I disagree that Translink is not making decisions ahead of problems arising, or considering long term solutions. Since Translinks inception in 2000, the Millenium line, RAV line, Evergreen line, Golden Ears, and Roberts Bank Corridor projects have all been completed or started, and those are multi-billion dollar upgrades. The UBC line is set to enter final planning stages shortly, and the Pattullo replacement is beginning planning stages now. Bus service has increased substantially, and the introduction of community shuttles in 2004 re-defined GVRD transit. That's a lot of progress in only 12 years.

In my eyes, the issue is that people will criticize any action taken by Translink without first considering the facts. In the case of fare increases, people read news articles designed to provoke a reaction at face value, and never consider the 9.5% inflation or 20% fuel price increase since the last fare adjustment. Unfounded criticisms achieve nothing.

I meant that if you had a family, and they also need to take transit, then it makes more sense to own a car.

You know, to do family things with your family. :suspicious:

How would Translink change this then? There are people who are blindly complaining without knowing what they are complaining about, yes, but just like there are good things that Translink is doing - and btw I agree, the progress they made this far is commendable if not anything - but there are also very real issues that are clearly being mishandled.

You see, Translink (and many other crown corporations, ICBC, BCF, etc) are seen as arrogant, and rarely caring for "the people". They are supposed to be government subsidized/owned companies that are supposed to work for "the people", while as you've said, minimizing loss of money. They're not supposed to turn a profit. Most educated people understand this. We all know privatization is not the answer.

The problem mainly is that people have developed such a distrust for whomever's in charge right now, that EVERYTHING they do looks bad. It may not "unfounded criticism", but it's not entirely undeserved. As an example the HST. It was beneficial, but it was repealed. Why? Because the Liberals did a dismal job explaining to the people WHY it was beneficial.

Criticizing Translink for increasing fares for legitimate and valid reasons may be unfounded, but if the people can't see and understand why these hikes are necessary, then it will just add to the mountain of things people thing Translink is doing wrong. And this doesn't stem entirely from misinformation and ignorance.

I'm rambling a bit because it's been a long day :okay:

Just heard on the news that the fares are being increased. Crazy!

good and they should increse the fairs rather then gas prices like they have been doing for ages.

Don't forget too, if TransLink was privatized, they'd probably lose a lot of their current funding sources from various taxes and levies... and even if they existed as a non-profit, you'd probably see fares go to $10 for a single zone, just to cover costs.

Odd question, but why hasn't Translink gone into property?

By that I mean building residential highrises, solely for rental purposes, and then using that rental income to use for improving our transit structure. Ofcourse there's downsides to this idea, yet I think overall a profit off the highrises could be taken and used to fund some of their projects.

Instead of hurting everyone's pockets every which way. :D

I really doubt there's THAT much profit to be made in being a landlord, relative to the kind of money they need on an annual basis.

The MTR model. For it to be profitable, Translink would need breaks on property taxes and other incentives. Besides, the NIMBYism in Metro Vancouver would turn Translink into a more despised organization than it already is. People like density, but only if it's not in their backyard.

This has been a very interesting thread. What I've concluded is that it's not so much governments not caring (contrary to what the enlightened minds of RS may think, public servants are quite bright and strategic - almost to a fault which results in a tendency towards risk aversion)- it's that people are being selective in what they read and want to hear. Quite frankly, people have gotten lazy (in spite of the fact that information is more accessible today than in any point in human history.)

But hey, let's just keep on believing that Translink's pigs at the trough are the sole cause of all the problems of transit in this city. Fire them all and replace them with fresh students from UBC's urban planning school and pay them $50K/year. Keep them on year-to-year contracts and then replace them with more students when they get too expensive. Better yet, let's privatize the damn thing once and for all so that I can drive my leased 3-series in peace! It's not my fault that others are too poor to afford my lifestyle!
Posted via RS Mobile

Hahahahah, ya, travelled around North America maybe.

Look, North America was built on the car, but Vancouver has shit roads, ok, if we're not going to built some huge infrastructure, lets go European, high density, great mobility sans car - nope, we get translink bs

We have a so-so transit system and crap roads... World class city my arse

Bc ferries is a government entity - not sure I get this.

If it were privatized, at least we wouldn't be mandated fuel surcharges, and if the service sucked, there'd be room for a competitor to come in and steal business - cant have either of those right now

^LOL, Tony check your facts before you speak (BC Ferries is a corporate entity, but they are a private company with the Crown as the sole shareholder).

