TransLink’s Ridership Bamboozle Continues

 

TransLink continues it ongoing program to bamboozle the public and politicians with their patented ridership bumf.

Boarding’s are up 4%, really?

Maybe, but boarding’s do not equate into actual higher actual ridership numbers, especially with the 130,000, $1.00 a day, ride at will U-Passes distributed to post secondary students.

Simply put, those 130,000 U-Pass customers, which TransLink does not keep track of, are making multiple boarding’s daily, skewing ridership numbers.

TransLink has a powerful tool in calculating ridership and it is called the Compass Card and with the compass Card, TransLink knows almost to the person, how many people are using transit on a daily basis. That TransLink doesn’t release these figure, but relies on questionable “boarding’s” numbers of old tells me a different story is at play.

Has real ridership stagnated or dropped or merely kept pace with population growth? Only TransLink knows. Problem is, TransLink has “0″ credibility.

With 130,000 deep discount U-Pass fares in the system and many using the the transit system multiple times a day, the higher “boarding’s” climb, the poorer TransLink becomes. One cannot sustain a premium priced transit system on deep discounted fares.

Most Transit customersAi?? transfer from, or transfer to, bus, SkyTrain or Seabus, on a single trip thus a single trip in may see up to three or more boarding’s with a single transit trip in. With the U-Pass, this may increase three fold.

There is also an interesting comment that mode share by bicycle is down 20%, (which, around 2% of trips made, is a very small amount) but no mention of the car, which has about 57% mode share.

What you don’t hear from TransLink is the important story, but the main stream media don’t do investigative reporting on transit because it is a motherhood and apple pie issue and TransLink takes full advantage of this.

There are more hints that TransLink is continuing to bamboozle the public and politicians on ridership, but until more data is compiled, must wait for another day.

 

TransLink ridership jumps 4% in 2016

Vancouver, BC, Canada / News Talk 980 CKNW | Vancouver’s News. Vancouver’s Talk
Posted: December 08, 2016 07:22 pm

TransLink ridership jumps 4% in 2016

 

TransLink says ridership is up 4% so far this year.

Spokesperson Chris Bryan says numbers were originally on track for a 2% increase, but there was a bump in the fall.

ai???The rainfall we saw in the fall, as miserable as it was, itai??i??s driven people to transit we think. The ridership trend was going upward but it really took off these past three months or so,ai??? he said.

READ MORE: Phase one of 10-year transit and transportation plan for Metro Vancouver approved

Bryan says that has transit operatorsAi??smiling.

ai???Itai??i??s pretty good news to talk about. [In] 2015 we had record ridership,Ai??all-time high of about 364.3-million boardings on the system and weai??i??re on track for exceeding that,ai??? he said.

At the same time, Bryan says that boost in riders has come at the expense of other mode shares, particularly cyclists with trips by bike in Vancouver is down about 20% in October, over the same month last year.

Comments

16 Responses to “TransLink’s Ridership Bamboozle Continues”
  1. eric chris says:

    Yes, double counting of passengers has increased by 4%. Awesome, TransLink. Transit use in Metro Vancouver is about 13% of the population, presently. About 300,000 people here occasionally or always us public transit and 2,100,000 people practically never use public transit here. End of story.

    TransLink distorts the true transit use and often bases “ridership” on the working population. How many people actually work in Vancouver? Everyone at TransLink lives on planet loo loo.

    Can’t TransLink update the mode share by public transit in 2016? Could it be that driving is up and public transit use is down? Ridership reflects transfers. Truth is, b-lines and s-trains cause more transfers and more double counting of transit users. They inflate ridership and TransLink wants more b-lines and s-trains to increase ridership while real transit use continues to plummet.

    Bastardized public transit by dysfunctional and corrupt TransLink in Vancouver: in Vancouver, TransLink has deviated from the traditional form of public transit where east-west and north-south transit routes allow transit users to go anywhere by simply changing direction at the intersection of perpendicular transit routes. TransLink has created bus and train corridors used to transport students to UBC and SFU, universities in Metro Vancouver, and to transport minimum wage and deadbeat government workers into downtown Vancouver. Unless you are a student paying 5% to 10% of the cost of public transit or someone working in downtown Vancouver, public transit here is not suitable for commuting.

