REVscene Automotive Forum - PST hike of 0.5% proposed for Metro Vancouver transit referendum

Page 7 of 22

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - PST hike of 0.5% proposed for Metro Vancouver transit referendum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/701417-pst-hike-0-5%25-proposed-metro-vancouver-transit-referendum.html)

CT10	02-22-2015 10:51 PM

Am I the only one who wouldn't mind if Translink sold the naming rights to their stations/lines instead of asking for a PST hike?

Rogers station at Stadium
Pepsi station at Waterfront
RBC station at Burrard

If raising money is a must, I'd rather them sell out naming rights than asking for a PST hike. To us locals, we'd still call them Stadium, Waterfront, or Burrard, so it's not like it'll affect us that much.

westopher

02-22-2015 11:05 PM

If that actually was something those companies would be interested in, I'm all for it selling out to the corporate world if it saves the public some money.

Soundy

02-23-2015 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meme405 (Post 8599693)

That's a whole bunch of ifs.

Just one, actually... :concentrate:

meme405

02-23-2015 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 8600371)

Just one, actually... :concentrate:

Lets go back:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 8599652)

And of course, the other problem with voting no JUST because of hate for TransLink is, what happens if major change IS made to the organization... and then you have this whole new body to look after things, and THEY don't have any funding for needed work either? Then this whole mess starts all over again.

You're post makes 4 assumptions:

1. That Translink will make major changes independent of this referendum. (We all know that is bullshit, because had we not all made a stink about this, translink wouldn't have changed shit).

2. Someone else is brought in to analyse the situation.

3. That independent body comes to the same conclusions as translink.

4. You also assume that once all these changes are made, and that hopefully some public support is actually rebuilt, that we will all still shun them. I'd like to think that's untrue, that people would realize the real need this city has for new infrastructure, but in this one assumption you are probably correct; there is a large group of people in this world who are against spending any money, and fail to think about others, and about what is best for society.

Everyone always just thinks about themselves, and doesn't see the impression others leave on their daily lives. Yes, you are correct, these idiotic, short-sighted, imbeciles, are the individuals who raise a stink about any tax increase, regardless of how necessary it is proven to be. So regardless of what happens, this is going to end in a mess for everyone involved.

supafamous

02-24-2015 10:51 AM

Pete McMartin: A train wreck that begins and ends in Victoria

Quote:

You’re angry.

You’re going to vote no in the coming transit plebiscite. You feel TransLink and the mayors council should be taught a lesson in fiscal management.

Understandable, if, in my opinion, misguided. Before you vote, consider some history of how we arrived here, where the fault lies in this debate and why, possibly, you might reconsider your viewpoint.

The timeline begins 17 years ago.

1998: After several years of lobbying by municipal governments for more control of transit — the most prominent proponent being Vancouver Mayor Gordon Campbell — the regional and provincial governments agree to the creation of TransLink. What was once a Crown corporation will become a regional authority run by a local, elected board.

A few months after the agreement to transfer governance to a regional authority has been signed, but before the formal creation of TransLink, Premier Glen Clark arbitrarily announces construction will begin immediately on the Millenium Line using SkyTrain technology. The line will go through NDP territory. The decision flies in the face of local government plans for a cheaper light rapid transit line to Coquitlam, with construction to start in 2002, when the money to build it will be in place. At the time, a senior bureaucrat in the regional government predicts Clark’s insistence on a second SkyTrain line will add another $100 million in annual debt servicing. The estimate is a little high: the over-all premise is bang-on. TransLink moves toward a permanent state of debt.

1999: The creation of TransLink becomes official. With the power to raise taxes, the new TransLink board proposes a $75 vehicle levy to partially cover costs of the new line.

2000: The NDP provincial government approves the vehicle levy proposal.

2001: There is strong push-back from motorists to the levy, and with an election coming and the opposition Liberal party promising to kill the proposed tax, the NDP government reverses its decision and refuses to collect it. The Liberals, which sweep to power, are led by Gordon Campbell, former champion of local transit.

Without the levy, TransLink suspends its expansion plans. Fares and the gas tax rise to cover costs. The scramble for revenue sources begins.

2003: Vancouver is awarded the 2010 Winter Olympics. The provincial government proposes the Canada Line as a centrepiece to the Games.

2004: The TransLink board votes to reject the Canada Line, citing, among other reasons, the cost, the increase to its debt load and the provincial government’s promise the Evergreen line would be built first.

