i would think someone in surrey would be most in favor since this city needs some mass transit to spur some density instead of being sprawled out across a huge land mass. surrey isnt the most liveable city and its not going to get any better if things remain how they are

as far as executive pay, its a competitive market and im sure their pay and benefits are comparable to those in other industries. even if we paid them nothing it still wouldnt be enough to pay for a new transit line. for some people its like if they waste a single paperclip then they dont deserve another dime

I fear that if this proposal is successful, it will only lead to future instances where the Gov. would like to increase sales tax due to some other financial burden.

If you can't afford a car, you take public transit, if you can't afford to take public transit, you ride a bike, if you can afford none of the aforementioned, then relocate to be walking distance to your school/employer and reduce your standard of living. (This goes out to all you bleeding heart urban-sprawlers)

3/4 of the young women on the bus seem to have no problem paying for MK bags and other useless shit, virtually everyone has a 600$ smartphone, I'm sure they could afford to pay a little more for transit.

Grrrrr subsidies.

Big difference between subsidizing someone for a right vs. a privilege IMO. Living in Vancouver is a privilege, if you can't afford it, move to some other Canadian shithole (IE: Edmonton) where you will be paid more and your cost of living/tuition will be lower. This is no different than equalization payments, people in PEI basically expect the Fed to help out since there is "no jobs here".... well instead of staying there and bleeding the rest of Canadians financially, move.

Mehhhh.

does someone have the stats of translink exec/mgmt.'s salary vs other north American transit execs? I think most folks aren't so much frustrated at their salary but their bonuses

WTF at those 90K poodles statues...please tell me those figures are exaggerated :facepalm:

I don't understand this logic, only poor people should take Transit? Transit is subsidized by taxes because it's a public good and it benefits everyone whether they use it or not.

Let me say this another way, when you subsidize an organization you have effectively lost accountability.

Maybe they should pay their glorified security guards less than REAL cops instead of 1.5x and take out some of the fucking corporate bonuses. Fuck translink. Fucking cunts. The thing that gets me going is that they are getting bonuses when they are running a FAILING business. I thought bonuses were based on success.

I don't disagree there that public (or quasi-public) organisations are in general loss accountable.

However this statement is a completely different conversation from your original post; where basically I read you equate public transport to be a negative indicator in quality of life. I completely disagree and would say better public transportation leads to better quality of life.

I'd rather sit in on a train or bus for an hour reading a book or doing something else, than sit in a car for 45 minutes minimum in traffic dealing with assholes.

The referendum is based on expansion of service, there is little doubt that the status-quo can be maintained, so how are they failing?

Lets introduce so facts from the 2014 Bus Service Review report:

http://abload.de/img/screenshot2015-02-08aj0ugx.png
http://abload.de/img/screenshot2015-02-08aztuyz.png
http://abload.de/img/screenshot2015-02-08abpurz.png

Bonuses are based on measurable goals usually set either in the contract or by a committee, not necessarily based on overall success.

As an example, at one of my former jobs, the general manager of the store received a bonus for keeping the aggregate hours worked by employees under a certain amount. This goal, generally speaking, often had an adverse effect on the store's overall performance, especially when it got busy and sales associates weren't able to keep up with customer demands.

I'm voting NO simply because Translink cannot get their shit together when it comes to managing and maintaining our current transit infrastructure.

How many times have we seen in the past year news reports about skytrain delays on the Expo Line??? It's a fact that Translink cannot get their act together to upgrade the skytrain lines in a timely manner.

I'm thinking that the one of the few companies which likes Translink is that bloody online rag "VancityBuzz". VancityBuzz has material to write about the great benefits of a Broadway skytrain corridor to UBC even though it will cost taxpayers over a billion dollars to build it. :facepalm:

Oh, wait there's more about Translink's incompetence. I have a friend who works in Translink for smart card projects. That's right, the messed up Compass Card and fare gate system. According to my friend, the reason that Compass Card isn't being launched yet is partyly because the computer systems cannot handle the different fare zones giving out different fee data for analytics purposes. The card readers on buses are working too slow and causing errors with fee daa.

Regardless of the delay, Translink's CompassCard is costing us $194 million in taxpayer dollars.

Translink is a big ugly vacuum that is sucking all our dollars away with nothing to show for it. :facepalm:

How can politicians ask for more tax dollars to expand transit when Translink cannot upgrade and manage current transit infrastructure properly? :fulloffuck:

TransLink's Compass card faces another year of delay - Surrey Leader

http://memecrunch.com/meme/3HX3/translink/image.jpg

Oh I don't know, how about needing to implement an increase in our Provincial sales tax as some sort of metric?