    If we had trams or trolleybuses there would be four times the number of stops and four times the access to public transit. Blow every last one of the pig-dogs at TransLink to smithereens. They are wasting our money with their b-lines and s-trains. They don’t feel bad about it. After all, they are pig-dogs.

    News hounds gushing over the EGL by TransLink paying them big bucks in advertising revenue aren’t talking about the fact that s-train is unsafe to ride and the hundreds of unreported injuries and near kills on s-train over the years. There is no way to safely escape s-train in the event of a fire or religious lunatic chopping off heads. Maybe, whenever there is a fatality on board s-train, pig-dogs are instructed to declare it a medical emergency, instead. We have had scores of unexplained “medical emergencies” over the years on s-train.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/skytrain-disabled-passenger-thrown-brittle-bone-disease-1.3871178

    How TransLink ever got a licence from Transport Canada to operate s-train is a mystery to me. I see lots of pig-dog heads rolling at TransLink when the inevitable s-train crash with many people on board and no survivors finally happens one day. One of the insidious things about a maintenance error on s-train high in the air over pedestrians and cars is that it can remain hidden for years (decades) and impossible to detect until …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsFs_QQW3us

    “520 passengers were squeezed on board the EGL heading into Vancouver when the minor earthquake struck to send the s-train off the guideway at 80 kph and into the 90 story concrete tower which Gregor Robertson just opened to bring the 90 story tower crashing down on people and cars. Gregor Robertson and his developer buddy Bob Rennie are in shock. Who could have ever anticipated such a thing, they exclaim?

    Gregor Robertson promises a full inquiry! No stone will be left unturned; his prayers go out to the thousand killed. One EGL rider tweeted mayday! mayday! to the pig-dogs at TransLink headquarters before the tweeting stopped. Pig-dogs at TransLink just looked at themselves and asked, “mayday on s-train”? Impossible.

    Trams traveling at 50 kph at grade are safer than s-trains, faster than s-trains (door to door) and less expensive than s-trains. Mayday pig-dogs at TransLink. Mayday.

  2. Dondi says:

    Fact checking the idea that boarding data is unrepresentative of trends:

    From http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Projects/Planning-Data.aspx, 2014-2015 (the latest 2 years this source reports), total transit Translink journeys rose 1.8% while boardings rose 2.1%. For Expo/Milenium and Canada Line, journeys rose 0.76% while boardings rose 0.71% between 2014 and 2015.

    (Defnitions: Journey: A transit trip. A single journey can include multiple boardings (transfers). Also termed Revenue Passenger. Boarding: Each time a transit user enters the transit system, regardless of whether they are transferring from another mode on the system. Also called a Boarded Passenger.)

    So probably the more recent 4% rise in boardings is at least 3% in passenger trips. Not much difference in terms of the trend, and the Evergreen line will likely increase overall ridership.

    And they do report both numbers so there is no conspiracy to fake ridership. Both numbers have their place.

    On the UPass: The numbers I see (e.g. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/translink-losing-millions-to-u-pass-fraud-1.1020644) are 80,000 students in participating institutions in 2015, not your 180,000. A large number if not a majority do NOT use their transit pass regularly, further deflating their share of the ridership. I think it is true that Translink ‘loses’ money on the UPass program, but these trips still means fewer people driving and they presumably nurture the habit of using transit, both which are good.

    Zwei replies: Fact check your own fact checks. There are now 130,000 U-Passes issues. Dondi, I know you are a TransLink shill and TransLink is very adept in manipulating numbers. It’s why we keep building more and more SkyTrain. Until there is a tue forensic audit of Translink, its planning and operation, the truth is hidden.

  3. Haveacow says:

    Eric is talking about the difference between “boardings” which is every single time a person boards a vehicle and a “linked trip” that counts the complete journey regardless of the number of transfers as a single trip.

