The problem isn't the absolute $$ figure of the CEO salary, how many of these CEO salaries we are paying, or how much the managers and executives make. The problem is the general approach TransLink operates and make its decision. There is little transparency to how they operate and spend their money. There is next to no accountability as a result of their decisions. The governance model is completely fxxked. These are the reasons why people need to vote NO for the upcoming referendum.

Unless we see a thorough shake up and opening up of TransLink (complete with mandatory external audits and stuff), the waste and excess will continue.

Fix up TransLink first. Then come back and ask me for more money to fix up public transportation and infrastructure. I would be far more willing to pay up then.

I don't think anyone is denying the need for transit. Regardless of whether or not you use or like the idea of public transit, most everybody understands the need for it to exist. If they don't they are pretty daft.

I also understand that while there are many savings available these savings will likely not add up to cover the necessary investment right away, I would first like to see translink make their best efforts to make ends meet before asking for the government to essentially bail them out.

Beyond that though I have serious concerns on Translink's management, not from a pay scale perspective or monetary perspective, but from a leadership, management, and planning side.

I'd like to take a moment to look at another local, self contained, and HIGHLY successful operation. YVR. The airport here in vancouver has countless awards and accolades, over its illustrious lifespan. The airport has grown to meet the demand placed on it at the perfect rate.

There are numerous factors which have contributed to the success of YVR, but lets just look at a couple;

1. Ray Zibrik and the team assembled to run YVR project management ltd.

You read that correctly, the team in charge of managing projects at YVR is actually its own company, one that is so successful they have actually been hired in other places around the globe to consult and advise others on their expansion plans.

2. The Master Plan Development

In 1992 YVR enlisted the help of a few very renowned infrastructure planners. Together they spent almost 6 months developing a 20 year plan to carry YVR into the new millennium. The result was that over the next 20 years YVR grew almost exactly as per the plan. In fact the only departure from the plan was the west chevron expansion at YVR which was accelerated because of the 2010 olympic games. That expansion was completed in 2007 during one of the toughest times for owners trying to build stuff, why? Because the other competing projects were:

- Numerous High Rise Projects
- GVRD / GVWD
- MSA Hospital
- VCEC
- VANOC (Olympics)
- Sea to Sky Highway
- Gateway Projects
- BC Ferries
- Kelowna Bridge
- Canada Line
- Other: Residential Municipal, Commercial, etc.

And yet the team at YVR made that 200 million dollar project come in on time, and 30 million UNDER BUDGET.


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

So lets take the two largest principles contributing to the success of YVR and see how Translink compares.

1. The team at translink is a god damn joke, I mean the guy who was there for 20 years, and CEO for the last 5+ was just forced to resign because he has made such a cock up of things. The rest of the team is just as big of a farce as well.

2. Translink's master plan. Holy smokes, where to begin, I guess you could being with, WHAT MASTER PLAN?

While YVR plans, and funds projects in 20 year intervals, translink generates plans on a 10 year basis, which wouldn't be so bad, except that they only actually think about funding 3 years in advance. In the infrastructure and major projects game, 3 years is pretty much considered short term planning. Hell even 10 years isn't really considered long term planning.

Do you understand the severity of what I am explaining here? There are projects translink has lined up which will go on for longer than 3 years, yet they havn't fully developed a master plan which will properly outlive that project build cycle.

By comparison YVR rebuilt its 20 year master plan once again back in 2007/2008, the master plan is expected to live until 2027, in the meantime they have already begun the consultation process for the development of a plan which will extend until well past 2040.

Translink? Translinks current plan does not even reach 2027, let alone try and get them to think about 2040.

We are talking about the entire URBAN PLAN OF METRO VANCOUVER, the transportation system of Western Canada's biggest fucking city, and the people we have entrusted our fucking future to, are just winging it.

And now they have the balls to come to us to fund for their lack of planning. ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT, go back to the drawing board, come up with a proper fucking plan, present that plan, and then we will discuss how to come up with the money. Before any of that can happen we have to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

If it takes 6 months for a simple airport to generate a master plan, I can't imagine that translink could manage it in less than that period. So come back to us this fall translink. Until then fuck off with your bullshit, and your fare gates.

I don't think the general public would mind investing in transit infrastructure and compensating leadership. But the investment is contingent to the factor that leadership has to perform well; to which many of us don't think they are.

With the limited amount of information the general public has towards Translink BoD's decision making and planning processes it is really hard to fault any of us to use the visual cues and personal experiences to determine their performance. All the public has heard through news for the past few years are: skytrain failures, increased taxes to fund projects, and politicians, who have little to no subject matter expertise to infastructure planning, sounding and driving transit infastructure and city planning (bike lanes, expensive bridges, and light rail come to mind). As such, as a tax payer, I have very little confidence in Translink's think tank because they seem to have NO plan in place, they always seem to have new needs every couple of years and will always ask for more tax money to fulfill those plan.

I would think, at this point, the general public would want to see a new leadership within Translink and with that, a new approach towards transit and infastructure planning for Metro Vancouver.

However, in reality, we all know either direction on the vote would bring the whole city backwards instead of forward as leadership is too entrenched to really make any fundamental changes.

Let's not kid ourselves, taxes is just a political tool. Otherwise, we'd have different tax rates during booms and busts. IMO, you're trying too hard to justify this when the focus should be, will this issue win an election.

^very well said.

Also thanked for interesting info on YVR.

