AdiA?A?s The Seattle Monorail Project
The Seattle monorail was to open in 2009; it didn’t.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUoqeRADp4Q]
The Simpson’s monorail song, which Seattle’s monorail lobby successfully kept off the airwaves in the weeks leading up to the public ballot on the project.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q44IDYpEeso]
The Seattle Monorail debate – The Blog’s Most Viewed Post
The Rail For The Valley’s most viewed blog post is “SeattleA?ai??i??ai???s monorail versus LRT debate A?ai??i??ai??? Same story, differentAi??Ai??players!”,Ai??Ai?? http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/seattles-monrail-versus-lrt-debate-same-story-different-players/Ai??Ai?? which at first glance is a little puzzling, but when one understands the massive public debate over the proposed Seattle monorail, it is not surprising at all that there is still much interest South of the boarder.
In Vancouver, there has never been a real public debate about ‘rapid‘ transit, as the decision for every one of Vancouver’s three metro lines was made by the provincial government, strictly for political reasons and as such, any debate on transit mode, route, etc., would lead to political embarrassment. Simply, no real debate was allowed. The mainstream media is prompted to reportAi??Ai??positively aboutAi??Ai??SkyTrain and the RAV/Canada line with large advertising accountsAi??Ai??for obliging news outlets. Be negative about transit and TransLink and no advertising money for you. Don’t believe Zwei; go ask Charlie Smith and the Georgia Straight.
In Seattle, the US nature of funding ‘rapid’ transit construction with long term bonds encouragesAi??Ai??public debate, culminating with an electoralAi??Ai??initiative, where the taxpayer could approve or reject ‘rapid’ transitAi??Ai??construction by ballot.
It is this process of public debate that has attracted more interest in public transit in the USA and is much harder for politicians to ram through pet projects. More people in the Seattle area have taken part inAi??Ai??local transit debates than their Vancouver counterparts and thus there is more interest in transit issues down South.
CurrentlyAi??Ai??there is a public ennui with transit planning as they areAi??Ai??kept from the planning process and only involved when TransLink or the provincialAi??Ai??politicians want a media event for photo-ops. There is a complete disconnect between the public and transit planning asAi??Ai??it is seen as a ‘mom and apple pie’ issue and any ‘rapid’ transit is good ‘rapid’ transit and the cost of providing ‘rapid’ transit is kept from the public, lest the public wakes up and finds that proposed ‘rapid’ transit plans are dated and unfordable.
A good part of TransLink’s present financial woes stem from building light-metro at two to four times more than light rail – building more SkyTrain will only increase taxes and debt, but the taxpayer knows very little because no real debate has been allowed by politicians and bureaucrats. The result:Ai??Ai??The publicAi??Ai??in Greater Vancouver remain ‘out of the loop’ and treat transit expenditures as a ‘fait accompli’.
From the Abbotsford News – TramTrain perfect for Valley LRT
TramTrain perfect for Valley LRT
Published: November 10, 2009
The Light Rail Committee has long supported the reinstatement of the Vancouver to Chilliwack interurban service and has long corresponded to transportation experts in Europe and the USA, who also support the return of the interurban.
The concept of TramTrain, where specially designed streetcars or diesel light rail vehicles can safely A?ai??i??E?share the trackA?ai??i??ai??? with regular railways, has never been explored by TransLink, who prefer to squander billions of dollars building the SkyTrain metro system on routes that do not have the ridership to support the mode. It is all so easy for TransLink, grab taxes from valley residents and spend it on SkyTrain and subways in Vancouver.
For almost 20 years the city of Karlsruhe, Germany has operated a large and ever growing TramTrain network (the longest route is 210 km) and the success of TramTrain is such that over 20 cities around the world, including Paris, France, now operate TramTrain Lines.
It is cheap to build, with costs starting at about $7 million/km to build; compare this with SkyTrain, with costs surpassing $100 million/km.