My second post was abrupt because I just don't feel like spending 30 minutes sourcing data and providing a solid base for my position.

Here's the short version, I work my ass off, I make a LOT of money, and I sure as hell pay an awful lot of taxes. Do I want to pay more taxes to subsidize people taking the bus? No, I don't.

If it was up to me, I would get rid of all the busses and replace them with GT3's and F1 cars. I suspect this argument, like most, is subject to significant bias of those that do, and don't use public transit.

What you forget is that the Port Mann is tolled, and now with the aging Patullo Bridge replacement proposals and the Massey Tunnel replacement, they are likely to get tolled as well. If all three become tolled, yes it may spur increased transit ridership, but at the same time would result in EVERYONE on the Surrey side of the Fraser to bottleneck the already throttled Alex Fraser as the last free option out. Moneygrabs would be pointless if this became the case as there would be resounding frustration over unfair toll distribution.

In addition, Mayor Moonbeam constantly rallying for that UBC rail line and getting it would once again neglect Surrey's constant growth and in turn, its needs for more transit options, especially in growing communities like Cloverdale, Langley, South Surrey and the Ridge Meadows area.

While a pay reduction for those nearly useless executives would be great, I'll echo existing sentiments on my choice to vote "No" that have already been mentioned: Translink needs to better manage its current budget and provide better services with their present funding before asking for more money. As clearly demonstrated by recent incidents and seeking more budget increases every year, they are currently failing to convince me that adding funds will help them find a solution for improved service.

Well we can start by talking about the 20 cent per litre transit tax in Vancouver. A 20% (varying of course) tax is a ridiculous number and most people can agree on that. A provincial hike in tax of .5% for one metropolitan area to run transit is also not the norm? What makes Vancouver so difficult to balance a transit budget compared to Toronto? Montreal? Calgary? These are not necessary there and shouldn't be here. Why are transit police making 6 figures a year? Real police don't make that much in corresponding positions in the force. How about their complete inability to implement the compass card, or fare gates in any reasonable timeframe? The lack of service late at night is also not common in comparable cities. We need more money, for less service?
Thats how they are failing.

Fact? For a medium sized service Translink is well regarded internationally with reliability that compares well to European services (which are much better funded)

A corridor that's overloaded with cars, people and trucks with property values that exceeds $300/sq ft (conservatively). Why wouldn't it make sense to add a high capacity rail line that's out of sight that would significantly reduce congestion on a stretch of road that's longer than the Coquitlam to Surrey Port Mann run while costing significantly less than the Port Mann?

The CompassCard was forced on Translink by the provincial gov't. Translink didn't want it and said the financials never justified it - there simply wasn't enough fare evasion to justify it.

Err...because they're are experiencing increasing ridership and need to maintain current infrastructure which was given to them by the provincial gov't despite the provincial gov't knowing the infrastructure was either end of life (Patullo) or was a money loser (Golden Ears Bridge)

Translink isn't the problem - the problem is that the province has never been willing to fund transit infrastructure adequately and has been passing the buck for the past 15-20 years to Translink so they can blame someone else for their own failings. While the provincial gov't has been more than happy to spend several billion in building money losing bridges that no one uses (Golden Ears/Port Mann) they are unwilling to spend a couple billion to build a transit line that would move more users than either of the bridges they built on what is one of the busiest transportation corridors in North America.

Can you provide any credible source to support this comment?

Why should I pay out to support the stupidity that is urban sprawl? GVA population density is extremely low compared to other major coastal cities, it could get 3-4x more dense and still not even compare to New York City etc.

Nobody forced these people to move to Surrey and buy a house, they made the decision to endure the horrendous commute and contribute to the traffic problem… usually just so that they could have a bigger house they probably didn't need.

TransLink ain?t so bad compared to transit in other cities, Taras Grescoe says | Georgia Straight, Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly

https://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/2...-inefficiency/

Best Canadian Cities for Public Transit - Walk Score Blog

There are better sources than the listed - my Google-fu isn't great today.

Er....transit infrastructure usually results in higher density living so the proposals will lead to the opposite of what you are suggesting.

Can you point to the evidence where it shows that the GVA has extremely low density compared to other major coastal cities? I can only find major cites and Vancouver compares well to SF, Seattle, New York and Portland.