2005: After two votes rejecting the Canada Line, the TransLink board gives into intense pressure by Victoria and approves it. But the die is cast. For its stubborness in opposing Victoria’s wishes, TransLink as a locally-run authority is doomed.

2006-07: Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon replaces the board of elected mayors and councillors with an unelected board vetted by the provincial government.

2008: Falcon announces a new $14-billion transit plan for Metro Vancouver. The plan, among other things, calls for a Broadway rapid-transit line, rapid-bus lines, more local buses, a SkyTrain extension in Surrey, construction of perimeter roads to ease trucking congestion, the expansion of the freeway, the twinning of the Port Mann bridge and a new commitment to building the Evergreen Line, though, again, it had to be SkyTrain technology and not the regionally preferred and cheaper light rapid transit. The municipalities complain that they have tapped out property taxes and new sources of revenue have to be found for them to pay for it all.

In the following years, except for portions of the plan the provincial government had already committed to and funded, most of Falcon’s plan is shelved and dies a quiet death.

2010-13: TransLink debt deepens. About $100 million in expenses and services are cut from the budget. Gas tax and parking tax are hiked. New streams of revenue, such as sharing the carbon tax and road-pricing, and a renewed call for a car levy, are proposed. All are rejected by the province.

2014: Transport Minister Todd Stone gives the mayors council four months to develop with a 10-year transit plan, complete with funding sources. The province refuses to campaign for a Yes vote.

Notice a pattern here?

If you’re voting no to punish TransLink and the mayors’ council, I’d suggest your anger is misplaced.

Yep.

Translink is treated in the same way BC Ferries by the province - when there's bad news it's always Translink/BC Ferries fault. When it's good news it's always the province stepping up to make good things happen.

The reality is that it's almost always been the opposite - Translink/BC Ferries gets given lemons by the province and are forced to make lemonade.

6o4__boi

02-24-2015 11:08 AM

Does anyone have a copy of the Congestion Study that was done for the Mayors Council? I'm really curious about the whole study and I wanna read up on it.

It was being flaunted a while ago, stating that current congestion will cost the province big in the coming years.

I noticed that it's no longer available on the mayor's council website. I was able to find a backgrounder cached via google search. I found out that the definition of "current" in that study was information in 2009. If the study is indeed framed completely around 2009 and previous years then it's pretty irrelevant considering 2009 was a terrible year for congestion with the highway and Olympic improvements going on.

melloman

02-24-2015 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafamous (Post 8600955)

2010-13: TransLink debt deepens. About $100 million in expenses and services are cut from the budget. Gas tax and parking tax are hiked.

$100 million is cut? Yet both taxes get hiked.

This is what I mean though.. WHERE THE FUCK IS OUR MONEY GOING?!

IF TRANSLINK REALLY WANTS MORE MONEY.. SHOW US SOMETHING FOR FUCKS SAKE.

For all I know right now, Translink takes shits, and wipes their asses with $100 bills.

supafamous

02-24-2015 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melloman (Post 8600965)

I haven't read through their reports in details but they are all available here: http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/...e-Reports.aspx

At a glance, it's to the same standard of any major corporation but we could make the case that as a public corporation that we want more transparency.

supafamous

02-25-2015 05:16 PM

The early and fatal undermining of TransLink | CCPA Policy Note

Quote:

Pete McMartin wrote an excellent column in the Vancouver Sun documenting the many ways that the provincial government has undermined TransLink.

The upcoming referendum isn’t the first but rather the culmination of a two decade, tragically effective, bipartisan effort to prevent TransLink from doing what it was originally set up to do and what the region desperately wants — providing the public transportation infrastructure and services that will meet the region’s growing needs in an economically efficient, socially responsible and environmentally sustainable way.

When TransLink was first established it replaced a completely dysfunctional arrangement where the region planned what transit services to provide but the province determined what its total budget would be. It set up the classic conflict between one group (the mayors) saying what they wanted and another party (the province) deciding what they could do. The result was lots of ambitious planning of what to do but not nearly enough actually being done.

TransLink was to change all that. GVRD and the provincial government agreed that the region would assume responsibility not only for planning what transit and other regional transportation facilities and services to provide but also how they would be paid for. And in the TransLink agreement they were given a wide range of revenue-raising powers to do just that.

The region was determined to significantly improve public transportation in accordance with the well developed and highly regarded Long Term Transportation and Liveable Region Plans. Regional politicians recognized that new sources of revenues were required and had settled on a vehicle levy in the order of $75 per year as the major new source. All of the provincial and regional financial modelling of what TransLink could and would do were based on a levy like that being implemented.

Regional politicians were ready to take the political heat to fund major improvements in public transportation. The only problem was that provincial politicians wouldn’t let the region do what it was mandated and challenged to do.

The opposition Liberals at that time led the charge against the vehicle levy arguing, despite all evidence and common sense, that new revenues weren’t needed. There were undefined other ways to pay for major new transportation investments and services.

And then the governing NDP, despite the agreement it sought and entered into, followed the politically popular Liberal anti-tax rhetoric and effectively reneged on the most fundamental element of the powers it had bestowed on TransLink. It made it impossible for TransLink to impose and enforce the collection of the planned vehicle levy which all parties to the TransLink negotiations recognized was required to generate the revenues needed to make the improvements everyone wanted.

There are so many things wrong with the upcoming referendum. It forced the regional mayors to come up with the most politically expedient tax and expenditure plan. It invites right wing anti-tax groups to obscure the fundamental question that needs to be addressed. It invites people to fall back on the essentially juvenile fantasy that major investments and service improvements can be made without new sources of revenues.

But mostly what is so wrong about the current referendum is that it never should have been required. The provincial government just had to let the region do what it was set up to do. The undermining of TransLink started early and TransLink never recovered.

supafamous

02-25-2015 08:47 PM

There?s far more good news than bad in TransLink numbers | Transportation | Business in Vancouver

Quote:

There’s far more good news than bad in TransLink numbers

By the time you read this, the provincial cabinet will have determined the wording of the question for the spring transit and transportation funding mail-in referendum. Full disclosure: I’m helping organize the Yes coalition.

What most needs to be sorted out at this point is the one topic opponents are exclusively focused on: why give more money to TransLink when its flaws turn people off? It’s under attack for the CEO’s pay level, recent breakdowns, a failure to implement the Compass Card program as promised, and lack of accountability.

I can agree: the Compass Card rollout should have been smoother and sooner.

Breakdowns? Let’s keep some perspective. In 30 years of operating an aging transit system, there have been a mere handful of breakdowns on the scale of the two SkyTrain shutdowns last summer. Overall in 2013 SkyTrain delivered 95% on-time performance. Congestion-causing delays occur almost every hour every day on major highways and bridges – there’s a radio industry built around reporting them – but no one has ever rallied tapped-out taxpayers to tar and feather the minister of transportation because of them. Look at the CEO’s outrageous salary, shout anti-TransLink critics. It’s $468,000, up 7% in 2013 (they don’t mention it will go down this year). They point out that it’s more than transit CEOs in Seattle, Portland, Toronto or Montreal make, but they rarely mention that it’s less than CEO salaries at the Vancouver Airport Authority, BC Hydro and BC Ferries and just over half of Port Metro Vancouver’s CEO’s $857,000 pay.

The vein-bulging outrage at TransLink’s CEO’s pay overlooks three key points. First, executive salaries weren’t mentioned as an issue in the latest independent audit of TransLink. Second, TransLink is almost alone in North America – and the envy of regions around the world – for the range of its responsibilities, which include financing, planning, operating and maintaining roads, bridges, buses, trains, light rail and cycling infrastructure. That makes comparisons difficult. But most important, TransLink is a political eunuch, with no one person responsible for defending it from the cloud of accusations coming at it from the provincial government, the public, the Mayors’ Council, anti-tax zealots and its customers because of the unaccountable governance structure forced on it by the provincial government.

No amount of money could hang onto the last two CEOs because of this.

TransLink’s biggest fault is its inability to get the message out about its almost unknown performance successes:

•A mode shift – out of cars into transit, walking and cycling – that is unmatched in North America. The number of trips by transit is up 80% since 2000.

•By far the highest per capita transit use among other cities our size in North America – three times more than Portland, the next highest city.

•The third-highest per capita transit use in North America, after only New York and Toronto.

•The lowest-operating-cost light rail network in the world, more than covering operating expenses from fare box revenues.

•The Canada Line built on time and on budget and beating revenue targets – projected to have 100,000 daily riders by 2013 but hitting 120,000 by 2011.

