Stephen Rees's blog

Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves

Regional Transportation Commissioner Reports on TransLink’s 2010 Ten-Year Plan

with 3 comments

I must admit that it had slipped my mind that Martin Crilly, who is the Ferry Commissioner, was also appointed Translink Commissioner as well. That is until Jim Goddard of News 1130 called me and asked for comments on Martin’s latest report. Of course, I had not read even the press release (not being aware of it) let alone the report itself.

While the Commissioner refers to himself as a regulator, his role is in reality somewhat limited, but he does get to rule on fare increases – so the key point in this report is that when he reviewed the Ten Year Plan “approval is warranted for only the first of TransLink’s four proposed fare increases” – but that is just a preliminary finding.

The
 Commissioner
 observes 
that, 
unless 
the
 Mayors’
 Council
 approves 
one
 of
 two
 “supplement”
 options 
involving
some
 higher 
taxes
 and
 fares,
 there 
will 
be
 drastic
 cuts
 in
 transit
 service.

 This
 is 
not
 recommended,
 unless
 keeping
 tax 
increases
 of 
any 
kind 
(including
 gas
 taxes)
 to
 the 
absolute
 minimum
 is 
the 
overriding
 consideration.

Well, that’s alright then. The Commissioner is not the one who makes that decision. The provincial government has set things up so the Mayors carry the can, even though the legislation is what creates the real problem.That, and the lack of support from senior governments for operating costs.

The proposed cuts, drastic indeed if made today, would be much less so if TransLink had not, over the last several years, expanded service and invested in capital projects that it knew to be unaffordable under its existing funding constraints. These investments were made with the hope and expectation that senior governments would agree to bear a large portion of the operating costs, which they have not done.

Indeed, the lack of operating support is not unusual in Canada – or North America come to that. Most transit systems have seen a huge increase in demand in recent years, but have had to respond by raising fares and cutting services, simply because they have not have revenue sources adequate to meet the operational cost of the service. Senior levels of government have made significant contributions to capital projects, but no operational support at all. Indeed one of the interesting observations in the report is that if Translink adopts the “Drastic Cuts” approach, then it has to forgo some of its expected federal funding, as it could not operate the new capital equipment without increases in operating revenue.

There is very little new or surprising in the report. But since the “findings rely on an examination of vastly more data and analyses than have been publicly released” I did look carefully for new information. Perhaps the only thing that surprised me was

There is now available capacity—that is empty seats—on much, but not all, of the bus network which can accommodate future growth in ridership.

Really? I suppose that is because the people who experience pass-ups and overcrowding are the ones we hear from. There are always empty seats at some times of day and some directions of course, but overall my understanding is that capacity has not been available where it is needed at peak periods. Perhaps Translink should release some of this data.

It is not just that Translink invested in capital projects of course: it did not have much choice in some – the Canada Line obviously is the biggest one  but also the upgrades to bridges which had been long neglected when in provincial care. And then there is the Golden Ears Bridge, which we are now subsidizing and will be for some time to come. Which was not actually a major priority except that it was one of the few things that could be paid for – eventually – from new tolls. But the point is that it did not chose the best value for money projects in terms of those that would increase the share of trips. As I have often said, ridership increase means nothing if population is increasing. It is the share of the trips that matters. It was supposed to be 17% by now but remains at 11% or thereabouts. Martin Crilly places some of the blame for this on the municipalities, for their planning and but also for the lack of “some form of road pricing (notably on highways in the hands of the Province) and a region-wide, coordinated policy for tighter management of parking (belonging to the municipalities).”

So it hardly surprising, or indeed newsworthy, that an independent, objective view is that we need better co-ordination of transportation and land use, more co-operation between the various levels of government and a sensible way of allocating a scarce resource (road space at peak periods). I just have no expectation at all that any of that is going to happen – or indeed that the byzantine structure we currently have in this region is capable of responding to independent and objective advice. But I am glad that it is being said.

Written by Stephen Rees

September 3, 2009 at 2:09 pm

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Overall I’m quite pleased with Mr. Crilly’s report. Like you Stephen, I have serious doubts about this extra capacity for future growth. There’s always going to be some capacity because you can’t pay a bus driver for just the 2 busiest hours in the morning and afternoon and there’s a limited supply of people who have the freedom to travel outside peak times. Certain seats simply cannot be filled without society-wide changes to work and school hours.

    I’m currently part of the solution. I start work after the morning rush is over and come home after the worst part of the afternoon rush, but all that is about to change. My daughter starts kindergarten next week so I’m going to be forced to travel in the morning peak and, unless I want to work late, will be joining the other sardines in the afternoon peak too.

    I’m sure our Premier thinks he’s a great guy for contributing to the new Canada Line, but forcing expensive solutions on the region does have serious negative side effects.

    Rail transit construction in this region is like going to your son/daughter and offering to buy them a car on two conditions: (1) they have to pay 1/3 of the purchase price, and (2) you get to pick the car.

    If your kid cannot afford anything more than a Civic, but you insist on buying a pricy European SUV, they’ll be left with a vehicle they can’t afford to insure let alone fill with gas. Your “gift” will be a curse.

    That’s exactly what SkyTrain/Canada Line is to TransLink.

    I have a similar analogy for what the NDP did to TransLink when they gave them the Pattullo and Knight Street bridges. That was good ol’ dad giving you his 50 year old British sports car and then insisting you drive him to work every day in it. As you probably all know, “classic” British sports cars need almost constant repairs or they won’t run. That was another “gift” from the Province that TransLink would have been much better off without.

    TransLink has certainly made plenty of their own mistakes, but their parents have been their worst enemies.

    David

    September 3, 2009 at 4:02 pm

  2. […] cyclists, longer rush hour [The Vancouver Courier] Plugged in (Electric cars) [Globe and Mail] Regional Transportation Commissioner Reports on TransLink’s 2010 Ten-Year Plan [Stephen Rees's blog] Group raising ‘green roof’ awareness [The Vancouver Courier] […]

    re:place Magazine

    September 4, 2009 at 9:15 am

  3. David, what a magnificent comment! your joke about TransLink parents made me think about mine. After college and the compulsory unpaid army stint I looked for a job in a big town. One with public transit. My parents nixed it and found me a job in a small town, a job that required many daily trips by car between the office, work sites and clients’ homes.

    So my parents bought me a car–I did get to choose the model and colour–while my boss paid for the gas I used during the week.
    One could say that my personal transit system was subsided by an enlightened provincial government (my parents) and a decent federal government (my boss. Needless to say, it was in Europe… and this isn’t a joke but the absolute truth.

    Red frog

    September 4, 2009 at 9:00 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: