Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

If you are travelling around during the workday on company business, the company should pay 100% of that.

May be, the Translink executives should use a car coop, such as Modo for their car need for work: even if they go to meeting everyday, one person per car, you will have hard to hit $1000/month: http://www.modo.coop/rates/business

And obviously, in their functions, they don't need a car everyday, even less all day long, and can often carpool. May be they could even take transit once in a while

[WBC]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

And where could they possibly go on company business during the workday that would cost $1000 a month for each executive?

Wasn't the whole point of the Translink HQ in New West to consolidate their operations in one big facility?

I can understand some executive of some multinational corporation needing to travel to and from different offices all over, or even B2B Account Executives needing to see clients, but this is a local transit agency! The occassional trip to a city hall would not cost $1000 a month in car expenses...

Honestly, want to defend the pitfalls of Translink, do it for the right reasons such as that idiot Todd Stone being pig-headed about the funding. But if Translink is at the wrong, then by all means, they should be condemned. Defending a stupid, unjustifiable practice will NOT bring you the Broadway Line!

They should be given a 3 zone translink pass and that is it. For one they have this new thing called phone and even newer thing called internet. Secondly, they should be promoting and experiencing the system they built. Thirdly, they are executives in name only - they are government administrators and nothing more and should be paid as such...Same goes for all crown corporations. If you are not competing with anybody you DO NOT DESERVE competitive salary as I am sure your talents could be easily replaced.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Defending a stupid, unjustifiable practice will NOT bring you the Broadway Line!

You're getting worked up about $12k a year. That's a rounding error in nearly any organisation's budget.

If it was $12k in their salaries instead of a car we wouldn't even be discussing this.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by quobobo

You're getting worked up about $12k a year. That's a rounding error in nearly any organisation's budget.

If it was $12k in their salaries instead of a car we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Its not just $12k a year since its more than one executive. There is also the $100 per month in parking per executive, plus the free transit.

And again, its not the amount, its the principle of the whole situation. Its stupid and unfair!

And again, to reiterate, defending Translink's stupid practices will NOT bring your Broadway Line. But further to that, Translink's stupid practice will for sure kill it since it will only annoy the already taxed to death public who receives poor services...

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

And again, its not the amount, its the principle of the whole situation. Its stupid and unfair!

The principle of the situation is that you want your senior executives to be able to get places quickly during their workday, since their time costs a lot.

It's not that unreasonable to think that they should be able to drive to (for example) an Evergreen Line work site, or a contractor's office that isn't on transit.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Kisai

1
or 0.5% local regional sales tax

That last one I feel is a non-starter, because that will just send even more people cross-border shopping.

No, that's the perfect solution.

Cross border shopping is impacted by the exchange rate for the most part.

[Metro-One]

You really start to see the cultural difference here.

In Japan your employer pays for all of you work related transit (including your fares to and from work at the start and end of the day).

For goodness sakes, I am as low as you can get on the totem pole here and even I have a company car paid for me, roughly 700 a month, and I only require it twice a week.

I really don't see what the big problem is here. This shows just how little the average Canadian now expects from their workplace / employer (public or private), this really isn't that big of a deal, and believe it or not when you are managing a transit system that spans the entire metro area, you likely do have to often drive to laces at the drop of a hat.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

You really start to see the cultural difference here.

In Japan your employer pays for all of you work related transit (including your fares to and from work at the start and end of the day).

For goodness sakes, I am as low as you can get on the totem pole here and even I have a company car paid for me, roughly 700 a month, and I only require it twice a week.

I really don't see what the big problem is here. This shows just how little the average Canadian now expects from their workplace / employer (public or private), this really isn't that big of a deal, and believe it or not when you are managing a transit system that spans the entire metro area, you likely do have to often drive to laces at the drop of a hat.

I had to quit an office job because several months into it I bought a car and the boss demanded I use it for work related stuff with no compensation. He even had the gall to tell EI that he never asked me to use my car, even though I had tons of proof. They sided with me.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

And again, its not the amount, its the principle of the whole situation. Its stupid and unfair!

It is entirely fair to expect a company to compensate you for the use of your vehicle if it is being used during work hours on work business. That applies to any level of employee at any company. You are right, it's about principles, and a principled company would cover those costs.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

It is entirely fair to expect a company to compensate you for the use of your vehicle if it is being used during work hours on work business. That applies to any level of employee at any company. You are right, it's about principles, and a principled company would cover those costs.

Quick story. My father worked a 10 minute walk away from where he lives. He drove to work. There bus stop is half way between home and work. His job entails driving all over the place because he was a civil engineer for the municipality. The Municipality was paying for the vehicle costs. There is no way to take a bus to a dozen construction sites in a day, especially when the bus only shows up once an hour.

The thing is, it's all how the public perceives it. A ~Transit~ company not using it's own system that it operates, looks extremely bad. If it was any other company, nobody would even even blink at the vehicle cost. It's a tax write-off.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

$1000 doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. $500/mo lease without a down payment, $250/mo insurance, $250/mo gas and maintenance

That gets you what, a midsize Buick?

$360/mo including taxes gets you a brand new toyota camry hybrid and I thought most new cars come with scheduled maintenance at no extra charge.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

It is entirely fair to expect a company to compensate you for the use of your vehicle if it is being used during work hours on work business. That applies to any level of employee at any company. You are right, it's about principles, and a principled company would cover those costs.

It is mathematically impossible for a basic vehicle to have a required cost of $1,000 a month for what little it can be used during work hours on work business that these Translink Execs, who spend most of their time in their cushy offices in New Westminster. This is a perk for being executives for Translink, nothing more, nothing less.

An Account Executive is required to see clients as part of his regular routine so by all means he should have a car allowance or his vehicle expenses should be reimbursed!

