143 responses so far ↓

• 1 spartikus // Jan 19, 2015 at 7:42 pm

  Mr. Bateman and his mouthpiece Lysenko are engaging in the well-honed tactic perfected by conservatives (particularly south of 49) wherein one set of extremely rich people convince lower income people to vote against their interest by railing against the privilege of another set of rich, or slightly less rich, people.

  The politics of resentment.

  Whether the executives of Translink are making the market rate, or as some have observed [Link], maybe less than market rate, is besides the point. Those bastards are making a shitload of money, dammit. Get the torches, get the pitchforks. Forget for the moment that the suggested solution is not for Translink executives to go without but for you to have less transit service. Just show them you’re not going to take it anymore even if mean’s shooting yourself in the foot.

  By the by, I wonder how much Jordan Bateman makes in his capacity as Director of the B.C. wing of the CTF? I suppose we could read their annual report or financial statements….if only they released one.

• 2 spartikus // Jan 19, 2015 at 8:00 pm

  As has been pointed out to you before, Singapore’s government invests heavily in public transit and engages in all sorts of taxation and licensing to encourage it’s use and discourage the use of private automobiles.

  That some of it is put out to tender is besides the point. The government is ponying up.

  Singapore does have one of the most efficient public transport networks. Interesting however, not the most efficient. That honour goes to Copenhagen and Madrid.

  http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/feature/2014/infrastructure-cities/2014-06-mobility-opportunity/Study-mobility-opportunity-preview.pdf

  I also found the comment on this story amusing.

  http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/transport/story/study-singapores-public-transport-system-one-worlds-most-efficient-20

  Of note:

  And also most crowded and expensive, add it to the crown please.

  Hi ST your headline and the story is “misleading”, it’s about COST EFFICIENT, Not Efficient.

  It’s efficient in breaking down and slowing down too…

  All of which proves nothing, other than grumbling on internet comment boards is a universal comment.

• 3 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 19, 2015 at 8:06 pm

  I have yet to speak to Bateman. Never met him. Neither am I rich. Nevertheless, I do suspect that the ‘No’ side is in a strong position, due to public sentiment over tax increases, TransLink’s record, the HST failure, fare evaders, Robertson’s call in October that his priority is a subway down Broadway, the double-whammy that the tax will build a new Patullo Bridge – that will also be a toll bridge, the statement that road-pricing is the second step, the complexities for businesses in collecting and filing a new tax, etc.

  Yelping that we have to do this tax increase now, or else, is not the way to win over the public. Remember the Charlottown Accord?

  What are the bookies predicting?

• 4 Chris Keam // Jan 19, 2015 at 8:11 pm

  Yes, well I suppose if I am interested in Andrew Coyne’s suggestions i will check that out. However, you suggested we look to Singapore for an example of what works. I am interested in your perspective. You are no doubt aware that Singapore is a very different place from Vancouver. Which aspects of the Singapore system are you suggesting we adopt? Can you give any indication that you have considered this proposal at an even cursory level and that your suggestion has merit? For instance, here’s a yes/no question. Are you suggesting we adopt the Singaporean ‘Certificate of Entitlement’ for vehicle ownership, which helps funnel travellers to the private transit services by making the cost of a car prohibitive for most people?

  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-04/singapore-family-sedan-matches-cost-of-a-u-s-home.html

• 5 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 19, 2015 at 8:30 pm

  Sure. Listen to what Coyne has to say. He came out to SFU just for the urban series. I’ll look at the Bloomberg piece.

  This clip shows how everything can work well if everyone is paying attention.

  http://www.youtube.com/embed/UEIn8GJIg0E?rel=0

• 6 Chris Keam // Jan 19, 2015 at 8:43 pm

  Yes, that’s nice. Wondering (as I’ve mentioned) if you would elaborate on your Singapore suggestion? Again, what are the specifics of their model you are suggesting we implement? A wholesale switch seems far-fetched at this time and it’s worth noting that Singapore has a Translink-esque Land Transport Authority responsible for roads, transit, and walking/cycling. I’m unclear on how this differs from the current situation, other than the inevitable worsening service we could conceivably expect as private companies sought profit in a much less dense environment population-wise. The reduction of service many communities are seeing from Greyhound is instructive w/r/t private suppliers offering public transportation in unprofitable markets.