•An overall 7.4 out of 10 customer satisfaction rating in the last quarter.

Focusing on a few faults while ignoring these performance results is like berating someone who consistently wins the biggest races on the continent because they have dirty shorts.

For $0.34 a day per household, we can add to this success, or we can fixate on a few faults and plunge this region into a decade of congestion, pollution, increasing road deaths and injuries, declining public health and vastly higher public spending to accommodate more cars.

You’ll get to decide.

Correction: Dr. Carolyn Gotay, the Canadian Cancer Society chair in cancer primary prevention, was misidentified as Dr. Barbara Gotay in Peter Ladner’s previous column.

Soundy

02-25-2015 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meme405 (Post 8600420)

You're post makes 4 assumptions:

Those are your IFs, not mine. :failed:

SoNaRWaVe

02-25-2015 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafamous (Post 8601719)

There?s far more good news than bad in TransLink numbers | Transportation | Business in Vancouver

i have covered a few of these points already. its just rather sad that only the bad sticks and no one ever remembers or cares about the goods

Traum

02-25-2015 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafamous (Post 8601719)

There?s far more good news than bad in TransLink numbers | Transportation | Business in Vancouver

This is a good attempt by the YES side to regain some lost points. Acknowledge your flaws (because they know they can't hide them), downplay them a bit, point out some solid factual reasons behind TransLink's supposedly failures, but most important of all, emphasize the good stuff TransLink has done.

Honestly, the YES side has some capable people on their team, and they are getting better at delivering their message out.

But it is interesting how this particular article (and numerous others) didn't bother mentioning the most glaring flaws about TransLink -- the messed up governance model, the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency. A lot of people are on the NO side because they are fed up with these specific points about TransLink. The YES side has also offered no solution to cure TransLink of its incompetence (eg. Compass Card woes, anyone?)

So my thoughts and my stance remain the same -- if you don't fix TransLink up first, how am I going to be able to trust that TransLink won't mis-manage the money I cough up? :suspicious:

supafamous

02-26-2015 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traum (Post 8601785)

While the BIV article ducks it, Pete McMartin's article didn't duck the flaws at all - he just out that the flaws are not Translink's fault but the province's (which I happen to strongly agree with). The problems with Translink lie with how the province overrides their decision making, ignores their recommendations and how they set up the management model.

Translink goes "We don't want the Golden Ears Bridge - we can't afford it!" so the province goes "Fuck you, here's a bridge!" (the bridge is a huge money loser)

Translink goes "The Millennium line is unaffordable and in the wrong place" so the province goes "Fuck you, we're putting it in NDP ridings!" (the line remains stupid and underused)

Translink goes "We can't afford the Canada Line and it's not the top priority" so the province goes "Fuck you, we're putting it in and you have to pay for it"

So it is any surprise that Translink needs to ask for more money when the province keeps forcing projects on them against their recommendations?

I blame Glen Clark, Gordon Campbell and and Christy Clark for this - not Translink. They're making lemonade with the lemons they've been given.

In the meantime I'm voting for the guy/gal who tells me their plan is to reform Translink in a way where they can get their work done without interference.

As for waste - the examples cited are nearly rounding errors for their total budget. I've seen the same kind of waste in well run private businesses but they're not as transparent about where the money goes. No doubt I'd like it to be better but I direct my anger at the province and not Translink for the mess that is Translink.

supafamous

02-26-2015 05:37 AM

FWIW, the Golden Ears Bridge loses $40M/yr and was forced upon Translink by the province. It's a 3P project that never had a hope of being profitable (or revenue neutral) and with declining traffic across the GVRD it will never stop losing money. It added nearly a billion dollars of debt to Translink's bottom line.

If you're upset about waste this is a much better example than a bunch of managers who get paid 20-30% more than market (which happens to be not quite true) and the blame lies with the province for wasting this money.

6o4__boi

02-26-2015 06:50 AM

Quote:

TransLink is almost alone in North America – and the envy of regions around the world – for the range of its responsibilities, which include financing, planning, operating and maintaining roads, bridges, buses, trains, light rail and cycling infrastructure.That makes comparisons difficult.

Translation: Translink is fucking fantastic. It's so fantastic it's so hard to compare it to anything so fuck it. Just take my word for it, it's fabulous.