In an age of A?ai??i??E?global warming,A?ai??i??ai??? the need is to build a large network for the region and the question is: Do we build with LRT and TramTrain with costs starting at $7 million/km or SkyTrain metro, with costs starting at $100 million/km.
Ai??Ai??Malcolm Johnston
Light Rail Committee
http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/abbynews/opinion/letters/69708312.html
From the Vancouver Province – Canada Line to lose millions each year despite strong ridership – Another TransLink Bambozzle
From the “Tip of the Iceberg Department”; the RAV/Canada Line is going to cost TransLink money but until theAi??Ai??BC Auditor General has a go at TransLink, SkyTrain and RAV, the public will never know the true costs of the new subway or of TransLink’s metro operation.
The $14 million to $21 million shortfall mentioned is just onAi??Ai??the $300 million or so P-3 part of the project and TransLink’s portion of the metro and does not include the annual debt servicing costs ofAi??Ai??the over $1Ai??Ai??billion in senior government money invested in the subway. If TransLink’s appeal of Susan Heyes lawsuit fails and hundred of other affected merchants sue, TransLink’s shortfall for the RAV/Canada Line will increase dramatically.
What is so ‘Joesph Goebbels’ about the piece is the term “strong ridership” – 83,000 passengers a day is not strong ridership for a subway, or metro! 83,000 passengers a day is really very poor ridership when compared to the at least 400,000 passengers a day that is needed to justify the investment on an almost $3 billionAi??Ai??subway! Again, in METRO Vancouver, mediocre SkyTrain and metro performance is perverted by TransLink, throughAi??Ai??the mainstream media, as success.
The final insult is the quote: “The indication is that the line is attracting more car drivers because 79 per cent have access to a private vehicle for the trip compared with 66 per cent of riders overall. Three in 10, or 29 per cent, were not regular users of transit.”
TransLink, like BC Transit before, never asks a question that the answer can’t be twisted to suit its own ends; instead of asking: “Have you switched from car to transit“, which would have given a definite answer (an answer that TransLink may not like); asks the nebulous “Do you have access to a car?“, there by assuring a very hazy answer that can be easily manipulated.
What the news article failed to mention is that the RAV/Canada Line is force fed almost 40,000 bus passengers a day (which equals almost 80,000 trips as transit customers travel there and back), transit customers that once took direct buses from Surrey, Delta, Richmond to Vancouver, as well manyAi??Ai??bus customers on Cambie St. The new metro has probably increased transit ridership on the route by about 10%, but is this number attributed to students using the deep discounted U-Pass or a slight modal shift from car to transit. As RAV/Canada Line has no turnstiles and relies on laser counters that lose reliability in congested locations, ridership on the RAV/Canada Line nay be distorted by as much as 15%.Ai??Ai??Politely not mentioned is the airport portion of the line that despite initial hype and hoopla, is ignored. Recent polling by YVR and independent sources, indicate that very few airline customers are using the metro and almost no one is taking RAV to shop at the airport.
The RAV/Canada Line is full of stories, if only the mainstream media care to dig a little.
Canada Line to lose millions each year despite strong ridership
Shortfall of $14m to $21m per year till 2025
By Frank Luba, The ProvinceNovember 12, 2009
The new, $2-billion Canada Line will lose between $14 million and $21 million per year until 2025.
That’s despite the fact the line is rapidly approaching the 100,000 riders per day on which the project was based.
The information was contained in a report by provincial comptroller-general Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland concerning TransLink and B.C. Ferries, which was released last week.
While the report chided TransLink and the mayors’ council for not addressing the Lower Mainland transportation authority’s funding shortfall sooner, it acknowledged that TransLink was burdened with services where costs will be much higher than revenue for a long time.
“For example, the cost of operating the Canada Line [net of bus-fleet operating efficiencies] is expected to exceed the additional system revenue it generates until 2025, with costs exceeding incremental revenues by $14 million to $21 million for most years until then,” wrote Wenezenki-Yolland.
TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said the costs are partially the result of how the public-private partnership deal was structured to pay off more than $700 million put into the project by builder InTransitB.C.
“It costs less to pay more up front,” said Hardie. “It’s like paying off your mortgage earlier.” New Democratic Party transportation critic Harry Bains (Surrey-Newton) blamed the decision to build the Canada Line as a public-private partnership on the government’s “ideological” support of P3s.
Bains said the Canada Line deal is one of the reasons for TransLink’s ongoing need to raise more revenue, as pointed out in the comptroller-general’s report.
“It’s a sad situation,” said Bains. “I hope the government pays attention.” Figures provided by TransLink for the period from Sept. 9 to Oct. 6 show average daily ridership of 83,027.
Hardie said “the ridership to date is a very positive development.” But he said it was “too early” to say how many of those riders are new to transit or how many cars were taken off the road as the result of the transit megaproject.
Back in March, Premier Gordon Campbell said: “This project is the equivalent of investing in a new 10-lane road between downtown Vancouver and Richmond. It will take 200,000 one-way trips off the streets.” However, the best Trans-Link could do to back that up was provide feedback from its customer-service polling of 200 adult Canada Line riders, who were more positive overall than other transit users.
The indication is that the line is attracting more car drivers because 79 per cent have access to a private vehicle for the trip compared with 66 per cent of riders overall. Three in 10, or 29 per cent, were not regular users of transit.
A Chilling Video From U-Tube – Saved by a ….. metro driver!
This video was on the news of late and it shows by metros should have a driver. Sadly if this were the ‘driverless’ SkyTrain, the results would have been tragic.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-K_faYyoA]
From the Gaurdian UK – Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Some sobering news from the U.K. If the article is true, then Campbell’s gamble on Gateway and the new Port Mann Bridge will be a colossal mistake; again the same is true of the RAV/Canada Line and the yet to be built Evergreen SkyTrain Line, which are far too expensive to expand to meet demand.
If ‘Peak’ oil happens much sooner than anticipated, we (the taxpayer) will not be able to afford the ‘rail’ network needed to provide a regional transportation alternative to the car. Earlier, I predicted that the region needs 300 km. of ‘rail’ transit to make public transit an attractive alternative, yet if oil supplies dry up, we well may need 400 km. or 500 km. of rail transit to be able to keep the region mobile.
So, again the hoary old question is asked of regional and provincial politicians; “Do we continue to build $125 million/km. or more, SkyTrain light-metro or switch to modern light-rail with construction costs starting under $10 million/km. (TramTrain)?“
The lower mainland will have hundreds of kilometers of deluxe highways that the average resident will not be able to afford to use and a very expensive, yet pygmy metro network, that is just too expensive to extend.
Will this be the lasting legacy of theAi??Ai?? BC Liberal party, their costly mantra of metro and highway construction?
UK – Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Watchdog’s estimates of reserves inflated says top official
- Terry Macalister
- guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009 21.30 GMT
The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.
The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.
The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation’s latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow A?ai??i??ai??? which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.
In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.
Now the “peak oil” theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. “The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year,” said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. “The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today’s number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.
“Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources,” he added.
A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was “imperative not to anger the Americans” but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. “We have [already] entered the ‘peak oil’ zone. I think that the situation is really bad,” he added.
The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: “The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans.”
The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies.
The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.
John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.
He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. “Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on,” said Hemming.
“This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation,” he added.
The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.
But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.
Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.
A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could “peak” and go into terminal decline before 2020 A?ai??i??ai??? but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were “at best optimistic and at worst implausible”.
But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: “If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets A?ai??i??Ai?? in the end that would suit no one.”
