Just one thing after another at poor old TransLink.
Hard to believe how much people loved it during and after the Olympics, when it was whisking around a couple of million people a day.
Now it’s everyone’s favourite whipping boy, with lots of blame being heaped on and not much discussion about how this region is going to move increasing millions of people around to their jobs and homes.
Anyway, here’s the latest. In response to Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom’s letter delivered Tuesday, putting in writing the province’s refusal to consider any more gas-tax increases, a vehicle levy or a regional carbon tax (for now, at least, on that last), the mayors have voted to call for a cancellation of the improvements that those mechanisms were supposed to pay for.
Three south of the Fraser mayors voted against that, as you’ll see in the story. If you’ll recall, those improvements were part of a total package designed to give something to everyone in the region. Mayors didn’t want to have a supplementary budget that only had one item: the Evergreen Line and a gas-tax increase to pay for it. So they added these other elements.
And, just to continue catching up, this follows on the report from Transportation Commissioner Martin Crilly, who turned down Wednesday TransLink’s request for fare hikes above its allowed limit. Crilly commissioned a report to support that, whose 103 pages closely examine its costs, particularly for buses.
That report is here. My far less comprehensive story on same is here. I will add, for you to contemplate while you’re reading, that report looks at TransLink’s spending from 2006 to the end of 2010 — the period that the commissioner was able to get the completed statistics for.
Those statistics are what led Crilly to say that TransLink’s productivity and costs per service hour are out of line with transit services in other cities. He noted that it costs Vancouver $130 per service hour, second only to Toronto.
But as TransLink planners noted in a technical briefing afterwards, that period was a time when the system was expanding rapidly. It’s typical that costs per rider or per hour of service will climb at a time like that, as the service expands but the public hasn’t totally caught on to it yet.
We tend to think that all transit improvements are like the Canada Line — millions of people jump on the minute the doors open. But most transit improvements don’t work like that. It takes a few months or even a year or two before people realize that their options are improving.
The number of people boarding per day and the costs per passenger started showing signs of improving in 2011 and more is expected in 2012.
21 responses so far ↓
1 Bill Lee // Apr 13, 2012 at 11:48 am
And Crilly wrote more (and less) for those who don’t want to read the full 103 page Efficiency report that was attached to his fare increase ruling.
They write well and show their workings.
Got to http://translinkcommission.org/./html/what_s_new.html
for the navigation map
“The commission also released its 103-page Efficiency Review of TransLink. The Review identifies potential cost saving measures. Based on this, the commission challenges TransLink to achieve specific dollar savings targets in the coming 3 years, and also in the ten-year time frame. Here is:
* a 2-page [11]media release
* the 2-page formal [12]Commission Order 12-01 with the decision
* a 6-page explanatory [13]Commission Memorandum 10 outlining the
reasons for the decision
* the 103-page [14]Efficiency Review of TransLink (a 3MB PDF file)
* a 7-page memo from the Commission’s advisors: [15]Illustration of Order of Magnitude for Potential Cost Savings”
Note “As input to its decision, the commission received nearly 600 letters and petitions with 300 signatures from the public”
“The public’s comments are a sharp reminder that an above-inflation fare increase will be
met with dismay and cause hardship, especially among those of limited means and dependent
on transit. It is also worth noting here that higher fares inevitably deter riders: TransLink estimates that the 12.5% fare increase will mean 2% fewer-than-otherwise riders on its system.”
The efficiency review did not look at all aspects. “The list is not comprehensive either in the areas reviewed nor for the organization as a whole. We did not review the rail division, major roads/bridges and police. Nor did we examine in detail several significant areas of spending, including corporate and administrative costs, information technology, etc.”
2 Roger Kemble // Apr 13, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Throw in Evergreen too.
I was over there Easter weekend: Canada One under expansion, Lougheed and Barnett politely busy. Evergreen unnecessary!
Maillardville/Coquitlam a disaster zone: a mass exit in the making. The French Quarter? Somebody’s kiddin’.
We popped into Ikea for some stuff: the place was packed. We were the only honkies!
