The Desperate Hours – Basket Weaving Grade For TransLink

The only agency that can come close is assessing public transit systems in Canada is the Canadian urban Transit Association and they do a reasonable job at it.

The preceding graph is from C.U.T.A. and shows that the cost per revenue passenger in Metro Vancouver is about one third higher than Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto.

This makes a lot of people unhappy, especially folks who like the status quo.

The author of the study is a younger Langley civic politician, not a transit expert, unlike the Rail for the Valley group, who engage real transit experts to advise on policy.

A self promotingAi?? transit study to further ones political career should be taken with a grain of salt.

One tires of snap shot, headline grabbing transit report cards, which are meaningless, as we have serious transit issues to resolve. TransLink and regional transit planning is in trouble; the public have lost faith in TransLink and ridership is slowly eroding. Big problems indeed!

TransLink has continually hid costs, (it should not take a F.O.I to get the real cost TransLink pays to the SNC Lavalin lead consortium operating the Canada Line)Ai?? from the public and a thirty year hiatus from scrutiny by the mainstream media has exacerbated the situation tremendously.

This report card on transit is like getting an “A” in basket weaving and no more and will only hinder transit development in the region in the future.

An interesting note: With the Compass Card, TransLink should know almost immediately the daily ridership on the SkyTrain and bus system, yet they have been very quiet about it indeed. I wonder why?

Could it be that they greatly overstated ridership in the past?

TransLink ranks second in national report card of Canadian transit system

by John Ackermann

Posted Jul 18, 2016 10:13 am PDT

(Photo credit: Dustin Godfrey for NEWS 1130)

TransLink receives “A” rating, second only to Greater Montreal’s “A+++”

METRO VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) ai??i?? TransLink is getting high marks in a national report card of Canadian regional transit systems.

Metro Vancouver received an ai???Aai??? rating, second only to Greater Montrealai??i??s ai???A+++ai??? while Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa trailed with ai???Bai??? grades.

Study author and Langley City Councillor Nathan Pachal says there are areas where TransLink comes out on top.

ai???It actually out-performs the Greater Montreal region when it comes to revenue kilometres per service hour. Thatai??i??s how far and how fast transit service travels. In other areas that it out-performs other agenciesai??i?? was the passenger trips per service hour [and] passenger trips per capita.ai???

Pachal says more investment may help Metro Vancouver take the top spot next year.

ai???We saw a huge increase in the beginning part of this century, when there was that massive investment, as we kind of reached up to the Olympics. That saw the huge increase in these performance metrics. Itai??i??s going to take things like that [to improve].ai???

Comments

5 Responses to “The Desperate Hours – Basket Weaving Grade For TransLink”
  1. Dondi says:

    Setting aside the issue of letter grades, Pachal’s report uses the CUTA data, so what is your complaint? That he (apparently) combines the CUTA data for transit agencies in a given region (such as Toronto-Hamilton) to provide a better comparison?

    Zwei replies: He has crafted the report to make TransLink look good, as he uses selective materials. These “report” cards on transit, cities, etc. are mostly done to suit ones own and in this case, “political”, agenda. Politicians should stay out of theses things completely.

    The TransLink model has not been copied and from what I have been told by those whose business is to study these things, is that TransLink fails to include the public and design the transit system to suit the public.

    That TransLink lost last years plebiscite, demonstrates that the public holds TransLink in high odor (and please don’t blame Bateman as he was merely a messenger), yet TransLink has done very little to appease the public or mend its ways.

    In my opinion, this report has more to do with next years provincial election, than honestly rating TransLink.

  2. Haveacow says:

    Professionally these kind of studies are nearly useless because they tend to compare apples to oranges. There are only 3 areas in Canada that are really regional based transit service areas. The rest are just large local transit agencies. Hamilton which is a separate entity in this study is really just part of Toronto’s Greater Golden Horseshoe Region. Giving Hamilton a B the same mark as the rest of the Toronto area is just silly because the spend so little on transit and have such low service levels compared to other cities, its embarrassing. Its very interesting when simple single grades are given for regional transit in this way. The issue is when you do that to such huge amounts of information that these areas represent, some truly large numbers of different operations and experiences all get forced down to a single number. Unless you are very careful, it rarely means anything that this scientifically, technically or mathematically valid.