From the Seattle Times – Consortium on verge of owning Eastside railway land
Interesting news from Seattle, the BN&SF East side line is to be purchased by various government and utility bodies in Washington State. The East side Line, formerly a Milwaukee Road R.R. Line, ambles South from Snohomish to Renton on the east side of lake Washington. Now with portions abandoned or used for irregular freight traffic, the East side Line is a prime candidate for diesel LRT, but Seattle transit planners are handicapped, like transit planners in Vancouver BC, with visions of grandeur and just can’t plan for a simple diesel light-rail service that would be both inexpensive to install and inexpensive to operate, lest the public and politicians alike were to compare $7 million/km. diesel LRT with sound Transit’s $100 million/km. plus, hybrid light rail/metro line.
Doing the right thing just doesn’t come easy with those focused only on multi-billion dollar grand metro schemes.
Consortium on verge of owning East side railway land
A year after the global financial crisis forced the Port of Seattle to delay its purchase of BNSF Railway’s 42-mile Eastside rail corridor, officials say they are on the verge of closing a deal with the help of King County, Sound Transit, Redmond and two utilities.
By Keith Ervin
Seattle Times staff reporter
A year after the global financial crisis forced the Port of Seattle to delay its purchase of BNSF Railway’s 42-mile Eastside rail corridor, officials say they are on the verge of closing a deal with the help of King County, Sound Transit, Redmond and two utilities.
“Once we have closed the acquisition with BNSF, then we’ve got five partners who are ready to go forward to make sure that corridor is used for the maximum benefit of the region,” Port spokeswoman Charla Skaggs said Friday.
With the property sale scheduled to close Dec. 15, the Port would own a freight rail line from Woodinville to Snohomish, while King County, Sound Transit and Redmond would buy parts of the corridor or rights to operate trails and passenger trains between Woodinville and Redmond and between Woodinville and Renton.
Sound Transit wants to use a part of the old freight-rail corridor when it extends passenger light rail from Seattle to Bellevue and Redmond, and it could use a longer stretch of the old line for future rail service.
Puget Sound Energy and the Cascade Water Alliance want to buy utility easements in the rail corridor.
Details are still being negotiated and no information was available Friday on the purchase price or the amount each partner would pay.
The Port’s CEO, Tay Yoshitani, worked to assemble the new consortium after turmoil in the municipal bond market and costs related to replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct made it difficult for the Port to close its earlier deal to buy the corridor.
The Port last year agreed to buy the entire corridor for $107 million and sell King County a trail easement south of Woodinville for $2 million.
“I think it’s fair to say it’s a substantially different proposal than we saw previously. No one entity is bearing the burden of this purchase,” Metropolitan King County Councilmember Larry Phillips said of the emerging deal.
Phillips said that “probably the largest investments will be by the Port, King County and Sound Transit.”
Former King County Executive Ron Sims began bargaining with BNSF more than four years ago for possible purchase of the rail, which he said could become “the granddaddy of trails.” Sims later asked the Port to put up most of the capital, at one point offering to trade county-owned Boeing Field for the rail corridor.
“I think these other governments stepping up to share the cost is a great, remarkable development. I was concerned that if we didn’t get the deal closed by the end of this year, BNSF might say enough is enough. It’s very timely A?ai??i??ai??? an early Christmas gift,” said Bruce Agnew, director for the Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute, which has advocated putting passenger trains on the rail corridor.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010221495_raildeal07m.html
Train Versus Tornado – from U-Tube
Ever wanted to know what happens if a tornado hits a train? This U-Tube item shows all!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azV5bC2br-Q]
Rail for the Valley, a necessity whose time has long since come
In response to this negative screed by Robert Blacklock, I sent my own Letter to the Editor of the Chilliwack Progress, which I post here:
UPDATE: Published Nov. 10, Passenger rail no fantasy, Chwk Progress
Dear Editor,
Re: Passenger rail line a ‘fantasy’ (Nov. 6, Robert Blacklock)
Robert Blacklock’s Letter to the Editor was certainly a disappointing read. (He almost had me convinced!) 3 hours to get from Chilliwack to Surrey? I completely agree, no one would take that train.
Fortunately, the facts don’t at all square up with Mr. Blacklock’s assertions.