3 MB // Apr 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Frances, from your story in the G&M:
The mayors’ council also asked for a new audit on the agency, but quite a different kind from those previously suggested. [...] Instead, they would like to see one done on … the efficacy of TransLink’s new governance model introduced by then-transportation minister Kevin Falcon in 2007, which took away the mayors’ power to control the agency and gave it to an appointed board.
That is a key recommendation by the mayors.
Local governance makes a lot of sense, but local funding is impossible without quad-level financial support. And Kevin Falcon now holds the big purse.
We have a potential fossil fuel crisis approaching that demands national attention soon, and the locals are stomping and poking each other like a bunch of unruly kindergarteners.
I don’t care what political party is elected next year in BC, but they must be held to account on this file because it’ll like be on their watch that we’ll see the next big wave of price spikes that will nail car commuters — and TransLink’s fuel budget — hard.
The feds are too busy doubling down on raw bitumen exports to care.
4 Sean Bickerton // Apr 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Disappointed the review did not examine corporate and administrative costs.
Translink could hv done itself a big favor by identifying cost savings in lavish salaries and benefits, expenses for transportation and entertainment and the outlandish per diems paid to councillors already paid by the public purse.
Instead they handed out bonuses … no accountability has bred a lack of respect for those that pay for the party.
They should clean house and lose 10% of their overhead, and then voters might be more accepting and other levels of government might be more inclined to do the heavy lifting necessary to get funding passed.
Translink is the author of this result, even if many other hands helped.
5 Baran // Apr 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm
@ Sean Bickerton,
Interesting comments, more of the hyped-up type that politician or aspiring politicians use to get noticed.
“Lavish salaries and benefits”? If you’re throwing around statements like that, you better back them up with some numbers and comparisons. People like you have high expectations of the public sector, but don’t want to pay for any of it, and that’s what troubles me about your comments: sensational, hyped-up and lack of reality check.
6 MB // Apr 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm
TransLink has been monkeyed with by the province since its inception by the province. Efficient corporate governance should have been part of its original structure imposed by the province.
Reviewing administrative costs is, of course, a good thing, but I agree with Frances that TransLink has been a whipping boy, and so much of this auditing thing is like blaming the victim for the perpetrator’s crime of underfunding.
And I really don’t think you’ll find $30 million by eliminating director’s per diem and administrator’s benefit packages. Would that the province practiced what it thinks its preaching.
Does funding roads receive as much flak as funding transit? No. Where’s the audit of the Gateway project which is costing 200 times the TransLink shortfall?
7 Rico // Apr 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Sigh, I just want to see better transit and would be preparded to pay for it. If they can find savings in Translink, good, but I doubt they can find enough for the expansion plans they had. Sigh.
8 Agustin // Apr 14, 2012 at 8:58 am
Hear, hear.
9 Piker // Apr 14, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Gateway isn’t part of TransLink’s mandate…but the major road network is. Not surprisingly, divesting or cutting the MRN minor or major capital program transfers to the various municipalities is never mention from local politicians: they want to keep that lolly for themselves. Since 1999, that slush fund has been worth $500 million.
MRN slushies
10 Morven // Apr 15, 2012 at 7:34 am
Two parts to the audit.
One, how to ensure Translink uses it’s cash flow effectively.
Two, but the most important, tell us how the original goals and policies are/were achieved.
From my point of view, the provincial input has skewed Translink’s strategies into a policy porridge.
We simply have a governance failure in which the roots lie deep within the provincial government.
-30-
11 Dan Cooper // Apr 15, 2012 at 11:54 am
I have sometimes criticized Translink, but in the end since it is the BC Government that makes all the big decisions and keeps screwing with and micro-managing them, that is where I see the fault lying. The mayors and Translink staff have been put in a situation here where success is near impossible. What, after all, can they do now other than slash services?
(p.s. My brain wasn’t working quickly enough and I accidentally read one of Kemble’s disgusting spews. Sickening.)