    It’s very easy for the Montreal Region to get a good grade because they have 3 main local area transit operators and about 2 dozen semi regional and village based systems that are so small there combined totals don’t mean anything because they are so small. Due to the dominance of Montreal’s STM, by using averages (the arithmetic mean value) which is what this study did, automatically means the Montreal region will get a high mark because its main agency is such a large percentage of what amounts then to be a very small sample of agencies. They have one regional transit agency ATM that handles only commuter rail, fairly well but also does regional transit planning but doesn’t even operate a bus route other than 2 rush hour express routes, in concert with the local agencies which are financially responsible for them.

    Toronto gets a “B” mark because the area represented by the Greater Golden Horseshoe Planning Region, which covers 9.7 Million people and has area of 32,000+ square km’s, happens to include 30 local transit agencies and 1 regional agency, all with wildly varying capabilities and budget realities. The bottom 29 local agencies however only account for 21% of the area’s total ridership and only 26.7% of the operational spending. GO Transit which operates Trains and express buses over tremendous distances very efficiently, accounts for about 8.9% of the ridership and about 20.9% of the area’s transit spending. While the TTC (which is representative of only 2.8 million of the regions population) caries over 70% of the ridership and accounts for only 52.37% of the spending. However, if you apply the average due to the much larger number of local agencies, the total number for the entire area drop dramatically. The greater Golden Horseshoe has a total yearly ridership of about 765 Million a year and a yearly operating budget of $2.9 Billion! This means at only 8.9% of the region’s total ridership, GO Transit by itself is moving almost 69 million passengers a year. Does this mean that GO Transit is only doing a B grade job?

    Translink is the only agency in the study which is set up as true local+regional service transit agency. It will do better simply because the way the agency is set up due to the fact that all the little local inefficiencies are hidden inside a single operation. Is it actually a superior service though?

    Zwei replies: Thank you. You put it far more eloquently that I. The main purpose, I suspect, was to gain media attention and curry TransLink’s favour.

  3. Dondi says:

    On Zwei’s reply above: I barely even know who Pachal is, but his “selection” uses standard measure taken from CUTA. Why don’t you address his numbers? Explain *why* they don’t fairly represent Translink. Sure, lets also consider the author’s likely motivations, but ‘facts are stubborn things’.

    As usual, when the facts are no convenient you change the subject, i.e. that the Translink regional model has not been copied elsewhere.

    On Havacow: Pachal’s report does makes the effort to compare apples to apples, i.e., regions to regions. That is why he did NOT separate out Hamilton, he included it with the Toronto region. (I think we could ask whether this is making the comparable region *too* big but that is a separate point.) He does NOT claim to represent Hamilton *separately*, or GO Transit *separately*. The whole point is to instead represent the larger region of which they are part.

    If he really did use an arithmetic mean of the data for the various agencies in each region that would indeed be very stupid. I did not see a description in the report but I doubt you right that he did this. Take Toronto. If the TTC was weighed that same (as in an arithmetic mean) as Durham Regional Transit (and I have endured the latter’s pathetic ‘service’!) there is no way Toronto would get even close to a B.

    But, someone out there who knows Pachal: Did he use simple aver(ages or weight the numbers by dollars or population or a similar metric?

    On the apples to apples comparison, how about Zwei’s repeated use of the cost per revenue passenger graph from the Shirocco’s (sp?) report to compare Vancouver/Translink with other transit agencies/urban areas?

    This graph compares Translink, which covers the whole Lower Mainland, population of 2.4 mil and density of 1330 persons/sq km with the TTC, which covers only the City of Toronto (plus a couple of extras like Pearson Airport?), population only slightly more at 2.5 million, but 3 times the density at 3900 persons/ sq km..