In fact, readers may remember a demonstration service was implemented for 6 months on the Interurban line between Abbotsford and New Westminster during Expo 86, using old Pacer Railbus trains (for $12/round trip). Total travel time was 2 hours, including delays at the Fraser River Rail Bridge, and was highly popular with the public.
Using modern light rail technology, some track upgrading, and construction of crossings where needed, I am confident that today one could travel to downtown Vancouver in even less time, and it would on average be comparable to travel time by car, because trains would not be affected by regular ‘rush hour’ traffic congestion. Such a service could reliably be used by the public for travel throughout the valley, regardless of traffic or weather conditions.
As for cost: what many people do not realize is that the cost of light rail is actually cheaper in the long run than the cost of running buses. This is primarily due to three factors:
1) A single Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) unit (passenger train car) can transport more people than a bus. As well, if there is overcrowding, more units may be added to a train as needed, without the added cost of additional drivers.
2) The lifetime of an LRV is about 3 times as long as the lifetime of a bus, with much lower maintenance costs. This is in large part due to their running smoothly on steel tracks, as opposed to jostling in the midst of traffic on roads.
3) Throughout the world, including Canada, it has been shown time and time again, that people will not get out of their cars to ride a bus but they will get out of their cars to use light rail. The cost of operating a near-empty bus route is far greater than the cost of operating a popular light rail route. In fact, light rail may eventually turn an operating profit. This is seen on many routes throughout the world with similar populations and densities to the Fraser Valley.
The ‘pie in the sky’ picture of light rail painted by Mr. Blacklock is a fiction.
Municipal leaders involved with the South of Fraser Rail Task Force are to be commended for looking beyond these myths, and beginning to take the first steps toward implementing a Valley-wide light rail service.
Rail for the Valley is neither a fantasy nor a luxury. It is a necessity, whose time has long since come.
Dr. John Buker
Founder, Rail For The Valley
From the Vancouver Sun – "Financial review finds TransLink has "significant operational issues" – So, what else is new?
TransLink has come off its financial rails!
The province’s financial review was all too predictable, TransLink has problems. Well, for anyone who has tried to deal with TransLink’s bloated and arrogant bureaucracy, this is not news and the report is as I expected.
The problems with TransLink can be summed up as:
1) Building metro (SkyTrain & RAV) on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain them.
Result:Ai??Ai?? Large annual subsidies must be paid to operate the metro system.
2) Operating buses on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain them.
Result: Higher operating subsidies for West Coast Mountain Bus.
3) Offering deep discounted ticketing, in the form of U-Pass to university students.
Result: Large subsidies must be paid to offset the deep discounted student passes.
4) Political interference from the province.
Result: The province has forced and continues to force hugely expensive ‘metro’ rapid transit solutions on the region, but without any funding formula to sustain the the heavily subsidized mode.
5) lack of public input, lack of public representation at the board level.
Result: The public is stuck with expensive ‘government sponsored’ transit solutions that they do not want, or want to pay for, nor will not use. 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership first take a bus to the metro.
TransLink’s financialAi??Ai??illsAi??Ai??will continueAi??Ai??and with the province’s penchant to build metro mega-projects, instead of much cheaper alternatives, means TransLink has become a financial sink-hole.
What is needed is aAi??Ai??new approach – TransLink needs to change and maybe a Royal Commission on Urban Transportation is needed before any more taxpayers money is invested on questionable projects.
What TransLink badly needs is an independent, elected transit board made up ofAi??Ai??a transit commissioner from each municipality, elected at the same time as civic elections. An independent transit board would be directly concerned with transit issues and represent the wishes of the taxpayer. To date, the taxpayer has been seen by bureaucrats and politicians alike as a ‘milch-cow’ forever paying taxes to support projects that seem to built more for political prestige than for the public good.
Financial review finds TransLink has “significant operational issues” – So, what else is new?
