Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Why do people hate TransLink? “It’s a headless beast with no defenders”

March 16th, 2015 · 175 Comments

It appears, from the latest Angus Reid poll, that public opinion in the days from Feb. 25-March5 was running 61 per cent No, 27 per cent Yes. As other polls have shown, the main concern is TransLink and how it will spend the money.

So what is it that’s so wrong with TransLink, you may ask? It doesn’t run gold-plated, empty buses through town. It provides a degree of service that is rare for a city this size. And, although it had a couple of spectacular breakdowns over the past year, it doesn’t have the horrific problems some other cities do.

So what’s wrong? My Globe story is here, but for those who just want the summary:

1. It’s a customer-heavy operation, meaning more people scrutinize it, have opinions, and think they know how to run it than, say, Port Metro Vancouver (whose CEO makes $857,000, I found out when researching this) or even the Vancouver Airport Authority (couldn’t find Craig Richmond’s salary, but the board chair alone made $135,000 in 2013, $35,000 more than the TransLink chair).

2. It’s doing more than it was ever intended to do. It was never intended to be the funding mechanism for major infrastructure projects. As Ken Cameron, former planning manager for the Greater Vancouver regional district told me, it was meant to be the agency that ran operations only and other levels of government were supposed to figure out how to finance the big projects.

3. Unlike many other government operations, it has to go to the public every time it wants to get more than an incremental amount of additional revenue. Since it is doing 2. more than it was ever intended to do, it constantly has to ask publicly for money, which brings its operations to the attention of the public and the Fraser Institute than, say, the transportation or health ministries. (Their fights for funding all happen quietly at treasury board.)

4. There’s no single person that the public can look to when things go wrong. Former CEO Ian Jarvis, whatever is pay, is clearly not completely in charge. Neither are the mayors, who have sometimes been the first to go after TransLink when there’s a problem. Neither is the board, whose members act more like they’re at Port Metro or YVR (aka invisible). It feels to people on the inside like the province is in charge but, of course, the province is the first to take potshots at TransLink.

5. It does have people at the top who don’t seem to understand what is not going to fly with the public, who don’t actually seem to want to communicate with the public, and who have made some key terrible decisions. As a result, it seems to have a never-ending supply of current (bus drivers, especially) and former disaffected employees willing to talk about its problems.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • boohoo

    Honestly, I don’t even know what you’re about.

    In the spirit of Frances post above, here you go. One of dozens of sites and news stories that took all of 0.5 seconds to find.

    http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/06/mayors-council-vision.html

    I don’t care that you’re voting no or that you believe this or that. But at least have the conviction to believe in something and stand behind it. I wholeheartedly disagree with some people here, but I respect that at least they believe in something. Especially from the mask of anonymity. I get why you might want to remain anonymous, as i do. But I’d never then call someone out for their job or volunteer work or whatever.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    The Massey Tunnel now squeezes 3 busy southbound lanes on the 99, plus 3 now (only in the past 10 years) busy lanes eastbound on Steveston & No 5 Rd (North and south), into three lanes in the tunnel in the afternoon rush and only ONE lane in the 6am – 9am rush. In the afternoons the northbound traffic from 99 and 17 (including Robert’s Bank (container port expansion coming soon) and the ferry terminal and River Rd (Tilbury) to the north, plus Ladner, has about 7 lanes squeezing in to ONE.

    It’s not about ships. The daily congestion and resulting pollution from engines operating at their least efficient rate is just plain silly. Northbound on the 99 in the afternoon is usually a 20-30 minute delay of stop-start. Eastbound in the afternoon on Steveston is usually backed up to Shell Road and means another 20-30 minute stop-start delay. Southbound to the ferries in the morning can easily be a 20 minute crawl into the tube. The only alternative for Vancouver traffic heading to the Tsawwassen terminal, or trucks heading to Robert’s Bank Terminal, is to take highway 1 to 176 in Surrey, then the South Fraser Perimer Road. About a 40 km detour, more from the west side of town. Some think this current situation is good because it limits the traffic heading to the airport and on into Vancouver via, Knight, Granville, Oak and Cambie.