Vancouver: 13.5K/sq mile
SF: 17K/sq mile
New York: 27.5K/sq mile
Seattle: 6.7K/sq mile
Portland: 11K/sq mile (metro portland)

From wikipedia;

GVA 2,078/sq mi
Vancouver 13,590/sq mi (44 sq miles, very small area for Van proper)
NYC 27,778.7/sq mi (304 sq miles)
Seattle 7,774/sq mi (84 sq miles)
LA 8,282/sq mi (469 sq miles)
Chicago 11,864.4/sq mi (234 sq miles)
London 13,870/sq mi
Paris 56,000/sq mi
Tokyo 16,000/sq mi

One authors opinion, no facts provided for the basis of said opinion.

Attempts to debunk the efficiency criticism of Translink by confirming that the cost per passenger is much higher than other cities… and basically indicates that if Translink would reduce service hours they could cut costs down dramatically. Well.. then why doesn't Translink management make the obvious changes to reduce the cost per passenger by reducing service hours?

This is more relevant to home buying lol You will notice that the cities are basically in order of population density and cultural "hot-spotness". Density being the key word here, you always have a higher walkscore if the area is dense.. compare it to Edmonton which is basically the perfect model of that damn urban sprawl… it will be way down the list for walkscore virtually everywhere.

Being fair though, it would be virtually impossible to perform an apples to apples study comparing one cities transit system to another.. too many variables.

What about the mayors putting pressure on the federal government to provide more transit funding? It's an election year. You would think the Conservatives would seriously consider giving more money to Vancouver and other cities when each cities' voters are heading to the polls soon.

The mayors have some leverage this time.

Canada?s top mayors band together to push for better federal funding - The Globe and Mail

Translink pays for a lot more than just buses and Skytrain, though. They're also responsible for over 22,000 km's of paved roads, four major bridges (Golden Ears [not their finest hour, I'll freely admit], Knight Street Bridge, Pattullo Bridge and Westham Island Bridge) and also funds up to 50% of most minor municipal road upgrades.

Also, the Provincial government sets the regional transportation vision, not Translink. If there's calls for a rapid transit service down a particular corridor, you can thank Crusty's government for it.

Until recently, most municipalities had heavy restrictions on how many stories each building could have within their cities. DT Vancouver originally limited the design and height of the skyscrapers so that it wouldn't block the mountains, Langley didn't allow for buildings to be built higher than three stories, and Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Langley and Abbotsford originally had far more heavily protected ALR land than now, which prevented a lot of land from being built on. This is what caused the initial push to urban sprawl.

One could argue that a chunk of the existing traffic problem stems from the 50's when the proposed highway through Vancouver was successfully defeated. This meant that in order to access the city proper, it now has to be done via arterial roads. This lack of forward thinking still impacts us today.

Also, Vancouver may be the "big" city in the GVRD, but it's hardly where the majority of jobs are located. Take a look at the following link:

http://www.vancouvereconomic.com/use...commercial.pdf

The majority of jobs are located within the GVRD, not DT or Vancouver itself. Moving to Surrey or Langley or Richmond doesn't mean that those people are suddenly travelling every day to and from DT. And due to the restrictions that caused the sprawl, moving into a house where your job is located may not have been a feasible option at all.

For example, in the late 70's, my parents bought a house out in Langley for two reasons: First off, it was within their price range ($85,000) and, secondly, it was the closest place they could find to my dad's old job with Kraft, which was then based in Port Kells. After my dad was let go due to restructuring, the closest job he could find was in Richmond. However, the option to move was not available. They were already halfway through paying off their mortgage on the house in Langley, and buying another house closer to his new job meant they'd be losing money due to the rising land cost.

My situation in the early 00's also follows the same thing. I was working in the TV and film industry, and due to the various locations of shoots, there was no feasible place for me to move to. One week I might be shooting on one of the sets at Lions Gate, only to find myself in Hope for the next two weeks.

I realize trades people and delivery vehicles don't make up the majority of travellers on the road every morning, but they do take up a large chunk of traffic. Many of the older Baby Boomers and early Gen X'ers found themselves in the same situation my parents did. They bought a house for relatively cheap, but when careers changed or their family situations took a swing, they found themselves having to travel for work due to rising housing costs. They couldn't necessarily afford to move closer to their new job.

I think I may be going on a tangent here now and I don't think I'm saying this exactly how I have it in my head (being on medication tends to do that to me), but hopefully you kinda get the gist of what I'm attempting to say.

That's a relatively short-sighted argument. As I said in a previous post, more people taking public transit = less people in cars = less traffic and congestion for the people who CAN afford to take transit and/or can't take transit for whatever reason. So as a driver, it would behoove you to pay taxes for more "people taking the bus" so alleviate the congestion that I'm sure you run into on a daily basis. And like before, I rarely ever take transit so less traffic for me, someone who needs to drive for work/social/family reasons, would greatly benefit me. The only problem I run into IMO is that I want to know where exactly my hard-earned money is going.