I disagree with your assessment of their remuneration. Nothing is ridiculous about their compensation as they would easily get that in the private sector. How else would you attract talent? by paying them peanuts and demanding them to take on the same kinds of responsibilities when another private entity is willing to pay them more? If there were more capable people around, maybe these companies wouldn't have to pay such "high salaries". Let's not forget there's no such thing as a cushy 40 hour work week either.

Mindbomber made an interesting point about this in the BC Ferries thread.
http://www.revscene.net/forums/67465...s-again-5.html

So...wait. You're saying that it's translink's fault Vancouver isn't built up European style, or isn't spread out american style? :fulloffuck:

I don't know about you, but I seem to remember having to pay a fuel cost surcharge when I flew a few years ago. Crude prices were high and unstable, and companies didn't want to increase ticket prices so they added a fuel surcharge. Airlines are private entities...and they had a fuel surcharge. Not sure what your point is there.

And as I've said before in this post, when there is a profit to be made, private companies are more than happy to swoop in and steal business from government. But when the industry is a necessity for the people which would not be affordable to the ordinary individual, it's very unlikely to turn a profit. Yet its necessity mandates that it exist. It is because of these two factors that a lot of crown corporations "lose money" and "require government subsidies".


If private corporations could build roads and profit from it, don't you think they would? If private companies could make money from public transit, don't you think they'd be lobbying the government and advertising to us that "they deserve a chance to prove what they can do"? I mean, god knows they do it enough for forestry and mining and oil and the like.

What's stopping them?




Oh, right. These things lose money.

Yes, great idea.

Let's do the math (setting aside for the moment that North America has really only seen substantial population growth for the last 300 or so years, vs. a few thousand years for Europe):

Land area of Europe: 10,180,000 km²
Population of Europe: 739,165,030 (2011)
Population density of Europe: 72.6 people per square kilometer.

Land area of Canada: 9,985,000 km²
Population of Canada: 34,482,779 (2011)
Population density of Canada: 0.3 people per square kilometer.

You want European density, you need to be ready to invite in half the population of China... or get REALLY fuckin' busy makin' babies.

Gas surcharge, as in for drivers, not some transit surcharge, not sure how you missed that one

Thanks Wikipedia

I agree, so why are we bothering with all this crap transit bs, why not build highways, 4 lanes each way, from west van through north van to Burnaby, no. 1, but also, 4 lanes each way interrupted from Burnaby to downtown, downtown to the ferries - none of this 2 lane tunnel, 2 lane bridges, all the bottlenecks - we can spread so much further if we built the infrastructure

This lack of planning will fuck over greater vancouver a growth - little city with a little city mentality, little minded peopl

Most of ur points aren't valid, much of britains transit is privately owned

Roads are a right (of sorts), they must be provided by the government (if they weren't the government would be voted out), and yes, if u wanted to allow privatization, they would be built, tariffed, and thus profitable for said builder - look at pipelines, roads are pipelines

Private, but owned 100% by crown corp... So, is a crown corp, fact checked- the crown won't sell it if it underperforms, they wouldn't, and couldn't for anything above their cost, as its run like a dog, funded by the crown, thus government entity

Britain has the same population as Canada, yet a much much much smaller footprint. Again, it comes back to population density.

Roads are not a right by any means. Roads are an essential part of infrastructure, certainly. But the fact that you need a license to access them, the fact that you can have said license taken away, and the fact that you are taxed in order to use them....that means they are not roads.

And yes, some roads are toll roads, but as I've said before: where there are profits, there are companies fighting over them. And in Canada, there are no profits to be had over roads. Which is why we have no toll roads (and those we do are done by the government in order to pay for things without raising taxes).

I've traveled to the UK, France, and Netherlands.

The North American urban planning model is an abysmal failure.

No one in Europe will look at an American city built around 14 lane highways in envy.

Progress requires densification and transit infrastructure, which is exactly what is being attempted.

^ we can always do garden city movement :troll:

Okay, the Europe/NA comparisons really need to stop. There's no point in looking at one and saying the other should or shouldn't be like it, because the two are vastly different worlds ("Old" and "New" worlds, if you will).

Transit and bicycles and walking everywhere you go WORKS in Europe because everything and everyone are packed in so tight. It's also NECESSARY in Europe, because everything and everyone are packed in so tight and there's NO ROOM for 14-lane highways. Their entire transportation infrastructure has been built up this way since long before cars, long before trains.

Meantime, transit and bicycles and walking everywhere you go DOESN'T WORK in much of NA (ie. outside of major metro centers), because of the low number of people and the vast spaces covered. Meanwhile, large highways DO work, because there's lots of room to build them. People have to go long distances, without the ability to drag large groups along with them to share the costs.