    The new Massey Bridge will be very good for the planet.

  • jenables

    Mb, I am not talking about the congestion improvement tax, I’m talking about the effect of smart growth on land value, taxes and rent, and how this will quicken the pace of demolition of housing that is both occupied by and currently affordable to low income people.

    How can you ignore that in good conscience? People will be evicted out of some of the only places they can afford to live. The biggest threat to the ALR is that as long as this formula works for people with influential money, it will continue. Or did you think they’d respect rich, fertile farmland that’s close to Vancouver? I don’t. I mean you accidentally said it yourself above.

    “One half of one percent is a higher cost of living as opposed to a healthier citizenry, less car ownership, more pollution, the potential conversion of our scarce agricultural land to subdivisions,the privatization of transit, and greater dependency on fossil fuels?”

  • Jeff Leigh

    This thread topic is Translink and why people hate them. Please stay on topic. Make a list of the things you have posted here that you are angry about, cross out all those that aren’t Translink, and there you go.

  • Jeff Leigh

    “The new Massey Bridge will be very good for the planet.”

    Or not. Welcome to generated traffic.

    http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

  • MB

    Of course not. That’s a gross misinterpretation. There are general elections here, are there not?

    My problem is with the highly selective interference of the premier in one and only one of a buffet of equally important local issues. Just because it was an election promise doesn’t make it right, especially considering the massive expenditures on other local transportation issues lately with no referendum or plebiscite.

    Referenda imposed on one group or issue over the collective should not be permitted. Save them for big issues that concern the entire province, such as STV and HST, or if downloadng onto cities continues, then on the succession of Metro Vancouver from the province. Plebiscites are usually for one time borrowing for specific projects, not for voting on general taxes. Christy is monkeying with established process and practice in Canada.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Minister Stone was quite clear that the mayors could proceed if they were to chose property taxes to fund their plan. He was also clear that the present carbon tax applies to the whole province, so if that were the choice it would have to be for the region alone and by referendum, as would be an increase in the sales tax. This is understandable since we recently experienced a sales tax referendum that was successful in reversing policy. One would only imagine that government has, for a while anyway, become acutely aware that any increase to the sales tax is fraught with contention and requires general consent.

    Concurrently, this government has increased the powers of Metro mayors, while, obviously, requiring their plans for taxpayer funds conform to law.

    We would be surprised if even the opposition in legislature were to propose a reversal of these new powers now enjoyed by the mayors.

  • MB

    Mayors have a choice? The province has already told the mayors they have no choice when it took away their power and appointed a board and CEO at TransLink. They are diminished to an advisory level. If the vote is No , then how on Earth will Victoria be inspired to change the rules and give the Metro (and TransLink) the right to elect its own regional government? I suggest Christy et al find that idea threatening and will either tighten their grip further or ignore the big city. The No side is wrong to suggest otherwise in my estimation

    So, don’t shove piecemeal plebistes on singular topics down our throats on local topics. Let us have proper democratic representation at the regional level. How dictatorial is that?

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Thank you. I see now that the mayors wanted a chunk if the carbon tax. The Minister explains that this tax at present applies to the whole province but he does say that an increase for the region could be entertained through a vote. The mayors went for the sales tax instead, with road pricing down the line.

    After the HST it’s easy to see that a vote is better than just crashing ahead.

    It’s going to be interesting to see if they can all sell it.

    I see NDPer David Schrek was Tweeting about being hustled by a Yes campaigner at a train station, who is being paid, he says, by us taxpayers.

  • MB

    The mayors have more power? LOL! I invite you call Derek Corrigan and get his response to that comment.

    My beef with the carbon tax is that it missed the second step: the revenue goes to the provincial coffers and is used in self-defeatng ways such as for high-carbon projects like freeways. Ideally it should be going into a transparent, audited account and used for transit and other projects that reduce CO 2 emissions. Revenue neutrality was very much the holy grail to the last premier, but the CT would have theoretically reduced carbon anyway by makng it more expensive. We now have a funding shorfall in transit and are losing out on all its positive benefits here where it really counts: in Canada’s third lagest city.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    TransLink
    >
    About Us
    >
    Governance
    >
    Governance Model

    The TransLink Board of Directors is composed of nine individuals
    appointed by the Mayors’ Council, the Mayors’ Council Chair and
    Vice-Chair (at their option), and up to two members appointed by the
    Province.