• 7 MB // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:28 am

  “Lysenko” presumes to speak for the province, therein presumes to know the thoughts and intents that rattle round in their heads.

• 8 MB // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:38 am

  Sparks: I wonder how much Jordan Bateman makes in his capacity as Director of the B.C. wing of the CTF? I suppose we could read their annual report or financial statements….if only they released one.

  An excellent point. I wonder what their sources of funding are, and if they get — humongous slice of iriony here — a tax break for being a charity or something?

• 9 MB // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:41 am

  I do suspect that the ‘No’ side is in a strong position, due to public sentiment over tax increases, ……

• 10 A Taxpayer // Jan 20, 2015 at 9:16 am

  Of course the difference is I can choose to support the CTF and contribute to Jordan Bateman’s salary or not. I don’t have the same choice with Translink. Consequently, I don’t care how much he makes, it is whether or not I want to buy what CTF is selling.

• 11 MB // Jan 20, 2015 at 9:16 am

  Again, Ly, you are part of the campaign to turn this into a vote on TransLink, not on a rather modest funding proposal. You have presented no analysis to back your assertion that TransLink is the Devil Incarnate. The evidence (i.e. an actual audit) points in the other direction, that it is rather well run with some room for improvement.

• 12 MB // Jan 20, 2015 at 9:24 am

  You assume that rumour and opinion passes for evidence.

• 13 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 9:59 am

  I’m not part of any campaign.I am an observer that doesn’t think the tide is flowing in the ‘Yes’ sides’ direction.

  CBC ran the same salary figures as I did. Does this make them campaigners for the ‘No’ side?

• 14 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 10:02 am

  How then do you account for Derek Corrigan’s opposition? Is he too a rich conservative? I always heard that he’s an NDPer, as is his NDP MLA wife.

• 15 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 10:06 am

  Public caning of those not paying for a ride could be a start. We’ll give it some thought.

• 16 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 10:38 am

  Look at this poll released today by InSights West.

  “When asked about the most important projects for them, residents cite maintaining and upgrading the region’s major roads (27%), increasing service on SkyTrain, Canada Line, SeaBus and West Coast Express (22%) and building rapid transit along Broadway in Vancouver (13%) as their top three personal priorities.”

  Roads: 27%
  General Rail: 22%
  Broadway Train: 13%

• 17 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 10:42 am

  Some people think that Elvis is still alive. If I say that do you suppose I am presenting that as evidence?

• 18 MB // Jan 20, 2015 at 10:48 am

  Ly, you’ve held up TransLink’s “exorbitant” executive remuneration as proof that public transport should be privatized, like Singapore’s. The assumption here is that the private sector can do it cheaper.

  Well, I skimmed the latest annual report from SBS Transportation, one of Singapore’s most important transport companies, and found that 5 of 10 board members have excutive salaries between $S250,000-$S800,000*, and 3 are less than $S250,000. All of them also have hundreds of thousands of preferred shares valued at $S2.29/share (2013).

  *A Singapore dollar is worth $0.90 Canadian.

  Moreover, Chairman Lin Jit Poh is also director of five other companies, some of which are in directly related land transportation or owned by labour unions. His salaries and share holdings in these companies are not stated in the SBS report, but presumably push his total remuneration from all sources into the millions, not including shares.

  A CEO earning less than $500K (and who owns zero shares or other well-paid positions clearly in conflict of interest) who runs a 10 billion dollar public transport authority that suffered through and widely passed a full audit by an unfriendly senior government is a bargain by comparison.

• 19 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 10:59 am

  You shouldn’t be associating any comment of mine with executive pay and privatization. I never have. Again, I simply point out that the general public perceives (thinks, considers) that Translink executives are overpaid.

