I honestly do not mind high pay if it's worth it. But to me these translink police dont do enough to warrant the high pay, and the overtime pay policy is ridiculous.

Either show some productivity or efficiencies or at least make it appear to the public that they are doing something and not just standing there doing nothing.

it cost me .25 cents per kilometre when gas is 1.30 to drive a relatively small truck i must drive due to my job, anyone with larger 3/4 tone vehicles of bigger pays much more, and even older domestic vehicles get similar gas milage to what my truck gets [poor]

paying $1-2 extra in transit fee's for a total of 5 or 6 to get from surrey to downtown is a small price to pay considering the drive from surrey central station to downtown would cost me a minimum of $15 on a day with zero traffic, and with parking on top of that.

I don't mind my taxes going up if I feel the services are worth it.
Honestly, $2.75 for me to skytrain a couple stations?, and don't even get me started on the 2 zone / 3 zone issue. $2.75 isn't that bad considering other cities in the states and even king county is $2.50, but their transit isn't as subsidized as translink.

This may be a bad idea, but what about having different rates during peak periods or cheaper during weekends? I know other cities use different rates during different times.

I don't think Transit cops are necessary either, but safety seems to be a major concern for a significant segment of transit users. I have never had any issues myself, but people seem to fear the homeless, the addicts, and other ne'er do wells which explains the police presence.

Even if we got rid of the Transit cops, who would investigate crimes committed on the system? You would still need cops - either from RCMP of VPD to investigate crimes and enforce fares. More cops on Skytrain and buses means less cops for other parts of the region. You either hire more officers for the VPD and RCMP just to watch over the system, or you create a dedicated police force.

What do you suggest we do? Have unarmed police officers and pay them 30K/year like your run of the mill security guard from Garda security?

Why won't Translink consider becoming a landlord/developer and build stuff above their stations? No one seems to like the idea of paying for something that they don't use. Also no one in Prince George would like to pay extra PST so that some student can get their extra bus on 49th Avenue.

While it's all nice and pretty to have your Canada Line station sitting at the corner of Cambie and Broadway or Cambie and King Ed, think of what would've been there had the land been owned by Aspac or Concord? For sure it'd be a 15+ storey building on top of the station.

I suspect that it has to do with zoning restrictions from local municipalities. Translink properties are not fiefdoms. Nimbies, particularly those in Vancouver, would be out in full force. Besides, real estate development for Translink might provide less of a return on investment than one might think. They probably have little expertise and would have to hire consultants to run that business for them.

That whole argument about people living in other cities not having to pay for projects in the Lower Mainland is bunk. The fact is that the Lower Mainland generates more economic activity per capita than other parts of the province. Why should we pay for services in Prince George when there's no reason to have a city there? It's in the middle of nowhere and the forestry industry is dead in this province. If we carried this argument further, we wouldn't even have countries or provinces - we would all be contained in little city-states.

the best part is we pay for tax on top of the tax and its complete BS. I work in the petroleum industry and the Americans laugh at us on a regular basis at having to pay tax on top of a tax. They had to specially design software to calculate the taxes when the tanker truck delivers the fuel.

everybody feels they are entitled to getting the best of everything, but are not willing to contribute a single cent. if you want to live here, in one of the best cities in the world, you have to participate/contribute.

honestly, people just complain complain complain without understanding how shit actually works. the level of ignorance is mind boggling.

i'd be willing to bet if, hypothetically, all these extra taxes were eliminated and instead tacked onto the provincial side of your personal income tax (say, X% instead of 5.05% at the lowest tax bracket), we'd hear a lot less complaining even though it would work out to be the exact same thing.

The point a lot of people are making is that PST affects the entire province (from Victoria right up to Fort Nelson). Translink only looks after a tiiiiiiiiiiiny portion of BC's roads and transit needs. Why should people in Kelowna or Dawson Creek pay for the Lower Mainland's transit woes? Should we then add yet another tax on top for us to pay for bus service in Kelowna? And then another tax for Prince George?

just as we pay for things that we dont need, but are needed elsewhere. other people elsewhere pay for things that they dont need, but we do. if we didnt do this, we wouldn't have much of a city/country. i think Tapioca explains it best 3 or 4 posts up.

Maybe they just need to stop. Stop expanding....stop building....stop proposing....stop improving....stop 'beautifying' shit.

Why are we spending fast than we make? You know what happens when a business does that? They go under!

We don't need a skytrain station and every block and a bus stop at every fucking door! Lets freeze everything for 5 years! Pay off some shit and bank some fucking money!

I am tired of being punished for owning and driving a car and their piss-poor money management!

^ Translink manages roads and bridges also. If they cut, they should cut back equally on everything, including road maintenance.

Translink actually provided the mayors 3 options a couple of years ago and one of them was a freeze which would have resulted in cut services. The mayors chose to spend more money to keep existing levels of service. Like I said, no politician has the courage to make a tough choice. On the other hand, have you seen a mayor or provincial politician advocate for more cuts? Of course not - it would be political suicide.
Posted via RS Mobile

you must not be very opinionated and don't like expressing your feelings

:derp:

http://www.revscene.net/forums/67943...like-dogs.html

Yes, I am aware.

Like you , I support the separation.

