tax is going up by 0.5%, that would be
confusing. But they could say "the sales tax rate is increasing by 0.5% from
12% to 12.5%"

~~~
Dylan16807
That's pretty redundant, though, when everyone knows the current rate.
Especially if you actually say the word "percent" three times.

------
fraserharris
This is a great example of effective marketing. The No side has worked for a
number of years to portray Translink, the transit operating company in
Vancouver, as incompetent and wasteful. They've turned this referendum on
funding a group of capital projects into a referendum on the operating
company.

By most metrics (trips per capita, on time performance, farebox recovery)
Vancouver has one of the top transit systems in North America.

------
nn3
TLDR; vote does not go the way a journalist wants it to, so he writes a long
piece on how stupid the voters are.

~~~
anigbrowl
A gross mischaracterization of the article.

~~~
jstalin
A spot-on accurate summary of the article.

~~~
anigbrowl
Hardly. The author of the article enumerated the benefits that could
reasonably be expected to accrue to the public on the basis of empirical
research. Most of the nay-saying comments in this thread are total BS.

------
marcosdumay
Yep, because there's never a downside to tax hikes.

Really, it's a fixed tax on every transaction. That alone is enough to destroy
some markets, and it grows exponentially with goods transformations at the
"service" sector, where companies pay those taxes.

~~~
pkaler
The increase is 35¢ per day for the average person. Literally pennies.
Literally.

Every single Metro Vancouver mayor, every newspaper (right and left of
centre), every organization that matters has endorsed the plan.
[http://i.imgur.com/guVFQDa.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/guVFQDa.jpg)

It's a good plan. It's so obviously a good plan. However, voters are polling
that they will vote No. Against their own best interests.

~~~
wilsynet
An awful lot of Canadians increasingly sound like Republicans.

------
YZF
I live in greater Vancouver and I take public transport almost every day. I am
almost certainly going to vote NO.

Translink just threw $200M down the drain on the Compass program (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass_Card_%28TransLink%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass_Card_%28TransLink%29)
). If/when this ever comes into effect it will increase my transit costs (vs.
the 10 book tickets I can buy now). It will almost certainly increase my
travel time due to lineups. My kids who home school will not be able to get a
student's fare any more. Causal riders will avoid public transport because
they need to give Translink $12 just for the privilege of a single bus ride
(card + minimum "fill"). It will almost certainly increase Translink's
expenses in maintaining this system. I'm not happy with their choices.

Public transport in greater Vancouver sucks big time (perhaps except within
the city proper.) I used to have a commute of 25 minutes to work by
car/motorcycle. Taking public transport would have made that over 2 hours.
Most transport lines go from somewhere to downtown. If you need to go "across"
and are outside the center good luck. If I miss my "express" bus in the
morning (because it came 10 minutes early, which happens) then I have to walk
1km and wait 20 minutes for the slow bus that takes 20 minutes longer. If I
come early, well, the bus can also be 10 minutes late... I understand they
have a larger/less densely populated area to cover but they do not seem to be
creative enough in doing that. The SkyTrain is just about the most expensive
way of doing transport per km. I'm not sure other options were considered
(e.g. there are de-comissioned train tracks running through Vancouver). Public
transport is also quite expensive compared to anywhere else I've taken public
transport. Dropping prices would help increase ridership which might help fix
some of the other issues.

Fares that were raised when energy prices came up didn't come down once energy
prices declined. This plan itself was made at a time when energy prices were
higher and it seems they're not going back to the same levels any time soon.
At the same time, Vancouver is pretty much the most expensive place in North
America to get gas. Supposedly that tax money should have gone towards
improving public transport.

Once taxes are increased that money can go anywhere. There's no "contract".
There's no accountability. There are also a lot of improvements that could be
made without getting into big ticket items. Optimizing the existing system
towards public transport. I view the tax increase as throwing good money after
bad money something I try not do to in my personal finance and I don't want
the province to engage in this in their finance.

~~~
itsybitsycoder
Why on earth are you buying the ticket books if you take public transport
nearly every day? If that's really the case, a monthly pass is cheaper, and
the monthly pass will still be available after Compass is introduced.

~~~
YZF
I work from home some days and I travel to work at 3-Zone times and back from
work after 6:30pm which is 1-Zone times. Would a monthly pass be cheaper for
me?

EDIT: I knew the answer but just to be sure I double checked. The cost of the
3 zone monthly pass would be equal to 21 days of travel a week on the 1/3 zone
book combo. Since I work a few days from home it's not worth my while. Compass
will not change this. I see it as another example of inflexibility since in
theory Compass could automatically give me a better rate for this much travel.

~~~
itsybitsycoder
IOW, you don't take transit nearly every day, but 66% of days. Yeah, there is
not a lot of room in the transit fees to get a good deal if you fall somewhere
on the spectrum between "daily commuter" and "infrequent rider".