    What Zwei, and Eric are really talking about is a bias (and sorry guys it is a bias and all biases must be eliminated for true equality) that University/College Students who get a reduced price on their transit passes, because they pay per year or per term on their student fees, compared to the regular people who pay full price. They feel that because they are students and most likely not property tax payers they shouldn’t count as much as a regular paying customer. Also University and College students use cars to lesser degree and transit to a greater degree thus and sometimes for school must make far more than the average number of trips on their much greater financially subsidized passes, compared to people who paid full price. Now I hope they feel that these students count just as much as people but, I’m pretty sure that they just want Translink to say how many of these trips have a much greater degree of subsidy and openly state it, publically. Essentially having to qualify every statement they make regarding the number of people who are actually riding the system and effectively downgrading every positive claim that Translink makes. Mainly because they have lost all trust in the idea that Translink has the ability to provide a cost efficient service or really cares. Which is probably the vote was lost last year. Its always easier to blow stuff up than fix from within, like I prefer.

    Personally this scares me a little guys because whether you realized it or not, you are applying a cast or class level to these students who are people. Their ride counts just as much as yours regardless if you pay more taxes than them. They are trying to get these students into a habit of riding transit as way to build the brand. The younger generations are just not going to drive as much as your generation did, they just won’t. They are different than you. They see a different way forward. Are they still going to drive yes, a lot less. Will some students still see buses as “looser cruisers” sure, but the majority won’t. They want a denser urban environment and they want to raise their kids in a denser neighborhood and see it as a positive not a negative. They have stated when asked they don’t want to live ever trapped in the burbs and spend hours a day commuting back and forth.

    As for finances, remember all transportation services are subsidized, especially roads. Yet very few taxpaying jurisdictions ask for a business case when planning a road but sure as hell scream about one if it has anything to do with transit. In fact in many American and Canadian jurisdictions, it is actually illegal to build a transit project that takes away traffic lanes. California recently changed this law. Although not law in Ontario it sure was an unwritten rule.

    As for equity in business case scenarios when designing transport projects, Ontario has finally made this simple act law for major road, air, mainline rail, marine as well as transit projects. Do you know that when tested, over 90% of major road projects fail their business case, including some of the busiest roads. That is far higher than most transit projects failure rate. You should have seen the traffic engineers scream when the province passed that law. I was with a group of them when it passed and wow as an urban planner I loved that! They are now afraid for their jobs. They realized that they have to learn what guys like guys me, who generally don’t specialize in road designs had to learn in school. How to design projects that will make financial sense when measured.

    Zwei replies: it now costs me over $10.00 for a return trip to Vancouver; it costs a U-Pass holder $1 for unlimited travel that day. Something is terribly wrong. As the cheap fare students crowd the transit system, it is pushing the full fare customers to rethink transit use. I think the full fare customer has been made second class. As for ridership, TransLink could tell us daily the number of riders who use the system, by counting the use of the Compass Card and forget about boarding’s. They won’t and I wonder why?

  4. Dondi says:

    You are correct. My 80,000 number was out of date. And my apologies to you, Zwei – I also typo-ed a misquote of you when I entered 180,000 instead of the 130,000 you had cited.

    http://eedition.vancouver.24hrs.ca/epaper/viewer.aspx actually projects 140,000 UPasses.

    And http://theotherpress.ca/compass-card-rolls-out-for-douglas-college/ reports:
    “Wave three is the largest step of the U-Pass BC Compass Card integration so far, adding 128,000 new Compass Card users to the 2,300 from waves one and two.”

    So, ON DEC 10 2016, ZWEI WAS RIGHT AND DONDI WAS WRONG.

    But back to the 2 issues:

    Translink DOES report trip data as well as boarding data (there are, overall, about 1.5 boardings per trip). I appreciate you don’t like the the Skytrain-backbone-fed-by-busses system (I personally hate transfers too) but the issue is the actual trend in overall ridership of the system. Do you accept that it has risen slightly in absolute terms, if by a pathetic, near-negligible margin relative to what it should be, and to population growth?

    Or do you dispute the trip data as well, in a similar spirit as Mr. Chris’s above misinterpretation that “double counting of passengers has increased by 4%”?

    And yes, the UPass does increase transit use via a cross-subsidy of students. What is wrong with that? Is that not true of almost every European transit system, or is my own student-travel-in-Europe experience no longer true? We massively subsidize cars and trucks, what is wrong with subsidies in transit?

    Or it is just that when the facts are inconvenient it is best to change the subject?