    Mr. Cow, as the appointed transit expert, which is closer to apples to apples: Translink to TTC only (Zwei) or Translink to Toronto-Hamilton (Pachal; 10 agencies, not your 30 agencies/9.7 million people)?

    Zwei replies: The problem is Dondi, TransLink’s numbers are not reliable and has proven in the past that its numbers are not reliable. This is because our transit system is run politically and all three light-metro lines were built because of political decisions made in Victoria, not what would be best for the region, thus ridership numbers tend to be more, than they really are. If the ridership numbers are wrong, then the numbers are wrong.

    If you can read, the graph I use contains “revenue passenger” or basically customers who use the transit system and while we are at it Shiroco Consulting is headed by a ex TransLink senior bureaucrat.

    As for Mr. Cow, he is a Canadian transportation expert who clearly understands how systems operate and how accurate comparisons made, in fact he was part of the Ottawa delegation who investigated SkyTrain.

    TransLink, despite changing deck chairs on a sinking ship, is still held in high odor by the public. This is extremely inconvenient for those who don’t want to change, including politicians, planners, land speculators, cycle lobby, developers and the of course the SkyTrain Lobby, who want to see the status quo remain.

    This study is nothing more than a headline grabber which Radio 1130 fell for hook line and sinker, so it can be used in media bites that “TransLink has a “A” rating!”

    No transit agency has copied the TransLink model, nor have they copied the use of light-metro and in a field where success is copied, it is clearly evident that they don’t believe the numbers either.

  4. Haveacow says:

    @Dondi

    The Greater Golden Horseshoe Planning Region (Ontario Regulation 416/05 Under the Places To Grow Act, 2006)

    This legislation puts in the same jurisdictional relationship as the Niagara Escarpment Area and the Oak Ridges Moraine Area. Officially controlled under provincial control for planning and land protection purposes in this case, the protection and planning of interregional transit projects as well as budgeting. The controlling agency for transit is Metrolinks which also controls GO Transit’s direct operation. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Infrastructure administers the land control components.

    List of 31 Region Wide, Regional Municipality based, Semi Regional Municipality based and Local Greater Golden Horseshoe Transit Agencies.

    Whole Regional Wide Service Base

    1. GO Transit

    Regional Municipality or County Wide

    1. TTC
    2. Durham Region Transit/Pulse
    3. York Region/VIVA
    4. Niagara Regional Transit
    5. Grand River Transit (Waterloo Region)

    Semi Regional Municipality or County Wide

    1. Hamilton Street Railway

    Local Transit Agencies

    1. Peterborough Transit
    2. Port Hope Transit
    3. Cobourg Transit
    4. Kawartha Lakes Transit
    5. Orillia Transit
    6. Barrie Transit
    7. Midland Transit
    8. Wasaga Beach Transit
    9. Collingwood Transit
    10. Bradford Transit
    11. Orangeville Transit
    12. Brampton/Zum Transit
    13. Miway/Mississauga Transit
    14. Milton Transit
    15. Oakville Transit
    16. Burlington Transit
    17. St. Catherines Transit
    18. Welland Transit
    19. Port Colbourne Transit
    20.Niagara On The Lake Transit
    21. Niagara Falls Transit
    22. Fort Erie Transit
    23. Brantford Transit
    24. Guelph Transit

    Currently this is the area the Ontario government also refers to as the Outer Toronto Commuting Zone. All the current and planned rapid transit projects are designed to be connected with GO service at this scale. A friend of mine once described the area as where GO Transit already runs or where it will, very soon. Brantford and kawartha Lakes get Go Bus service next year and Port Hope, Cobourg, Orillia, Wasaga Beach, Collingwood, in 2018. Midland will get a GO Bus connection in 2020. Peterborough hopes to begin the city owned, Shining Waters Commuter Railway Service to Union Station as a complement to the existing GO Bus in 2019, subject to Transport Canada approval.