A Translink Executive just needs to go to a city hall or government building on occassion and its usually just one or two, not every single one! Those trips DO NOT cost $1,000 a month or require a free transit pass or a $100 parking stall!

Originally Posted by Kisai

Quick story. My father worked a 10 minute walk away from where he lives. He drove to work. There bus stop is half way between home and work. His job entails driving all over the place because he was a civil engineer for the municipality. The Municipality was paying for the vehicle costs. There is no way to take a bus to a dozen construction sites in a day, especially when the bus only shows up once an hour.

The thing is, it's all how the public perceives it. A ~Transit~ company not using it's own system that it operates, looks extremely bad. If it was any other company, nobody would even even blink at the vehicle cost. It's a tax write-off.

Your father's job REQUIRES that he goes to different sites EVERYDAY! And because he works in construction sites, chances are he probably requires a more expensive rugged vehicle (i.e. a $40,000 truck). Translink Executives are NOT required to go to different sites everyday! And whatever trips that they have can be accomplished using a Smart car or a Honda Fit....

Originally Posted by st7860

$360/mo including taxes gets you a brand new toyota camry hybrid and I thought most new cars come with scheduled maintenance at no extra charge.

Well there you have it!

[DKaz]

You'd expected they get compensated the standard 52 cents a km if they need to use their vehicles for work purposes, not get a fixed allowance monthly especially if they're just in their office 95% of the time.

At the peak of my driving years when I was doing 40,000km a year it cost me $1,000 a month including car payments, gas, insurance, maintenance. Only some new cars come with no charge schedule maintenance for the first 3 or 4 years. Kia, Audi, and BMW come to mind. Toyota has a ToyotaCare program in the US but not here. Most dealers offer specials of say $525 for lifetime (for the original owner only) oil changes.

[Gordon]

We will see what perks are still around when the 2014 pay info in released early next year. the bonuses will be gone.

How difficult would it be to covert the The 43 to A B Line?

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

You really start to see the cultural difference here.

In Japan your employer pays for all of you work related transit (including your fares to and from work at the start and end of the day).

For goodness sakes, I am as low as you can get on the totem pole here and even I have a company car paid for me, roughly 700 a month, and I only require it twice a week.

I really don't see what the big problem is here. This shows just how little the average Canadian now expects from their workplace / employer (public or private), this really isn't that big of a deal, and believe it or not when you are managing a transit system that spans the entire metro area, you likely do have to often drive to laces at the drop of a hat.

I think that is because Canada sits besides the great big US. Where the motto is every dog for themselves. And that motto at times crosses the border.

In Japan companies over time probably realized it would help to keep workers if they provided the benefit of paying for transportation.

[SOSS]

This is forward thinking! Glad to see plumbing installation occurring now. Its like building a house with an unfinished basement. Install the plumbing for bathroom(s), laundry and/or kitchen during time of construction with the idea that one day you or the next owner might build it out. Good thinking!

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/T...oms+SkyTrain+stations/9868769/story.html

[troublemaker]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

In reality, the studies have shown that any platform extension is unnecessary beyond 2041.

To me, it doesn't make sense to spend two years and millions of dollars rebuilding a station, only to rebuild it again in 25 years to extend the platform. I think 25 years is too short a time horizon for major transportation infrastructure projects. Moreover, their growth projections have often been too low. To me, it looks like the new Main Street Station is considerable longer than the old one, so maybe they are in fact making provision for a longer platform in future.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by troublemaker

To me, it doesn't make sense to spend two years and millions of dollars rebuilding a station, only to rebuild it again in 25 years to extend the platform. I think 25 years is too short a time horizon for major transportation infrastructure projects. Moreover, their growth projections have often been too low. To me, it looks like the new Main Street Station is considerable longer than the old one, so maybe they are in fact making provision for a longer platform in future.

That could be argued, though officially on balance sheets, 25 years is often used as a benchmark for valuing transportation infrastructure projects.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by troublemaker

To me, it doesn't make sense to spend two years and millions of dollars rebuilding a station, only to rebuild it again in 25 years to extend the platform. I think 25 years is too short a time horizon for major transportation infrastructure projects. Moreover, their growth projections have often been too low. To me, it looks like the new Main Street Station is considerable longer than the old one, so maybe they are in fact making provision for a longer platform in future.

Yes and no. Ideally I would like to build the infrastructure planning for a longer timeframe but.....lets look at it this way. The original Expo line is 25 years old now. Should it have originally been built to the planned upgraded standards right off the start (at a higher initial cost plus 25 years of interest) when it was not needed till now or were we better off using that money for 25 years for something else such as extra services. Hopefully someone is doing the math to see what the present day cost of building longer stations now (at hopefully lesser cost) instead of building stations to the current plan now and possibly expanding them again in the future. In this case I would be pretty sure the net present value of the current plan is higher than the longer stations now.....especially because if they ever build the Broadway line it will divert a significant amount of trips North of Commercial on the Expo line. Not to mention something purely aesthetic...a renovated station every 25 years or so. The original Expo stations are starting to look tired...I am looking forward to the completed renovations.

I think the new Main street platforms are 86 or 87m, the original stations were 80m so it is a little longer (I assume to better accommodate the 5 car trains).

[Meraki]

The Surrey expansion stations are longer as well, like Gateway.

Originally Posted by Rico

Hopefully someone is doing the math to see what the present day cost of building longer stations now (at hopefully lesser cost) instead of building stations to the current plan now and possibly expanding them again in the future.

When it's a P3, hell no. That makes the Surrey LRT plans more of a disaster-in-waiting. We all know they'll go with the lowest P3 bidder and it's going to be underbuilt and have massive additional fees if you want to do so much as change the frequency.