    Zwei replies: When one quotes from 24 Hr. and Douglas College newspapers, I must laugh. Is that the best you can do? Are the newspapers of record? No. Thought so.

  5. eric chris says:

    @ Haveacow, your opinion is always welcome. I comment here because it is an open forum and uncensored.
    Really, roads are for goods and services for the entire society. Roads are not subsidized because they benefit the “whole of society”. If everyone benefits, it isn’t a subsidy.

    On the other hand, public transit used by very few people is subsidized by the people who don’t use public transit. I trust that you see the logic in this.

    We can’t have civilization without roads. Public transit is for one very select segment of society. To tax drivers to pay for joy rides on public transit at 3:30 AM is perverse: especially when the people paying for it are infuriated by transit noise and pollution after 7 PM.

    Nobody at TransLink gives a rat’s ass about public transit. Criminal organizations are using public transit to take money stolen from taxpayers to build useless and expensive infrastructure for TransLink under the guise of it curbing road congestion. We have a 2,000 metre exclusion zone around UBC to prevent students from parking on public streets. It’s true. So what do the students going to UBC do? Yup, they park at the edge of UBC and bus it to UBC, with their cheap bus passes.

    Here’s the scoop: losers with arts degrees and having limited talent with no prospect of ever scoring a job paying $20K to $30K monthly created TransLink to give themselves these jobs in Vancouver lacking any real job opportunities. They are going to eventually land in jail and people are working hard to see to it.

    Public transit which I used as a student is for people who can’t or won’t take responsibility for their transportation needs. It can’t curb road congestion. Compared to Bangalore, our road congestion has a long way to go. Planning for dumb metro-transit to delay trams which can improve public transit at no cost (take nine buses off the roads for each tram) in Vancouver isn’t helping here:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38155635

    What’s important is free movement of goods and service. Commuting with cars leads to more congestion and faster commutes, without public transit getting in the way. What’s important is how fast people commute and not how much road congestion we have.

    TransLink has gone off on a tangent to try to lure drivers onto public transit which is 20% less slow with “effed” up b-lines and s-trains but still twice as slow as driving. Who is going to give up driving to ride with some crazy who you can smell from 100 metres away? If you have thick skin, you might. The 2.1 million non-users of public transit are too sensitive to creeps and crazies to use public transit.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m just ranting a bit and support public transit for anyone who doesn’t have the financial, mental or physical ability to drive – basically 67% of all transit users. I and most other people will never be a full time transit users. If we had trams, I’d take transit occasionally. I’ll never ride s-train.

    By the way, in the 1990s I paid $57 for my monthly pass to take transit. I received a 10% discount as a uni-student. Right now, UBC and other students pay less than $40 dollars for monthly transit passes costing TransLink about $500 monthly.

    Students here can pay 90% of their rides on public transit to increase revenue and not tax drivers, and TransLink can go with trams to slash capital spending. These are the two points that I’m making. Anyhow, good-day, time to get ready for the season finale of TWD. I liken “TransLink” to “Negan”, who everyone wants gone. TransLink is finished in 2017.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/12/04/the-walking-dead-recap-season-7-episode-7-sing-me-a-song/94824498/

  6. Rico says:

    Wow, great avoidance Zwei.

  7. Dondi says:

    Mr Chris has a point, that every person in society benefits from transportation.

    But that does not mean we need to haul several thousand pounds of steel and rubber and glass around with us when we travel from point A to point B. Clearly, publicly-funded roads subsidize car and truck users. And those subsidies dwarf the subsidies to transit.

    We should move in the direction of making transit also free or at least less costly to use, e.g., by expanding various transit pass programs.

    This raises the issue of Mr Chris’s suggestion that the cost to Translink of a Upass is $500 a month.

    I don’t think $500 is credible. But I did not find any official or authoritative costing of this program, does anyone know where to find this?

    Some quick reading suggests that Translink’s official policy has been that each institution’s UPass program should be ‘self-financing’. Roughly, that the amount collected from all students should be enough to offset the reduction in fares for those students who actually use transit. I doubt this is actually the case in practice but it it worth thinking about why it might be even close.

    My guess is, first, that they reckon this in terms of marginal [additional] cost rather than average cost. Sure, there are costs of adding capacity, but a lot of the additional UPass bums are in seats that would previously have been empty. And some students who use transit will pay less than they did before, but this is at least partly offset by the larger number of users. Any economist will tell you marginal cost is the correct basis for this kind of evaluation.

    At UBC, for example, where UPass use is probably higher than most other institutions, all students pay the $40/month but only a little more than half of them use transit (see http://planning.ubc.ca/sites/planning.ubc.ca/files/documents/transportation/reports/UBC2015-TransportationStatusReport-FINAL.pdf )

    A Not-By-Translink cost-benefit study reports that the 2014 Upass cost to Translink for UBC and SFU was $5.1 million per month ($1.6 for increased costs and $3.5 for lower fare revenue – if I understand it correctly (see http://lecture.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~zkanemoto/U-PassReport.pdf).

    I don’t find this study by graduate students in Japan very coherent (translation problems???), but if these numbers are right they translate into a fraction of the total suggested to me by Mr Chris’s number.

    $5.1 mil*12 months = $61 million, but this is only for UBC and SFU, who account for 40%? of all UPasses, so $153 million if we project these number to all Upasses. (And if you want to include it, the study estimates $2.2 million per month in lost provincial government tax revenue from the transit pass deduction, so add another $66 million).

    But Mr Chris’ 500/month*12 months*130,000 Upasses = $780 million, 5 times more than $153 million.

    If I am misunderstanding the study, please correct me. And I may be misinterpreting the $500/month but if so, what is it’s basis?

    The discussion on this blog is not really about the UPass itself, it has been about looking under every rock for any argument that can be found against Translink’s ridership data and trends in that data.

    I think there are better arguments that need to be made against Translink,

    Zwei replies: Until ridership is calculated by an independent source, like most other transportation agencies, one can question TransLink’s ridership numbers.

    Example: From 1986 to 1992, BC Transit sent out the same news release stating that ridership was up 10%, but never giving real figures for one to do the calculation. After a BC Transit slip, they revealed actual ridership numbers in 1988 and by calculating a 10% rise for 5 years, ridership was at an impossible number, which when presented with the facts, BC Transit admitted. In fact BC Transit had no real numbers for ridership but a calculation that included traffic flows, based on 100 people in a MK1 car in peak times, which was later admitted to be impossible.

    Sorry Dondi, until their is a regular vetting of TransLink’s numbers by an independent organization, no one should believe a word from this massive bureaucracy.

  8. Haveacow says:

    There is an independent organization that definitely vets all the information given by Canadian transit agencies and definitely hold them to task about the information’s validity and accuracy! Its called the Canadian Urban Transit Association. Believe me they seriously go after agencies that give them bogus information in a big way! They aren’t industry toadies! The difference is that they are a private organization so you don’t have regular access to their information, you have to pay for it.

    The reason this organization exists is that transit in Canada is a municipal or really by way of the constitution, a provincial responsibility, due to the fact that the municipal level is not an official level of government under the constitution. With the provinces in control, Transport Canada, and Statistics Canada are just safety and over watch groups not particularly interested in collecting the finely detailed transit operational statistics that people want when comparing municipal transit agencies. The provinces as well are not really overly interested in comparative statistics with other out of province transit agencies, or those in other countries mainly due to cost, not because they don’t want people to know anything! Paying people to collect, gather and organize statistics is very time consuming and expensive. CUTA doesn’t mind sharing its statistics they just want you to pay for it. If you want it those kinds of statistics can me made available.

    Now if you want a public, independent transit only national information Czar, or a kind of “Transit Information Auditor General” if you like, controlling a publically accessible, comparative national transit database. I know of many politicians who would gladly start one. But you have to pay the extra taxes for an office, and staff for this person to do all this. Since no one wants to pay the real cost for doing anything anymore, its never done. One of the main reasons transit agencies continent wide, are all switching to transit fare cards and smart phone apps that do the same thing is that, those systems collect wonderful data about where, when and how many people are going on transit with very accurate results. Best of all, its comparatively, very cheap and can be prepared very easily into just about any form you want. Many things that Zwei complains about is available and I have found it but Translink makes you search hard for it. OC Transpo here in Ottawa is notorious for hording information that should be publically available. They wanted me to file an official access to information request for finding out how many people ride a group of bus routes every day.

    Zwei replies: C.U.T.A. acts as a clearing house for information, it does not independently verify figures. The late Dez Turner was told this in a letter in the late 90′s when BC Transit won an award, but completely crapped out a year later because the cost savings came from deferred maintenance.

  9. Dondi says:

    Yes Zwei, always question the data.

    Including your data claims above for 1986-1988. Please provide sources for readers to check them (though I am pre-disposed to believe that ridership growth rates may have been misreported).

    And can you provide a source for the claim that ridership is calculated by independent sources for “most” transportation agencies? Do you mean that, lacking their own capacity to do this, they hire consultants to carry out surveys, etc?

    1986 is 30 years ago. It would be better to focus on data for the current century. Go to http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Projects/Planning-Data.aspx and download Translink’s Excel spreadsheet that reports data for both boardings and journeys for 1999-2015

    Oops – more evidence of Translink’s evil conspiracy to hide data: They deliberately made it so Chrome does not work. I had to switch to Firefox.

    Below is the data converted into millions. Probably the table formatting will be lost. First is 1999-2007 journeys followed by boardings, and then 2008-2016 journeys followed by boardings.

    Total journeys rose 88.68% from 1999 to 2015 (ave. 6%/yr. not compounded). Total boardings rose 60.36% from 1999 to 2015 (ave. 4%/year, not compounded).

    These increases are truly pathetic relative to what they should and need to be, but they are nevertheless increases. Please note that, contrary to your key argument about ridership, journeys over this period grew MORE than boardings.

    Hopefully the wealth of data enabled by the Compass Card will be released soon. But when those ‘facts’ are inconvenient will you dismiss them too?

    TransLink Conventional Transit Ridership 1999-2015 (millions)

    Journeys 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

    Bus 97.05 98.60 62.56 94.91 105.54 114.61 117.02 119.91
    SeaBus 2.68 2.86 1.74 2.49 2.45 2.55 2.65 2.73
    Expo & Millenium Line 24.55 25.93 29.71 29.45 33.90 36.60 38.15 40.37
    Canada Line – – – – – – – –
    West Coast Express* 1.63 1.73 0.17 1.74 1.74 1.83 1.89 2.06
    Total Conventional Journeys 125.92 129.12 94.17 128.58 143.63 155.59 159.71 165.07
    * Includes Train and TrainBus

    Boardings

    Bus 175.78 176.01 112.31 167.06 186.86 201.76 202.31 205.83
    SeaBus 5.10 5.47 3.31 4.71 4.64 4.85 5.02 5.19
    Expo & Millenium Line 43.63 46.30 43.39 52.04 62.05 65.00 66.29 69.46
    Canada Line – – – – – – – –
    West Coast Express* 1.82 1.93 1.90 1.93 1.93 2.03 2.10 2.29
    Total Conventional Boardings 226.32 229.70 160.91 225.75 255.48 273.65 275.72 282.77
    * Includes Train and TrainBus

    TransLink Conventional Transit Ridership 1999-2015 (millions)
    Journeys 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

    Bus 124.82 129.23 129.66 135.21 147.42 151.86 148.40 149.10 152.71
    SeaBus 2.84 2.91 3.04 3.55 3.43 3.41 3.38 3.34 3.41
    Expo & Millenium Line 42.13 44.24 44.24 47.05 50.48 50.48 49.68 49.82 49.90
    Canada Line – – 8.61 29.19 28.29 29.41 28.90 28.93 29.45
    West Coast Express* 2.28 2.41 2.36 2.50 2.25 2.30 2.20 2.10 2.12
    Total Conventional Journeys 172.07 178.80 187.91 217.50 231.87 237.46 232.55 233.29 237.59
    * Includes Train and TrainBus

