Faster Transit May Cause Congestion

An interesting item from the BBC, especially when everyone points to speed as paramount for good transit.

What the following does illustrate, is the ongoing scientific exploration of public transit overseas, completely missing in North America, where instead, shysters try to sell politicians one gadgetbahnen after another or subways as the great cure for congestion.

Study suggests London Underground may be ‘too fast’

By Jonathan Webb Science reporter, BBC News
  • 23 September 2015
A mathematical study of transport in London and New York suggests the British capital should be wary of its trains travelling too quickly.

If Tube journeys are too fast, relative to going by road, then the model predicts an increase in the overall level of congestion.

This is because key locations outside the city centre, where people switch transport modes, become bottlenecks.

By contrast, New York’s layout is such that faster trains will always help.

Reporting their findings in the journal Royal Society Interface, the researchers calculate that London’s system would function best with underground trains travelling about 1.2 times faster than the average speed on the roads. This makes the optimum Tube speed approximately 13mph (21km/h); the current average is 21mph (33km/h).

Dr Marc Barthelemy, the paper’s senior author, said it was a theoretical study and more data would be required to make specific recommendations.

“Giving exact numbers is a tricky thing,” he told the BBC. “But the fact is that these networks are coupled to each other. Optimising something on one network can bring bad things on another network.”

Transport for London (TfL) chose not to comment on the research.

‘Multimodal’ movement

Dr Barthelemy, a statistical physicist at the CEA research centre in Saclay, France, is fascinated by the interplay between coupled networks. And transport networks, such as the roads and train lines in his study, are becoming increasingly interconnected.




In a report on urban mobility published on Tuesday, the LSE Cities group at the London School of Economics describes a trend towards “multimodal” journeys, where travellers switch – for example – from train to bus or car.

This is partly driven by smartphones and apps which search for the fastest route, even if it involves a change or two. But in big, expansive cities like London, multimodal trips are inevitable, Dr Barthelemy said.



“In London there’s a clear increase in the number of modes with distance,” he explained. “It’s a very clear effect.”

To test how these different transport networks can affect each other, he and his colleagues built computer models based on the exact structure of the road and underground train networks of both London and New York.

Then, they connected these two layers based on the proximity between streets and subway stations. “We create these connections, and then we make an assumption, which is: When someone wants to go from A to B, they look for the quickest path – whatever the mode.”

Using this relatively simple system, the researchers measured various aspects of the “connectedness” of different points in the two networks.

This painted a distinctive picture of how they function together; the underground network, for example, tends to decrease congestion centrally but increase it where the underground lines finish.




And there were key differences between London and New York. “Surprisingly enough, the network in New York is much more centralised than the one in London,” Dr Barthelemy said.

This means that, according to the model, levels of congestion in downtown Manhattan are so high that the city would benefit from faster trains “even if that increases the congestion at some peripheral points – the entry points to the subway”.

In London however, those bottlenecks tip the balance in favour of a compromise on train speed – with possible planning implications.

‘Worth considering’

“Maybe making Crossrail as fast as possible isn’t the best solution in terms of global congestion,” Dr Barthelemy commented.

This study is based entirely, however, on a model which includes no passenger data from the transport system itself – as Prof Michael Batty, a planning expert at University College London, pointed out:

“It really is just a network model. There are no capacities on the network – it’s not really a flow model, like the ones that Transport for London actually use.”




Nonetheless, Prof Batty said the findings were perfectly plausible. “If you join networks together, then you get unanticipated effects,” he said.

“I think the point they’re making is well worth considering.”

The problem of interacting networks probably applies equally to the capital’s distinct, overlapping train networks, he said


15 Responses to “Faster Transit May Cause Congestion”
  1. that guy says:

    Don’t worry. Public transit will become a good “public investment” once the shysters figure out how to privatize it, and operate it profitably.

  2. Haveacow says:

    This is a interesting article because its shows the usefulness of this kind of study, what transit people call “Network Topology”. it was a great course in my 4th year at planning school. However, it also shows the limits of this type of information due to the fact that, the study doesn’t care about the amount of flow or capacity of a individual line. One of the basic things that network topology studies have shown is that multi modal trips are not only needed in cities like London or New York but in any city which forces passengers flows to cover large expanses of territory, like the suburbs in most North American cities. Simply put, the large distances that are needed to travel through our almost endless suburban development, forces transferring (multi modal trips=the need to change vehicles or transport modes at certain places on a network). This also points that the same thing is true not only on transit but, other transport systems as well. That’s why I have always said, transfers do not have to be passenger count killers. If they are efficiently done, they are actually beneficial to the network as a whole.

    Zwei replies: Well the forced transfer from South Delta to Vancouver (and visa versa) buses to the Canada Line has all but killed off ridership, as bus service from South Delta has not even reverted back to pre Canada Line days; there are less buses operating than just before the opening of the Canada Line! A poll was taken by a local group as to see how to improve transit and a vast majority of the people would take transit if they had direct bus service to Vancouver. TransLink rejected the poll, saying it was unscientific.

  3. eric chris says:

    Yes, despite the paradox, slower tram service can be faster than faster subway service. Tram and trolleybus service in Vancouver can be the fastest transit mode from point to point if designed properly.

    It’s hard to find more skivvy and disreputable organizations in Canada than TransLink, SNC Lavalin and KPMG. Spokespersons for these shady and corrupt organizations contend that they aren’t favouring billion dollar subway and s-train lines to finance their organizations in order to pay for their lavish and bloated salaries.

    Oh no, subway and s-train lines are for us, the majority of the taxpayers who are paying for unaffordable subway and s-train lines requiring billions of dollars of added taxes and who are not using the subway and s-train lines, they say. Expensive subway lines and s-trains are so much better than inexpensive tram and trolleybus service which can’t finance their bloated salaries, they say.

    They say, building subway and s-train lines has nothing to do with paying for the $150 million annual tax bill to run the TransLink bureaucracy created to manage the subway and s-train lines. They say, that the $100 million per year bill to taxpayers from SNC Lavalin “managing” the subway line along Cambie Street is a bargain, too.

    Supposedly, accountants who know nothing about engineering at KPMG and are being paid millions of dollars by TransLink (no conflict of interest in TransLink paying to toot its horn) to do studies promoting subway and s-train lines know their stuff. According to the accountants at KPMG during the transit plebiscite which TransLink taxed us $12 million to try to tax us billions of dollars more to fund more subway and s-train lines by TransLink: hub to hub transit by TransLink (b-lines, subways and s-trains) taking money out of our pockets to reduce our spending, stimulates the economy.

    In other words, supposedly, TransLink spending our money (for us) on hub to hub transit rather than us spending our money on food, cars… clothes somehow drives the economy more than if we spend our money. No, I don’t think so.

    “Accountants at KPMG at odds with statistical physicists”

    What is the optimum transit speed to minimize road congestion by transit on the roads? I’m 99.999% sure that nobody at TransLink, SNC Lavalin or KPMG has given this any thought.

    According to scientists in the UK, 21 kph corresponding to the speed of the tram or trolleybus minimizes road congestion by transit in London: “If Tube journeys are too fast, relative to going by road, then the model predicts an increase in the overall level of congestion… researchers calculate that London’s system would function best with underground trains travelling about 1.2 times faster than the average speed on the roads. This makes the optimum Tube speed approximately 13 mph (21 km/h); the current average is 21 mph (33 km/h).”

    Tram and trolleybus service in Vancouver operates at about 21 kph and minimizes road congestion by transit – at one-tenth to one-twentieth the capital cost of subway and s-train lines. As a bonus, trams replace diesel buses to cut operating costs; whereas, subway and s-train lines add carbon emitting and air polluting diesel buses (feeder buses) to transport riders to the subway and s-train lines and increase operating costs.

    While the s-train and subway lines are automated and don’t have drivers, not having drivers increases crime, and TransLink is forced to employ transit police costing $30 million annually. Moreover, lousy linear induction motors used by the s-train consume 50% more power than efficient squirrel caged motors used by trams – for the same number of passengers carried.

    Sand used for the concrete guideways and subways for s-train lines makes transit by TransLink the most environmentally destructive transit mode in Canada. Transit by TransLink is the most carbon emitting and most damaging to aquatic ecosystems.

    To compound the road congestion caused by the subway and s-train lines, Vancouver has added too much housing density along these lines to increase automobile use and lead to even further road congestion – to retard economic activity. Yes, this is what the evidence and research shows – in contradiction to what the accountants and supposed transit experts say at KPMG.

    “An examination (regression analysis) of the peak period traffic indexes indicates an association between higher urban area population densities and greater traffic congestion, with a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.48, which is significant at the one percent level of confidence (Figure 2). This is consistent with other research equating lower densities with faster travel times and an increasing automobile use in response to higher densities.”