It's funny watching both debates, they have great writers present some eye-catching evidence but when you're looking for sources for the claims, they're nowhere to be found.

tiger_handheld

02-26-2015 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafamous (Post 8601836)

And what did translink do to "cut the losses"? Increase the toll!

Translink needs to re-analyse their cost,volume,profit thinking. If they can't hire the CEO of any Chinese multinational corp - hell the CEO of Ken Kitchen will be sufficient.

At the end of the day, translink needs to be cheap and fast not "good".

daily commuters don't give a fuck how comfy the seats are need a fancy tap pass or have a GPS system that tells the next stop or have tv monitors displaying news while they wait for the train, they want to get in, and get out on time.

I wish translink did a dragons den style pitch for ideas where riders come up ways to improve rather than a bunch of cyclists or individuals who get chauffeured around.

meme405

02-26-2015 08:22 AM

OH god yes, lets blame the government for actually forcing translink to build new infrastructure. Because the other option of just having them sit there stagnant, while just adding all their revenues back to their own salaries was a much better option.

If translink had a proper plan for the next 20 years, and had buy-in amongst the necessary stakeholders, then the government wouldn't be stepping in and forcing them to build shit.

You say the millenium line is underused, the millenium line actually falls pretty well into the government and urban planning principle of community nodes. It may have been a bit premature, but that early addition is the very reason the line was able to be built with relatively little issue (from a constructibility perspective). Do you understand how difficult it is to build a fucking skytrain or underground subway in an already urbanized area? Think Canada Line. Its fucking impossibly difficult and will routinely go over budget and over schedule.

Talking about the Canada Line, thank fucking GOD the government made that shit happen. Jesus christ, without that line having been built Vancouver would have been stuck in the 19th century for eternity, that project absolutely had to happen.

melloman

02-26-2015 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafamous (Post 8601719)

TransLink’s biggest fault is its inability to get the message out about its almost unknown performance successes:

•A mode shift – out of cars into transit, walking and cycling – that is unmatched in North America. The number of trips by transit is up 80% since 2000.
The GVRD's population in 2001 was 1,986,000. In 2011 we were at 2,313,000. Averaging that out for 2014/2015 would say our population is around 2,450,000.. It's not just a shift, it's the transit system not expanding and tons more people on it.

•By far the highest per capita transit use among other cities our size in North America – three times more than Portland, the next highest city.
Portlands estimate of urban population for 2013 was 2,314,000. With their transit system way ahead of ours, I kind of doubt we are 3 times ahead of them.

•The third-highest per capita transit use in North America, after only New York and Toronto.
Funny how APTA (Amercian Public Transit Assoc.) says were #10 in 2013, behind; New York, Montreal, Toronto, Washington, Chicago, Boston, San Fran and Monterrey & Mexico City in Mexico... :fulloffuck:

•The lowest-operating-cost light rail network in the world, more than covering operating expenses from fare box revenues.
Taken straight from Wiki: "In 2008 Skytrains operating costs were $73 million. Transit fares collected are advertised as $360 million. Fuel tax collected $262 million and property tax collected another $298 million. This is the one point I can agree was correct.

•The Canada Line built on time and on budget and beating revenue targets – projected to have 100,000 daily riders by 2013 but hitting 120,000 by 2011.
Terrible example, as with poor planning the Canada Line was AT CAPACITY in 2011, and by 2012 there were talks already of why the stations weren't built larger/longer for future increases in population.

•An overall 7.4 out of 10 customer satisfaction rating in the last quarter.
Ummm.. Really? Did they only ask 10 happy looking people? After taking skytrain for 5 years for school and work.. I'd say the system was a 4 at best. With those stupid shutdowns that are "preventable" they should not have happened.

Focusing on a few faults while ignoring these performance results is like berating someone who consistently wins the biggest races on the continent because they have dirty shorts.

Legit, I've spent about 25 minutes gathering the information from reports online.. And I've found ALOT of information that denies this puff piece. It was a nice attempt from the YES campaign, yet I'm still voting no. When you're taking in $1.42 billion (2012 annual report), and 60% of your spending ($858 million) goes to "transit operations" there's something that is not operating correctly.

PS. According to the 2012 report, they spent $57.2 million on "administration" costs.. meanwhile they spent $114.4 million on Roads & Bridges.. :fulloffuck:

6o4__boi

02-26-2015 09:34 AM

lol sexy secretaries don't come cheap ya know?