    Boardings

    Bus 214.86 220.66 220.43 220.01 226.02 232.26 227.69 229.14 235.62
    SeaBus 5.40 5.54 5.78 6.74 6.28 6.08 6.05 5.97 6.09
    Expo & Millenium Line 71.21 73.53 73.07 79.22 79.91 79.61 77.02 77.48 77.59
    Canada Line – – 11.39 38.45 39.67 40.83 40.20 40.25 40.97
    West Coast Express* 2.53 2.68 2.62 2.78 2.81 2.87 2.75 2.63 2.65
    Total Conventional Boardings 294.01 302.41 313.29 347.19 354.69 361.65 353.70 355.47 362.92
    * Includes Train and TrainBus

  10. Haveacow says:

    CUTA may have not verified data in the 1990′s but boy they sure do now! They are one of the more aggressive data checkers in the business today, in fact. Those data packages they sell are their bread and butter and a core part of their budget and group output. They don’t want those products to be under any kind of cloud of inaccuracy that would destroy their credibility as an independent organization. Plus there are ways using statistical methods of checking the validity of data so that it is at the least viable.

    The data that Dondi supplied sure shows Zwei’s point about the Canada Line. It may already be at its maximum passenger levels given the severe operational limitations on capacity. Although the West Coast Express also has flat numbers but that is because the limiting nature of their operating agreement with CP Rail and the very low pulling horsepower of its F59PHI locomotives, which is around 3200 HP, or between 6-7 Bi-Level Bombardier coaches. Compared to the earlier version, the F59 PH used by GO Transit but which was purposely upgraded from 3000-3700 HP, allowing 10 car trains, seems rather weak. The Diesels GO Transit replaced them with are the 4200 Horse Power, MPI 40C which allow for 12 car trains and the soon to arrive MPI 54AC at 5400 HP, which allow for 14-16 car trains.

  11. tory says:

    @eric chris: “Nobody at TransLink gives a rat’s ass about public transit. Criminal organizations are using public transit to take money stolen from taxpayers to build useless and expensive infrastructure for TransLink under the guise of it curbing road congestion.’

    - BINGO

    @eric chris: “We have a 2,000 metre exclusion zone around UBC to prevent students from parking on public streets. It’s true. So what do the students going to UBC do? Yup, they park at the edge of UBC and bus it to UBC, with their cheap bus passes.”

    - Subsidized college transit like the so called PassU is simply a set of training wheels. The question is when the training wheels are taken off will they continue to ride? Only those that came out with no job prospects. And eventually when you are successful, get married and have kids, likelihood of buying a car goes way up. But then again isn’t dead-dino tax is really subsidizing each transit ride? Un-linked trips will naturally go up and you still get a “rider” after they drove 100 miles and took the subsidized trip for the last mile. But every bit helps inflate the meaningless number.

    @eric chris: “Here’s the scoop: losers with arts degrees and having limited talent with no prospect of ever scoring a job paying $20K to $30K monthly created TransLink to give themselves these jobs in Vancouver lacking any real job opportunities. They are going to eventually land in jail and people are working hard to see to it.”

    - Do you have proof most of the translink officials have arts degrees? If that is so, then ’tis a strategic move on translink heads as ‘ignorance is bliss,’ and ‘statistics are merely symbols that should be artistic interpreted.’ Whoever hired them is dang smart. BINGO #2.

    @Haveabrain: “There is an independent organization that definitely vets all the information given by Canadian transit agencies and definitely hold them to task about the information’s validity and accuracy! Its called the Canadian Urban Transit Association. Believe me they seriously go after agencies that give them bogus information in a big way! They aren’t industry toadies! The difference is that they are a private organization so you don’t have regular access to their information, you have to pay for it. ”

    - You know of not what you speak. Look at who is running this so called independent lobby for transit manufacturing companies, corrupt engineering firms, and government officials who sell the green transit mantra to ensure job security for the only employer stupid enough to EVER pay them 6 figures. They go after agencies that do not give them big enough numbers to pad their lobbying efforts to politicians. Why would any pro-transit organization hide their numbers, the evidence of obvious business cases to continue to pour money into transit? Because they know the numbers are fraud so the reduce access through payment. You need to pay if you wanna play.

  12. Haveacow says:

    @ Tory, I do know what I speak of because I used to work for them doing research and still do some work for them every so often. I have been a urban planner doing projects like these for 2 plus decades here in Ontario, as well as supplying Zwei with a lot of technical information he has been using over the last few years.