Whether you like it or not, taxes are there for a reason and that is to pay for public goods. The idea being that the more fortunate should help the less fortunate... unless you're against that sort of thing. The fact that you "work your ass off" does not entitle you to stop paying for things that you don't use.

Let's be real here, if my taxes went exactly where I wanted and didn't go where I didn't want it, we'd eradicate bike lanes, have an ICBC-style registration and insurance system for all cyclists, start hosting the Molson Indy again and have gov't-sponsored "Cafe Lu" style establishments on every street corner. But that's just me...

I think the pro argument here is about how we, as residents, should contribute to build a better public transportation for the greater good of all residents.

But I have to reiterate again, we, on the against side of this, are not against the idea of building better infrastructures. Rather, Translink is not acting as a financial responsible company.

The fact that every time they face a major project they'd have to figure some way to tap on tax revenues sickens me.

As a company, it should consider the financial viability of all the expansions. If their current plan will ONLY work under full tax-payer support (meaning we paying the bills), then at least let us know what is the percentage of population that would utilize such system and how this entire planning, 10, 15, 20 years down the road will impact GVR. So taxpayers can make an educated decision whether such plan make sense to "invest in".

Because let's say a new system will benefit maybe 500 people with 1000 added over the course of 15years at a cost of 200million over the course of that 15years, we might as well just build them a fucking apartment for free within the current system and that will actually save taxpayers money.

I'm not against future expansion/planning, but I'm totally against some meaningless expansion for some stupid guy who decide they want to live in the middle of freaking nowhere because the person think that's his "choice".

BC or even GVR pop. density is low. It makes absolutely no sense to keep expanding. We first plan how to better use what we have now and optimize them. Until we can find a sustainable solution for Translink, any additional tax grab should not be allowed.

The problem with this referendum is that people are treating it as a referendum of Translink's performance as an organization. The reality is that the transit system needs money, or transportation in Metro Vancouver will suffer. That means even if you never take transit, you will spend more time on the roads and parking will be harder to come by. Your 300 HP car will do you no good if you can't get across the Patullo bridge.

Lots of people are pissed because Translink boggled the Compass card and pays their execs 6-figure salaries. The Compass card project has been a disaster, but people have been calling for faregates for years, so major projects do sometimes fail. As far as execs go, they should probably be dismissed, but firing a few execs is not going to magically solve all of Translink's problems because executive salaries aren't enough to, say, expand Skytrain to Langley.

It's worth repeating the fact that the provincial government asked Translink to perform an audit to find efficiencies. The audit didn't find much - certainly not enough to avoid more funding to the system to expand it.

So, what's it going to be Metro Vancouver? Bury our heads in the sand and hope that people leave, industry dies, and poor people magically disappear, so we don't have to fund public transit?

This is somewhat untrue - I think a lot of your arguments that you make as separate points, are all entirely related.

The mayor's are asking for more money, because Translink misused funds in setting up shit that doesn't work and/or unnecessary, while paying their execs large salaries/bonuses, and maintaining little transparency.

Raising taxes to free congestion and whatnot, fine. But it's going to go to fucking Translink. Which is why people will (or should) vote no. If the question read "Should we raise the PST by 0.5% AND abolish Translink" the outcome will most likely be very heavily skewed.

It's not just the $ amount of the salary, but the overall trend of incompetence associated with the $. Firing a few execs not to save money, but to get someone in place who may do a better job is what most people are demanding. [/quote]

And what do you mean the audit didn't find much - it found $139 million a year in potential savings just from effeciencies (TransLink audit finds $41M in savings - British Columbia - CBC News)

They're purposely leaving out "translink" from all literature associated with this vote, because of the negative stigma it presents to the people of the GVRD - and it's rightfully deserved.

And honestly, I can think of at least a dozen places where traffic is terrible purely due to how the road was designed. Older infrastructure such as the Knight St. Bridge on-ramp, fine - maybe it's excusable since it's so old.

But the Queensborough interchange? Whichever fucking cunt signed off on that one should be drawn and quartered.

Imagine how much an external auditor would find

Bingo!

Being fair, the only metric i can use to really say Translink is not performing is the cost per revenue passenger graph below;

https://darylvsworld.files.wordpress...assenger-1.png

I'm all for spending lots of money to develop a strong transit program, something people are HAPPY to use… but I am not sure the current group at Translink can get us there. It might be time to look at awarding some contracts to outside contractors as other cities have done, not for everything, just for specific components of the transit system.