By Jonathan Fowlie and Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun
November 6, 2009
TransLink has been plagued by A?ai??i??Ai??significant operational issuesA?ai??i??A? and has not worked hard enough to manage its finances, according to a report by B.C.A?ai??i??ai???s comptroller-general Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland.
The report, released Friday, partly blamed TransLinkA?ai??i??ai???s woes on conflicting interests and A?ai??i??Ai??ineffective communicationA?ai??i??A? with the regional mayorsA?ai??i??ai??? council, its board of directors and the provincial government.
It is calling for the mayorsA?ai??i??ai??? council to be converted into a transit authority with 20 per cent of members appointed by the province. This council would be given more responsibility on who is hired and fired on the board, how much they are paid, and overseeing the board without assuming a management role.
A?ai??i??Ai??Inaction by TransLink and the mayorsA?ai??i??ai??? council to maintain a balance between expenses and revenues has brought TransLink to a point at which substantial operating deficits in 2010 and beyond will be difficult to avoid,A?ai??i??A? Wenezenki-Yolland wrote.
She added TransLink should have taken A?ai??i??Ai??earlier actionsA?ai??i??A? to contain its rising debt, which has tripled since 2005. Yet it continued with an A?ai??i??Ai??unfunded expansionA?ai??i??A? of more buses and SkyTrain cars to boost ridership.
The report comes just two weeks after regional mayors approved a $130-million funding supplement to maintain transit services at existing levels. TransLink had sought $450-million per year to expand services.
It also comes one day after TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast announced his resignation.
In her report, Wenezenki-Yolland also looked into B.C. Ferries and called for a joint Transportation Commission to oversee both TransLink and B.C. Ferries.
A?ai??i??Ai??A properly resourced, larger Transportation Commission with a broader mandate would be in a position to provide a stronger, more consistent regulatory approach to these vital transportation systems,A?ai??i??A? she wrote.
Transportation Minister Shirley Bond said the suggestion of a joint commissioner A?ai??i??Ai??will warrant some exploringA?ai??i??A? as will some of the 20 recommendations brought forward to improve BC Ferries and TransLink and ensure taxpayers are getting value for money.
While Wenezenki-Yolland found salaries at TransLink were appropriate as they are only slighter higher than other large corporations, she noted the organization has far too many senior executives.
She also suggested TransLink change its planning structure from 10 years to three to five years to make it easier to get consensus on funding issues from all parties.
The TransLink board and the regional mayors have said they plan to lobby the province for expanded funding sources such as road pricing to help pay for more transit.
But the report noted that TransLink should ensure existing revenue sources, such as property and vehicle taxes, are maximized before looking at other sources of revenue.
A?ai??i??Ai??What the reports do not do is recommend a change to the models in place,A?ai??i??A? Bond said. A?ai??i??Ai??The good news is the comptroller-general doesnA?ai??i??ai???t suggest for a minute we start over. This doesnA?ai??i??ai???t mean the work at TransLink has to stop.A?ai??i??A?
Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts, head of the regional mayorsA?ai??i??ai??? council, said many of the recommendations were in line with what the mayors had been seeking for some time.
A?ai??i??Ai??All the stakeholders are needed at the table in order to move forward,A?ai??i??A? she said. A?ai??i??Ai??We still have the issue of funding to resolve. When you donA?ai??i??ai???t have one of the partners at the table, the communication flow is not as good as it could be.A?ai??i??A?
Former TransLink chairman George Puil said although local municipalities should have a stronger voice, it was A?ai??i??Ai??ironicA?ai??i??A? that the report called for provincial representatives on the mayorsA?ai??i??ai??? council.
He noted this notion goes back to the old system when the NDP representative appointed to the board refused to attend meetings, citing a conflict.
A?ai??i??Ai??I donA?ai??i??ai???t think the governance structure they have is working; they have too many masters and mistresses, whatever you want to call them,A?ai??i??A? he said. A?ai??i??Ai??WeA?ai??i??ai???re going back to square one.A?ai??i??A?
Recent Comments