    The TransLink Board of Directors:

    appoints TransLink Chair and Vice Chair
    appoints TransLink CEO
    supervises the management of the affairs of TransLink

  • Jeff Leigh

    You didn’t mention the appointed Screening Panel which gives the Mayor’s Council a short list they can choose from. I believe that the Mayor’s Council has one seat on the 5 person screening panel.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    From your link:

    Consideration of generated traffic gives more value to transportation systems
    management and transportation demand management strategies that result in more
    efficient use of existing roadway capacity. These strategies cannot individually solve all
    transportation problems, but a package of them can, often with less costs and greater
    overall benefit than highway capacity expansion. Below are examples (VTPI 2001):

    Congestion pricing can provide travelers with an incentive to reduce their peak period trips
    and use travel alternatives, such as ridesharing and non-motorized transport.

    Non-motorized. OK, let’s take away the one lane left in the tunnel and make it a bike lane. No lanes. That should reduce traffic.


    Commute trip reduction programs can provide a framework for encouraging commuters to drive less and rely more on travel alternatives.

    Same again. Drive less, take the bike through the tunnel, even if you’re going to the ferry terminal with the family. Trucks take a 40km detour through Surrey or New Westminster.


    Land use management can increase access by bringing closer common destinations.

    OK, let’s move the ferry terminal back to downtown Vancouver, we’ll move the Robert’s Bank Coal Terminal back to Coal Harbour and the Container Terminal too. We’ll open up all the land in Richmond for residential development, so people don’t have to go out to Delta, Surrey and Langley to find a home.


    Pedestrian and cycle improvements can increase mobility and access, and support other modes such as public transit (since transit users also depend on walking and cycling).

    Sure. People should start walking from Delta and Surrey through the tunnel. We’ll stop the traffic from the US too. Park here in Delta and walk to Vancouver.


    Public transit service that offers door-to-door travel times and user costs that are competitive
    with driving can attract travelers from a parallel highway, limiting the magnitude of traffic congestion on that corridor.

    I’ll leave this one for the bus experts, those that understand how many buses will be required to cover Ladner, Delta (north and south), South Surrey and White Rock and Langley.

  • Salvaich

    I had always understood that the behavioral psychologists had determined that people act against their own best interests when they feel they have been unfairly treated by one side of the argument.

    If the YES had not assumed rational behaviour by the voters but observed the collective feelings about TRANSLINK, then they might have stood a chance. So far in the debate, the views about TRANSLINK have overwhelmed any rational thought.

    We will have to wait and see.
    -30-

  • boohoo

    Totally off topic, but why do you put that -30- after your posts? I’ve noticed others do it as well. ..

  • MB

    The mayors WERE the board until the province changed the structure.

  • Salvaich

    Tradition; in the old days of teletype, users used to add the -30- to show show it was the end of the post. As they say, old habits die hard. I have had some lapses where paragraphs get dropped.

    Ms. Bula might remember this habit.
    -30-

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Which government did that?

  • MB

    Kevin Falcon.

  • boohoo

    Hmm. Ok. I don’t even know what teletype is. 🙂

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Telex has been around for nearly a hundred years and is still very much in use today.

    http://www.networktelex.com

    -30-

  • Mark Notfler

    Just vote no already. Save the money on the beer. Yes side argument: there won’t be an public transit to get you home because of your no vote!

    Suck it you flock of sheep. You already take an exorbitant amount of my money. I’m not giving you any more.

  • Mark Notfler

    To be fair, a little death never hurt anyone.

    errrr…wait, what?

  • MB

    @ Jen: “I am not talking about the congestion improvement tax, I’m talking about the effect of smart growth on land value, taxes and rent, and how this
    will quicken the pace of demolition of housing that is both occupied by and currently affordable to low income people…..How can you ignore that in good
    conscience?”