The vast majority of North America, public transit simply isn't an efficient way to move small numbers of people around large areas... and trying to force the model is how you come up with money-losing, tax-subsidized transit systems.

Britain's transit system privately owned? Okay... but London alone has TWICE THE POPULATION OF ALL OF BC, crammed into 1500km² - that's half the size of the entire GVRD. This is not complex math: your transit system serves and extremely small area and a massive number of people, it's pretty easy not just to make transit an attractive alternative, but to cover that entire area, AND turn a nice profit at it.

Here's a great example of how different the two worlds are: when I was in 11th grade in 100 Mile House, we had a 12th grade exchange student from Belgium. At the end of the year, he wrote a piece for the yearbook about his time there. He said the biggest culture shock for him was the difference in how we perceived distances: from his home, the capital city was an hour's drive, and going there was a MAJOR outing that they'd do maybe twice a year; meantime, in 100 Mile, people thought nothing of driving an hour to Williams Lake to do their grocery shopping if the local Overwaitea was out of something. In the Cariboo, people would regularly make the 2.5 hour drive to Kamloops... back home, you could drive for two hours in any direction and be in another country.

You just can't compare the two this way. It doesn't work. It never will. Forget apples and oranges; this is comparing pumpkins to grapes (on a size scale).

I agree, especially when it comes to Vancouver. While it certainly makes it unique in it's own way, the fact that Vancouver's council back in the day defeated the proposed Highway 99 extension through the city was, simply put, short sighted. Vancouver is one of the few major cities in North America that doesn't have a highway running through it.

The problem with updating many of today's roads is that there's so much growth that it would cost a large fortune to buy all the land required to widen most of the roads, though I can't really think of any major arterial roads that are only two lanes.

However...

Allowing competition is great and everything, but there has to be a sustainable market for it. Take a look at BC Ferries. If you look at it today, you'd think that it's a perfect opportunity for competition to swoop in and take advantage of their misery. However, there's not enough people looking to take a boat ride across the water. And even if there were enough, private companies have no way of being able to compete with BC Ferries. They get a huge subsidy from the government in order to keep their fares low (though I realize that it's a relative term, nowadays). There have been several companies vying for part of BC Ferries customer base, either drop-trailer or walk-on passenger, and most of either gone belly up or are barely hanging on when it comes to competing routes because they can't match the prices.

Now look at Translink. They take in over $300 million in subsidies from the government. While that money gets divvied over various branches, over a third of it goes towards their bus and trolley division. Without that sort of subsidy to offset a competitor's price, how much do you think a ticket would now cost? Sure, downtown core might be able to get away with it's own private bus company instead of Translink, but services will be largely cut, as will hours of operations. No where else in BC exists a dense enough population in a small enough area for a private company to even consider a route.

Keep in mind that Translink maintains over 2200km's of roads, four major bridges (potentially five in the near future), hundreds of buses and trolleys including Handydart, the Seabus, the West Coast Express and probably a couple hundred Skytrain cars. Now factor in the maintenance costs associated with looking after this large of a fleet, along with everyone's salaries. I'm sure there's a lot of wasted money somewhere within Translink, but the fact that they're able to keep even the current prices roughly around where they are is still pretty amazing.

And for the record, I've travelled through most of Europe and even there their transit system isn't exactly as great as most people claim it to be. Sure, it's great when it comes to major cities, but just like Vancouver and the GVRD, as soon as you get outside the major city hub, the quality of service drops.

I get that they have to up fares as costs keep rising across the board. But if I have to pay more to use transit, make the fucking system accessible.

Copypasta from a friend:

I'll give that Translink covers a larger service area than anywhere else in Canada... but c'mon.

The next most expensive cities for Transit are Montreal and Toronto, with single fares being $3 dollars... but no zoning systems! A 3 zone single fare will be $5.50 Starting Jan 1st 2013!!!

Monthly fares in those same cities are $75 in Montreal, Toronto, 126 dollars a month (with a 12 year program that one can sign up for to reduce cost to $115).
Our new 3-Zone cost? Hold your breath... $170 a month.

Another one of my friends pointed out to me another decent point:
Something that strikes me as a huge flaw in translink's fare and zoning system, is that you need a three zone to go from Horseshoe Bay to Langley, the funny thing is, that Five Dollar transfer expires before you're even off the skytrain. In the end it's $7.50 and a two and a half hour trip.

Funnily enough...both those cities have higher populations than Metro Van.


Sigh. Sometimes I feel like Sisyphus.

So, your model city is Toronto? Which has highways going into the city from the north, east, and west and yet has some of the worst congestion in North America?