  I also think that the uber-liberal Andrew Coyne (CBC etc.) makes good points when he repeatedly stated at SFU that privatized public transport is invariably more efficient, comfortable and successful.

• 20 MB // Jan 20, 2015 at 11:07 am

  A substantial proportion of transit in the lower mainland will eventually be privatized. As in Singapore, this will almost certainly improve efficiency.

  I beg to differ. Singapore’s SBS Transportation company has executive compensation at a much higher level when you include share holdings and directorships in other companies that would pose serious conflict of interest issues here.

  Moreover, I don’t believe your statement, Ly, relates in any way, shape or form to urban planning or the geometry of efficient transit. There are important distinctions to be made between a transit-rich density and car-dominated suburban sprawl.

  Further, governance is far different when you have essentially a city state where the federal and municipal levels are conjoined, not to mention the complete absence of provinces. By comparison, our cities have been subjected to downloading and meddling by senior governments for decades.

  There is much to admire about a city-state that is economically diverse and powerful in the near complete absence of natural resources. We can learn a lot. But not everything there is transferable to Vancouver, least of all a private transport management structure heavy on executive ownership of a public service and conflict of interest.

• 21 MB // Jan 20, 2015 at 11:21 am

  We’re talking about Metro Vancouver, not the province.

  The Metro contains half the population of BC and produces half its the annual GDP ($100 billion a year). It deserves better transit because transit better serves dense cities than freeways, is cheaper at moving people on a per capita basis, and has a genuinely large and long-term economic return when development responds.

  Moreover, Canada’s six largest cities produce half the nation’s GDP, far far more than petroleum. Where is our national transit infrastructure plan?

• 22 jenables // Jan 20, 2015 at 11:37 am

  Efficiency, maybe. Cost wise I tend to think private companies are not inclined towards saving us any money. Of course, our provincial government doesn’t seem to mind

• 23 boohoo // Jan 20, 2015 at 11:52 am

  ‘Hey, I’m not saying that translink executives get paid too much, I mean here are all their salaries wink wink, but hey I’m not saying that, I’m just reporting here.’

• 24 A Taxpayer // Jan 20, 2015 at 2:17 pm

  Actually this is a vote for funding the transit plan that is going to be implemented by Translink. As such, it is appropriate to assess the funding (is it an acceptable amount from an acceptable source), the transit plan (do I agree with how the money is going to be spent) and Translink (has Translink demonstrated good stewardship over the money we have already given them).
  While you may be correct it is a modest funding proposal, it is insufficient to fund all the items in the transit plan so we do not really know what we can expect to accomplish from this funding. And I think that those who believe Translink has been a good steward of our money would clearly be in the minority.

• 25 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 2:25 pm

  BC Liberal campaign platform 2013.

  “Work with the Metro Vancouver Mayor’s Council and TransLink to identify possible sources of new funding for transit improvements. Any new revenue sources would then be subject to a referendum .”

  Clearly stated. Working with the mayors is non-partisan. A campaign item that the people of BC voted on by electing the Liberals. The coming referendum is a promise kept.

• 26 jenables // Jan 20, 2015 at 2:32 pm

  Then why is it called a plebiscite?

• 27 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 2:41 pm

  Good question.

• 28 boohoo // Jan 20, 2015 at 2:47 pm

  Who was arguing otherwise? Most agree it’s a dumb idea, but no one has suggested it’s a surprise or that they didn’t run on this.

  You seem to just be oddly campaigning/posting here to what end I’m not sure…

• 29 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 3:17 pm

  Some people seem to think the referendum/plebiscite was something that Victoria just threw at the mayors, when, in fact, it was a campaign promise that keeps decision making more local.

  Some people also compare this to the Canada Line and other issues. The Canada Line was a completely different animal with multiple owners and funding sources, public and private. The Port Mann Bridge was also expected to be a group effort but eventually the province funded it.

• 30 boohoo // Jan 20, 2015 at 3:33 pm

  “Some people seem to think the referendum/plebiscite was something that Victoria just threw at the mayors”

  Who are ‘some people’?