  13. tory says:

    @Haveacow: my apology in assuming your serious knowledge based on your less-than-serious user handle. I truly respect your kind if you are sincere in your words. Unfortunately there is a difference doing research and playing with numbers versus having access to or influencing the hidden agenda at the executive level. There is a corporate firewall between the two layers because experts are typically true professionals that tell it like it is and do not always help the cause if anything they produce is to the contrary. Your types are invaluable when your numbers support the message, but your analyses have and will be selectively used. They do not respect nor care for your complete and thorough understanding. You must be aware of this having lived this field for over 2 decades. Hence why you vent out on these sites.

    Zwei replies: many people use avatars to remain anonymous because they do not want negative comment coming directly to their email or phone.

    I can attest to this because some years ago, in another campaign, I received threatening phone calls at all hours of the night! People into transit know who I am, but many who peruse the site do not.

  14. Dondi says:

    http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Projects/Accountability-Centre.aspx is a new “Accountability’ page at Translink

    It reports that 2016 conventional system *boardings* of 385 million are up a bit from 363 million 2015, but 2016 *journeys* of 233 million are down a bit from 238 million in 2015.

    It notes that changes in counting methodology make comparisons over time ‘challenging’, but promise to soon provide data over time based on a consistent methodology, enabled by the the Compass card.

  15. zweisystem says:

    With the Compass Card, TransLink should know almost exactly the daily ridership (unique cards used) and ridership per route. This information, I have been told is part of the software package. TransLink is stalling and the question is why?

  16. Haveacow says:

    They are not really stalling their probably trying to configure data the way that suites them the most. However you still have to estimate a bit because some will still pay cash and use other forms of non digital means to access transit.

    The big problem here in Ottawa with the Presto 2.0 system was that, we (the public in Ottawa) became the real test case for the upgraded system. Every problem had to be studied to death and thoroughly gone over. The discovery was that any test transit system that uses a new digital fare card system must be a large one. A few smaller Ontario transit systems had tested and began to use the Presto 2.0 system already but until you have a big system to test things out in service on, you don’t know anything yet. What was learned was that, every time the system grows (in terms of passengers numbers) by a factor or multiple of 10, the complexity of the problems and programming issues grows by a factor of 100 to 500.

    Burlington Transit which has 2.3 million trips per year (3.4 million boardings) serves an area of 185,000 people and has 55 unit bus fleet, had a relatively speaking, easy few months installing and testing Presto 2.0. Within a single year everything was up and running with more than adequate results.

    O.C. Transpo which has roughly 100 million trips per year (145 Million+ boardings) serves a city transit envelope of 925,000 and a bi provincial service area with a total population of roughly 1,.25 million, with an 8km long diesel LRT like system, 37 km long Transitway System (Busway with added on segregated transit only highway lanes) with roughly 12.5 km of the system under conversion to electric LRT. A bus fleet 960 buses (down from a high of 1075).

    Starting in late 2010, Presto 2.0 took over 2 years to implement and install, 1.5 years of extremely problematic testing. All of this combined with a city council, the mayor and O.C Transpo screaming, threatening and generally carrying on, behind the scenes and in front of the scenes. All blaming Metrolinx (the provincial transit planning agency in charge of Presto), the province and each other, saying who is really to blame for this fiasco.

    The system works fine now. However, O.C Transpo is getting troubling numbers because the transit system is still in turmoil due to the effect of a hostile conservative federal government (who’s members whom publically, openly spoke of gutting the city of Ottawa to its residents, Oh lucky us) which got rid of 19,000 federal government jobs locally (there were only a total of 48,000 federal jobs locally), a new inexperienced Liberal government who takes a year or so, to figure out how and where to go bathroom and our busiest section of Transitway is being converted to LRT. Add on all the extra construction because the city didn’t want to have major construction works still going on when the Canada 150 celebrations rolled around. Making getting around the city a game of, “guess which stretch of road and or entire city neighborhood is closed for construction today”!

    After all that, guess what, the new data from Presto told O.C. Transpo, ridership is down! No kidding! Results should start to improve around late 2017 and early 2018 when the LRT heavy construction ends downtown and the Canada 150 celebrations wind down..

Leave A Comment