    This post is all about the transit tax. No one ignores the demolition of affordable housing when a post is about
    that topic. Smart Growth principles do not lead to mass demolitions because affordable and character housing is planned for or preserved without the waste of land currently zoned for. You are once again attributing the effects of population pressure, a lack of greenfield land, a long absence of public housing policies and new private rental housing, bylaw protection of large lots, and speculation incongruously to Smart Growth.

    According to Stats Canada, 320,000 people moved to Metro Vancouver in the decade 2001-2011. For the sake of illustration let’s say there are an average of 3.2 individuals per family, which gives us ~100,000 families
    (maybe more, maybe less) who require housing.
    If each one of them obtained a detached home on a standard 374 m2 Vancouver lot (which is a small standard compared to the burbs, by the way), then we would need 37.4 square km of additional land for 100,000 homes. The city itself rests on 134 km2, so you get an idea of how much land that is. It’s the equivalent of over nine Stanley Parks just for the private lots, and well over 13 when you add the roads, schools, parks, firehalls, etc. that service neighbourhoods.

    Excluding the undevelopable watersheds, protected farm land and large parks from the Metro, what’s left is the developed ~820 km2 Urban Containment Boundary (so called by the Metro planners) in which 21 cities and 2.4 million people currently reside, and within which 1 million more will reside by mid-century. The above housing in the form of 100,000 standard lots would today comprise 4.5% of the entire UCB. We will need over 300,000 new homes by 2045, which will occupy over 100 km2 in the form of new standard lots outside of the current UCB, or occupy zero additional land if we build smart within it.

    Can you see how serious this challenge is? How did 320,000 people get housed over the last decade? Obviously it wasn’t all in detached houses. Therein, density was increased to house most newcomers in various types of housing on the existing
    land base without gobbling up the food-producing land we’ll need in future, by carving up Stanley Park and the Capilano watershed, or by erecting a Great Wall. Not creating this housing would have resulted in a much greater shortage, translating into far, far higher prices, especially when you’ve got wealthy speculators jacking them up at the rich western periphery already.

    Affordability is a serious issue, and in my view it’s counter productive to address it by becoming anti-transit. I believe now that all levels of government must provide more public housing and perhaps offset the land costs of developing private rental housing. Locating new housing near transit is very smart indeed because cars need a lot of expensive space. Detached houses on standard and large lots are toast … even if we allow developers to build plastic subdivisions to the border and fill in English Bay, there is still a limit that will always be reached one day. Living with less is now a necessity, but “less” doesn’t mean lower quality.

  • jenables

    A few points;

    Is ” waste of land” only a problem when low income people in less than four story buildings are on it?

    The problem with the planned for affordable housing is that these days it is neither affordable nor housing, unless you are a single person who has no hobbies and only need a space to sleep and look at your phone. Then 250 sq feet might work as long as you don’t date.

    I am perfectly aware what this post is about, and discussing the effects of the projects detailed is not what I’d call derailment. I do think you’ve engaged in a bit of gaslighting in your response though, seeing as I’m not anti-transit and and wasn’t referring to detached homes when I spoke about the destruction of low income housing. Telling me more people are coming and they need to live right where it is already densely occupied isn’t quite cutting it for me either, with an empty west side and coal harbour. I feel like I’ve got Tsur on line one here.

    Terms like public housing have zero meaning, especially these days. Specifics, please. Why on earth would government offset land costs so developers can do exactly what they make good money doing? Schools can’t buy supplies, but govt should subsidize developers so they can become more wealthy while the city is chopped in cubic squares? Shades of the U.S. bank bailout, and we engage in enough corporate welfare in BC as is. Dare I say perhaps THEY need to learn to live with less. It must really piss them off that money doesn’t buy humanity.

    Considering Vancouver’s economy and prohibitive cost of doing business, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over where people who move here will live. You’re forgetting that young people and families are leaving to places where they can still respect themselves after they pay the rent/mortgage. The only housing shortage Vancouver has is of the affordable variety, and changing the meaning of affordable does not alleviate it.

←  Older Comments
 →