I think if transit cops are needed, its usually only on the Millennium/Expo line. I feel very safe on the Canada Line (I traveled on all three lines regularly for about 1/2 a year).

I have heard in class that many transit cops are former RCMP, VPD, etc and that after working for 25 years they receive a full pension. Now they can double dip by simply joining the transit force when they have retired/too old and collect a pension while still getting a paycheck on the taxpayer purse. I'm not sure if this is possible, but my impression is that they can possibly work towards a second pension?

"Double [dipping]" is common amongst retired RCMP and Municipal Police, and I have no opposition to it. I've personally met retired members of the law enforcement community who have become university instructors, building contractors, and private security guards. Once a person retires, they're entitled to a pension, and it does not preclude the right to pursue other employment. Yes, Transit Police pursue employment similar to the positions they formally held, but that does not negate the fundamental rights they have.
Posted via RS Mobile

This is the idea of land value capture. Translink builds a Skytrain line and properties near stations and along the line increase in value for private property owners, even though they directly are not paying the capital costs that are creating the increased value in their land.

As Tapioca mentioned, expertise is a big problem, as Translink does not currently have a real estate arm from what I know of (if someone could please correct me if they do). Land value capture techniques aren't used by too many transit authorities across North America unfortunately, allowing private developers to come in and build transit-oriented developments at stations and making a healthy profit. I know Hong Kong's rail system has been funded by a large part through land value capture (MTRC I believe?), using joint ventures to fund many of their expansion projects.

In Toronto, the TTC is starting to do some public-private partnerships on pieces of land that they own, pairing up with a developer who has the expertise to build the project.

I don't know how many land holdings Translink has, but I'm sure they have quite a bit that they could potentially play with. In the end though, say they develop a mixed-use tower project in a P3 scenario and come out with $10 million in profit. It's a nice sum but it won't go nearly far enough to fund anything major. They would have to go large scale with big master developments to see high earnings that could fund large capital projects and can't see that happening anytime soon.

i think they should revisit leasing names for stations....but if course the names have to make sense like telus science world or granville station by the bay downtown...

if you keep the current system under budget now, you will see a lot of service cuts, meaning less buses on the roads meaning transit users like yourself will have a crappier commute than it already is.

this topic has been beat so many times, there is really no happy resolution. transit users want better service, prices get jacked up somewhere and people are unhappy. transit cuts services to save money and people are unhappy.

Yup, I don't think they should be precluded from getting other jobs at all. I should definitely re-word that if its giving that impression.

hate to be realistic here but the subsidizing costs in keeping the transit fares affordable and keeping up with the increasing population is vital to our economy... Not everyone cant afford to drive and NEED to take transit. At minimum wage, paying for a 3zone pass is a huge chunk already. If you get rid of the supports, we all crumble...

There are SO many flaws in the system here, that it's just RIDICULOUS.
Translink will NEVER catch up.

Today they say they want to raise PST by 0.5%, or tax the road user $XX.XX/km.
Tomorrow they are going to bitch and complain and say, well we need to raise the tax from 0.5% to 1%, or double the road tax for greater expansion.

This has legit been beaten to death with an iron pole.

IMHO I am fully against doing any kind of vehicle levy/road tax for Translinks Skytrain/Bus expansion. They have such a shitty system of calculating the "zone" system, I can see this idea fucking EVERYONE over. And once we open the door for Translink, they're never going to leave or decrease. They're only going to raise the taxes/levies more.

There are flaws with EVERY system and the flaws are the only things most people will ever be able to point out, because they don't understand what the actual benefits are.

what's RIDICULOUS is how Vancouver is one of the top cities to live in, and yet we have people (not anyone here in particular, just in general) bitching about everything.

the population is Canada is 34 million. the population of the ENTIRE province of BC is 4 million. do you know what the population of the United Kingdom is? 62 million freaking people on an island the size of a pea compared to Canada. The population of LA, not the state of california, just the city of LA? 4 million. New york CITY, not the state, just the city, 8 million. even toronto, by itself, has 2.6 million.

we have a fraction of people to pay for services and to pay for taxes compared to other major cities (or countries). there are fixed costs that exist regardless of the population. Sure, we have lesser people to serve, but buses have to travel the same distance. the same lengths of roads must exist. we dont maintain our roads less often just because we have less people that use them compared to bigger cities. also, gas is increasingly more expensive for the same buses that travel the same distances.

what happens if you cut services? unhappy transit users, less transit use by the population, increased traffic congestion.... oh, and increased costs for transit use because less people will use it, which could also mean another tax, or worse yet, further service cuts to save money, which then leads to even less transit use, and therefore more service cuts and more service cuts.... until we have no more transit system. oh right, and less users/services mean less money to maintain roads.

everything comes down to money. and as a growing city with a significantly smaller population than most other cities, the taxpayers here are always going to be at more of a disadvantage. but guess what? you CHOOSE to live here and you can choose to live elsewhere if you do not want to participate, it sucks, but it's the truth. if you want to live here, then you must participate.

we're not one of the top places to live just because our scenery is nice. and our city isn't what it is today because it magically happened that way. other people IN THE PAST had to PAY TAXES and CONTRIBUTE to help make what it is today. for us to be where we are right now, given our small population and therefore limited funding (through taxes), it's pretty damn impressive

Please, do go on. Elaborate on these flaws.