That's the annoying thing about the yes campaigners, they exaggerate the few bright spot and purposely try to twist statistics to their advantage.
You've gotta give them credit though, they're playing to their strengths. They know it's an uphill battle so they'll go balls to the walls trying to distort any semblance of fact to sway anyone in the middle.
There's a reason why the Yes campaign has Clark's previous campaign manager on board. They've got experience pulling out upsets before.

If I've learned anything in the past election, its that people are willing voice their opinions, create great arguments. But when it comes down to voting, 1 in 2 probably won't do fuck all.

In a nutshell, all the yes campaign has to do is sway those who are most likely to vote and its pretty much game over.

GLOW	02-26-2015 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by melloman (Post 8601886)

PS. According to the 2012 report, they spent $57.2 million on "administration" costs.. meanwhile they spent $114.4 million on Roads & Bridges.. :fulloffuck:

that's because roads and bridges don't administer themselves, everyone knows that
https://musingsonmath.files.wordpres...ersimpson1.jpg

Tapioca

02-26-2015 01:40 PM

The "No" side has been making false comparisons and skewing executive compensation to make their point. They're just as guilty as the "Yes" side. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Some are fixated on inefficiencies, salaries, costs, etc with little context in mind. People will believe what they want to believe and interpret the facts as they see fit.

meme405

02-26-2015 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tapioca (Post 8602004)

No need to make false comparisons to make our point. Just look at the fare gate issue.

The government had absolutely nothing to do with that decision, and they certainly didn't force translink to do that, and look at how big of a fucking mess translink has turned it into.

The system is a bottomless pit, and will likely never function even remotely as intended.

Earlier in this thread I compared Translinks efforts to those of the YVR airport Authority. I skewed no facts and used very few figures, and established a VERY REAL reason as to why Translink is a MOTHER FUCKING failure. (sorry but it's just the truth)

supafamous

02-26-2015 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meme405 (Post 8602017)

The implementation of the gates is almost entirely Translink's fault but let's not make up history here. Kevin Falcon, the Transportation Minister at the time, was the one who forced Translink's hand on this.

Multiple times Translink studied the issue and decided it wouldn't be worth it and Kevin Falcon was the one who forced it on Translink. He even said the province would pay for it.

SkyTrain fare gates earlier dismissed as too costly
TransLink's Compass card faces another year of delay - Mission City Record
http://www.cope378.ca/sites/all/file..._Oct132010.pdf
Fully working fare gates and Compass cards expected by end of 2015

Quote:

In November of 2007, then-provincial transportation minister Kevin Falcon returned from a trip to Europe convinced that fare gates, or turnstiles as they were then called, and a smart-card system were essential.

“The personal safety of commuters improves dramatically in a closed system,” Falcon told the Province.

TransLink didn’t know how much such a system would cost or where the money would come from, but Falcon insisted.

“It’s going to happen,” he told the Province in March of 2008. “Obviously, we’re going to be ponying up a substantial amount of the money to pay for this because it is a provincial initiative and a requirement.”

Falcon also wanted better enforcement on fare evasion, calling the existing enforcement “a joke.”

Burnaby Mayor says it?s too easy for fare evaders to cheat Translink - BC | Globalnews.ca

Quote:

“They [the mayors] were told by then Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, that they would put in these gates and they were very obedient in doing what they were told,” he says.

You're welcome to invent history or make numbers up but it does nothing good for your credibility.

meme405

02-26-2015 03:10 PM

That's bullshit. Kevin Falcon's recommendation (made in his report to the rest of the ministry of transportation in 2006) was only related to the Expo and Millennium lines, and then still under construction Canada Line. In fact his recommendation was to develop the system first on the Canada Line for which the original proposal by SNC lavalin had actually included the base systems in place for a fare gate type structure. Then they would carry that system to the rest of the skytrain stations.

It was translinks idea to try and implement the entire thing across busses, ferries and skytrain when the government said they will be the ones paying for it.

So sure if you want to say that the government forced that one go for it, but the truth of the matter is the government told translink to do something reasonable, and said they would even pay for it, and translink managed to make a fucking mess of things as usual.

For anyone who is at all still following the issue, busses are the reason the cards work like a piece of shit. There is no way logistically to make this particular method of monitoring reliable based on the current zone structure.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:02 AM.

Page 7 of 22

Last »

Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net