I'm allergic to the bus , only took the skytrain handful of times, so no thanks, raise the prices of tickets and upass. Charge the people who use it. Why would people who drive their own cars with insurance and gas to pay for still gotta fork out more for this transit bs.

Thats a stupid attitude, and people with attitudes like yours is why there is so much reactionary thinking without understanding both sides of the story. Why should I pay taxes for schools since I have no kids then?
If you want to live a life where you don't pay for anything you don't use, you should probably leave Canada.

Those of us with an educated perspective on this side of the argument don't agree with the excessive raising of taxes for a disorganized transit system with a proven history of money mismanagement.
The only thing I hate more than idiots arguing the other side of what I believe is idiots arguing the side I believe.

:lawl::lawl:

Meme405:

With all due respect, the airport is pretty much given free reign to do as it pleases as the federal government largely plays an oversight role. And of course, when you have a chunk of land with no other government to answer to, you're allowed to be bold and innovative.

I'm not excusing the poor leadership that Translink has had over the years, but it has to deal with the mayors of 22 municipalities and the provincial government who won't give Translink the opportunities and freedom to executive long term plans. The mayors, except for 2, support the plan, however flawed it may be. That's gotta mean something given that it's nearly impossible for 20 politicians to agree on anything.

^ on a side note, does anyone think the whole gvrd should be operated under one municipality instead? That question has been raised to the public before and I can see in these situations that having multiple politicians fighting for their own interests make even seemingly simple decisions very hard.

Not sure if you're merely playing devil's advocate or legitimately an idiot. I don't use the bus either, can I just opt out of taxes? I don't have any kids too, can I opt out of education? No of course not, there is no country in the world where you can just opt out of services you don't use. This is a democratic government, not Shaw Cable.

I think what everyone on the "No" side is saying is that we don't want to give more of our money to a company that is being mismanaged, not that we are against public transit. Not everyone can afford a car or even wants to drive, and I think because we have cars - i.e., we are more fortunate - we should help those that can't. But I would like to help the less fortunate with my taxes, not pad some wealthy exec's bank account...

P.S. You are not "allergic" to the bus. If you were, you'd be allergic to your own car too since the materials used in producing a bus are similar to the materials used in your car. If what you really are is "allergic" to being around people, just say it... your post already makes you look like a moron anyway.

I think that'd be a great idea, purely because if other municipalities had their say we would never have some pie-in-the-sky hippie like Robertson at the helm.

The voting card will be mailed to you in March. You just fill it out, and mail it back.

Good! Can't wait to vote no on it.

F'n awesome :fullofwin:

Sounds like everyone is just fed up with being translink's "atm".

Of course everyone understands we need to have better transit and the expansion of it but are not on board to be an ATM for a company with reckless spending habits. I think it boils down to until the public has faith in what translink is doing and actually own up to their responsibilities then we be more willing to fund them.

Whats the point of funding a kid with terrible spending habits? The only thing you'll end up doing is encouraging them. IMO those who vote yes are wanting a translink expansion is great but I don't think voting yes will be the smartest decision because its basically funding translink's terrible spending so to speak.

Am I the only one that, whenever I see a Pro-Translink post, automatically assume the person either works for Translink, or has a family member who works for Translink? :P

I don't trust a thing translink says when they mention "improvements"

That's what they said about the fare hikes years ago. "It's to improve our services"

I have seen fuck all in regards to improvements in my area.

Can we bring back the HST now please?

Btw, did anyone else notice that our provincial income tax brackets went up by 0.7%? Thanks a lot you fuck heads that voted no to the HST.
("For the 2015 tax year, the tax brackets were increased from the previous year by a BC CPI rate of 0.7%.")
Tax Rates - Personal Income Tax

All this bullshit + our income tax wouldn't even be an issue right now if we just had the HST.

Fuck, this is so damn annoying. Fuck all of you who voted no to the HST, your ignorance is so frustrating.

The HST issue was all a matter of principle. People were pissed that Campbell went directly against his word. He told us during his campaign he wouldn't bring in the HST, but ended up doing it 2 years later, and he pissed everyone off.

I agree HST was much better, but emotions about Campbell got in the way of everyone seeing that.

That entire nightmare cost BC like 2 billion dollars. Money which could have been used in countless ways. Money which bringing it back now will not bring back.

dude im sure a lot of people don't even pay for skytrain.

i always buy my ticket because i dont wanna have a criminal record but believe or not, i never got checked.

they should invest in something like this before tax hike.

and BC has bigger problems too...why do we pay so much for cell phones? why do we pay so much for vehicle insurance?

and now tax hike for useless translink? :heckno:

We pay so much for cell phones because our market is small, and the area companies have to provide coverage for is large. By contrast California is less than the size of BC, and has more people in it then all of canada, obviously their cellular service will be better and cheaper...

Our vehicle insurance is expensive because you all fucking suck at driving. Period.

What happened to all the money they have been collecting from the parking meter money grab in Vancouver?

An older article, but this showcases exactly why we now have to spend a million dollars for a referendum which should never have been needed.

$600K price tag for public art puts TransLink in hot seat - British Columbia - CBC News

meme405 was talking about "planning" up in this thread - well Translink had planned to spent 600 million dollars on public artwork that nobody wants/needs.

Fuck Translink.

I don't even remember the exact reason but there's a system in BC where new cell phone companies can not enter. That's why Wind can not provide services like Rogers and Telus.

Cell phone industry is sort of monopolized, kind of like car insurance.