  “Some people also compare this to the Canada Line and other issues.”

  Who are ‘some people’?

  ‘Some people’ think your posts here are bizarre, disjointed and insincere. (hint: ‘some people’ is me!)

• 31 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:08 pm

  Some character named boo, something or other, wrote this;

  “The province put this to a referendum because they don’t want to make this decision.”

  As you say, it’s you.

  Two questions, that I don’t really expect an answer to; What’s wrong with consulting with the mayors?
  Would you prefer that Victoria not consult locals on anything?

• 32 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:12 pm

  There was no wink wink. Are you someone that really dislikes transparency in your public servants?

• 33 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:24 pm

  Do you think the government should buy back CN Rail and Air Canada and start throwing money at them again?

• 34 jenables // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:40 pm

  I certainly wish the provincial government hadn’t privatized or partially privatized our crown corporations…. just between you and I, I don’t think it has saved us any money.

• 35 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 20, 2015 at 8:56 pm

  I’m sure that much of what you say here is true.

• 36 boohoo // Jan 20, 2015 at 10:57 pm

  You’ve totally ignored my question. Who are these mysterious ‘some people’?

• 37 boohoo // Jan 20, 2015 at 10:59 pm

  Of course there’s no wink wink. You’re just reporting.

• 38 MB // Jan 21, 2015 at 8:44 am

  To many of us the No side is piling on the propaganda that TransLink is incapable of running transportation in the Metro, which is contrary to the body of evidence, anecdotes aside. They ignore history and risk tossing out local control in its entirety if Clark et al take a No vote as a green light to disband TransLink and ignore public transit. Think about it. Should No win the day, will she willingly take on multiple billions in vital transit projects under the arm of the Transportation Ministry? I have my doubts. The only other option would be to further bind and handcuff TransLink or remake it into a ghost of itself.

  Whether a majority or a minority ring the polls on TransLink’s stewardhip abilities is not the issue. This is not about the art of polling; portraying gamemanship as being relevant to building a city is rediculous. These transit projects are required for the betterment of the economy of the province. Paying for them will generate benefits for decades through a huge array of multipliers. The anti-tax crowd seem to not understand how the urban economy actually works and have no idea what a life cycle cost-benefit analysis is.

  The premier placed us in this untenable position where the minority portion of our transportation network (transit) is put under the microscope while the majority (road politics) is given an uncritical free ride despite its larger drain on the public purse. That is not the way to build a stronger society within which over half lives in the third largest city in the country. It is profoundly anti-urban.

• 39 MB // Jan 21, 2015 at 9:18 am

  Yes, 129% more people prefer transit over roads.

• 40 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 21, 2015 at 12:19 pm

  Your conviction is clear. Your honesty admirable. Nevertheless, we do live in a democracy and simply believing something does not mean one is right and all others wrong.

  Remember too that transit lovers did get the Canada Line and are getting the Evergreen Line as we speak. It certainly is not as though transit is not being expanded. This government has and continues to fund new transit.

  Roads are actually more important since just about each and every dwelling has a road next to it.

  Many people think the priority should not be a train under Broadway but a tunnel from downtown Vancouver to the North Shore.

  Some people think that it is analogous to fix the leak in the boat before sprucing it up. ie: fix TransLink first, before throwing masses more money at them.

• 41 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jan 21, 2015 at 1:04 pm

  “It is important to note that only 11% of Yes voters say they have confidence in TransLink to do a good job to ensure that these transportation projects are implemented properly”.

  89% of the Yes votes do not have confidence in TransLink. Ouch!

• 42 boohoo // Jan 22, 2015 at 7:16 am

  I note the total lack of answers from all 3 in this thread. Shame when push comes to shove you can’t defend your position.

• 43 A Taxpayer // Jan 22, 2015 at 3:55 pm

  Wow, 129% more people prefer transit over roads is a very impressive differ….hey wait a minute. The difference is not 129% more, only 29% more. Not that impressive.