  5. eric chris says:

    Excuse me, in advance, for the rant which I am about to make. Nathan P. (pronounced “Pee”) is the “researcher” and author of the “report” ranking TransLink. You can view it on his website:

    https://cb8de5fc-a-90652bf5-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/nathanp.org/document-archive/Reports/2016%20Transit%20Report%20Card%20of%20Major%20Canadian%20Regions.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coD5FmdGD0yY2mK41mL14MohUyeM44eQKlk4_w4ZQyDa9USRp5SXoXr7vdk9Vdz3Gq2JzXLT5EesNBaBlF65fPsn1U61ZXqYuLJtRh2DNQpK199haTBUG17kJWc6kPaQ3Cuh1dtTIVqIMQSQvpLjqJQfHisnIPeSyneJdCKp0lf2Ef8y6kZI6hZScx9Oot9SXBWR2JiWQ22N4flubz50J_4fPMI57pwRblxuL1lul8YCkcCwaI290u-XgXpWsTuUgRVJHfHd4BUtC3hes7YJTyZTUEnZw%3D%3D&attredirects=0

    “About the Author: Nathan has been writing, researching, and talking about issues that affect the livability of Metro Vancouver, with a focus on the South of Fraser, for over 8 years… Nathan would like to recognize Paul Hillsdon who provided the original concept of this report, and provided research early on in the process.”

    http://sfb.nathanpachal.com/

    Nathan “Pee” claims to be a Senior “Systems” Engineer. Pee’s logic that high revenue kilometres (per hour or service hour) reflect good performance by TransLink is terribly flawed. His thinking is stunted. He’s daft and if he is an engineer, he’s a disgrace to the profession.

    https://www.blogger.com/profile/17647693133663879821

    Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) moves twice as many passengers (500 million passenger trips annually) compared to TransLink (200 million passenger trips annually). TransLink cheats and inflates its ridership with forced transfers from feeder buses to s-train, to achieve its exaggerated ridership, as well. In 2014, TransLink logged more revenue kilometres per hour (24.7) than TTC (21.7). This actually indicates that TTC is incredibly more efficient than TransLink: TTC moves twice as many passengers with fewer revenue kilometres per hour expended compared to “TransLink”, the doormat of public transit in Canada.

    https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Operating_Statistics/2013.jsp

    http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/TransitRidership.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1

    It is unbelievable that Pee got elected as councillor in Langley and that his “report” was front page news on the 24 Hours daily newspaper – unless you consider that TransLink paid for it through its massive advertising for Compass over one year to inform us that Compass is “coming”. Disgusting.

    TransLink operates s-trains and b-lines which travel relatively long distances per unit time (hour) due to the express nature of their operation. Moreover, TransLink unlike other well run public transit companies must operate many buses every few minutes during off peak hours to facilitate its nutty s-train network which relies upon bus transfers. Of course, the quotient of revenue kilometres traveled per unit time is high for TransLink. This does not rank public transit by TransLink higher than public transit elsewhere; it implies the opposite ranking.

    One more thing, TransLink submits data to CUTA. While the underlying data submitted by TransLink to CUTA might or might not be accurate, the conclusion by Pee that TransLink running lots of empty buses to log lots of revenue kilometres makes TransLink a good “performer” is crazy.

    No surprise, the CBC which hires real journalists and does real news, didn’t bother to report on Pee’s “report” and baffling ranking by Pee whose amateurish analysis of TransLink’s ranking merely reinforces what most people already know: only retards think highly of TransLink. Even “The Vancouver Sun”, stayed away the ridiculous assertion by Pee that TransLink ranks high based on the high number of revenue kilometres per hour which TransLink logs to clog up the roads with diesel buses and degrade the air quality with toxic emissions. With any luck, Pee is a Pokemon loon and will soon be run over on the tracks or electrocuted.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/skytrain-pokemon-safety-canada-line-1.3686859

Leave A Comment