12 Chris Porter // Apr 16, 2012 at 9:00 am
“Transit improvements are an integral component of the PMH1 Project and the Transportation Ministry’s comprehensive plan to address the transportation needs of the region’s growing population, sustain the provincial economy and ensure a healthy environment and high quality of life for all British Columbians. ”
http://www.pmh1project.com/transportation-choices/Pages/New-Transit-Options.aspx
So integral, that the government refuses to fund it. There was no problem finding over $3 billion for a bridge, but not a penny for public transit.
If you want a good laugh, click on the $14-billion Provincial Transit Plan (from 2008) linked at the bottom of that page. Thanks for nothing Kevin Falcon.
13 Bill // Apr 16, 2012 at 10:24 am
@MB #6
“Does funding roads receive as much flak as funding transit?”
Perhaps that’s because the people who are paying for the roads which they use are also paying the lion’s share of public transit which they don’t.
14 MB // Apr 16, 2012 at 10:39 am
@ Bill #13. Please read the post above yours.
Private car owners (including me & you) are a long, long ways off from paying for the public road system on their own.
15 Bill // Apr 16, 2012 at 1:07 pm
@MB #14
In 2008 there were approx 2.7 million vehicles in BC with a population of 4.3 million. Take away a million or so of the population for the young/elderly leaves 3.3 million which works out to .8 vehicles per person. I would say that a high percentage of the population relies on a vehicle for at least some transportation needs so while you may argue that some drivers should be paying more than others, collectively private car owners are paying for the public road system through the myriad of taxes and a high percentage of public transit as well since only about one third comes from the ridership.
16 MB // Apr 16, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Bill 15,
Last time I read it (2001?) there were 1.3 million vehicles and 54% of the entire provincial population concentrated into the 820 km2 non-green zone in Metro Vancouver.
Moreover, the city of Vancouver covered 30% (~35 km2) of its entire land base with a public road system (not including private parkades and driveways) to serve private cars, which comprise 72% of the number of vehicles out there, over 80% of them with a single occupant.
It’s a lot higher than 30% in some suburbs.
Clearly, a huge amount of public resources flow into the deep black hole of car dependency, and yet, as iterated by people who have actually done the math, we’re left $2,700 short for each car driver every year.
Moreover, the same people calculated the cost of congestion on the economy at $5 billion a year. That’s a lot of commercial truckers caught in the miles of crawling cars on the roads.
If you’re a pro-private sector and low-tax kinda guy, then why not get behind smart growth principles and promote the vastly lower per capita tax draw and public subsidies of transit-oriented development?
17 MB // Apr 16, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Sorry, no time to find the reference links for the above stats, but I believe the Metro Vancouver stats pages have them.
18 Bill // Apr 16, 2012 at 3:22 pm
@MB #16
19 Bill // Apr 16, 2012 at 3:40 pm
@mb#16
The reference for the 2.7 million vehicles is from Stats Canada – http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/statcan/53-223-X/53-223-x2009000-eng.pdf and is for all of British Columbia.
The flaw in your argument is that you treat car drivers as a minority that is being subsidized by the majority. My point is that car drivers (and passengers) represent a high majority of the taxpayers – they generate the public resources that are used to support the road network and contribute a high percentage of the resources for public transit which they may not be using.
Now you can argue that collectively we are wasting resources but it is the people who create those resources that are making that decision. They are spending the wealth they created and not “public resources”.
20 Chris Porter // Apr 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Why is there a perception that the car-driving majority doesn’t receive any benefits from investments in alternate transportation forms? I wish it would go away.
I think we need a “Drive a Car to Work Day” when all the people who normally walk, bike, ride the bus, or car-pool to work all drive a single occupancy vehicle on all those great roads their taxes are paying for. Then maybe car commuters would appreciate that investments in public transit (and bike lanes) allow them to get around faster.
21 Bill // Apr 16, 2012 at 4:50 pm
@Chris Porter #20
People who are walking, riding the bus, car pooling now are making that choice based on what works for them economically and no one is forcing them. I don’t have any problem with investing in public transit but I do object to the attitude it should be a blank cheque based on bogus claims that drivers are subsided or that we need to save the planet from greenhouse gases. Make the case that we all benefit from the investment in public transit rather than demonizing drivers.
Leave a Comment