    Let’s sum things up: subway and s-train lines are the most environmentally destructive, most expensive and most road congesting. Statistically, it can also be shown that subway and s-train lines are also the slowest transit mode for most transit users who only travel about five kilometres or less per trip in Vancouver.

    “Slimy KPMG”

    Elio Luongo of KPMG is claiming that tax evasion in Canada is protected by our Charter of Rights. He refuses to disclose the names of tax dodgers who KPMG advised to evade taxes. Okay, Elio, whatever you say.

    Who the heck does Elio Luongo who is promoting tax evasion think he is? In Canada, you pay taxes or you go to jail, and if you devise schemes to help people evade taxes – you go to jail which is where dirtbag, Elio Luongo, of KPMG is heading.

    One day, the house of cards for the psychopaths at TransLink, SNC Lavalin and KPMG is going to tumble down around everyone at TransLink, SNC Lavalin and KPMG. That’s what I’m predicting.

  4. Rico says:

    Zwei, where are you getting your info from? The information I have seen (2011 so there may be newer info) shows a very significant increase in total trips/mode share in South Delta/Richmond versus 2009. So basically the opposite of what you are saying.

    Zwei replies: Timetables and empty buses. When the novelty of the Canada Line wore off, all what was left from south Delta were diehard commuters and students with U-Passes. Ridership has all but collapsed

  5. Rico says:

    News flash not only were there massive increases in ridership between 2009 (pre Canada line) and 2011 (post Canada line) as noted in the census and trip diary those increases have increased at least until 2014 with a 7% increase in ridership for South Delta from 2010 to 2014 as per the 2014 bus performance review. So…..

    Zwei replies: Rico, pure bullshit as always. All that new ridership was merely bus riders forced to transfer to the Canada Line. The ridership was new using the Cambie Corridor, but not new using transit. This is the bullshit that TransLink gets away with and the gullible believe. Further, the Canada Line did not take the promised 200,000 car journeys off the road. Oh Rico, how can one increase ridership when one decreases bus services. I would wager the increased ridership largely comes from the greatly used 620 Express, (in summer it is not uncommon to see up to 5 artics for one service dealing with the huge ferry passenger demand) which services BC ferries, which has more to do with high ferry fares and reduced over all bus services to the ferries (the 405 and the 640 used to service Tsawwassen Ferry terminal, but no more).

    A very good clue about how poor transit services are in South Delta, weekend bus service is 30 minutes, unchanged since the 1980’s, which indicates poor usage.

    Go pedal your nonsense elsewhere, the recent plebiscite certainly demonstrated that no one believes TransLink.

  6. Rico says:

    Zwei, the census data can be looked at by census track (but I just looked at South Delta as a whole) it represents journey’s to work. The trip diary represents transit as a portion of all trips it was broken down by sub region, in this case Richmond/South Delta. As you can see whether or not people are tranfering onto the Canada line or not is irrelevant…except one would assume if transfering to the Canada line makes their trip better/more reliable/comfortable they would be more likely to use transit to go to work (census info) or trips in general (trip diary info) and if not they would use transit less. Following the Canada line they used transit more, much more, so obviously more people found transit better than those whose trips got worse. The bus performance review includes all boardings in the subregion so increases to the ridership on the 620 would be part of those numbers…of course the 405 and 640 would have been part of the numbers in the past as well so unless there was a radical change by thousands of daily ferry users I can not imagine it changed the percentages greatly. What is there a ferry an hour? How many used to take transit 10 years ago, maybe 20 per ferry? How many do you figure now? A few years ago I got droped off at the ferry and took the bus to Victoria (9 or 10 o clock ferry) from the ferry there was only 10 or so people taking the bus….but I am pretty sure most times there is greater usage so lets call it 30…heck lets pretend its 100 per ferry. That would be 80 more riders per ferry X say 20 ferries…so in an extreme case (the never going to happen but I am making a point case) you are looking at 1600 more bus riders going to the ferry PER DAY. You need a new theory.

    Zwei replies: TransLink, like BC Transit before used to count actual ridership on each bus route, to ascertain transit requirement. Two years before the Canada Line opened they stopped doing this and for good reason, they could invent ridership figures that suited the need, especially claim high ridership on the Canada Line. Peak hour transit service is now less than before the Canada Line opened. Night time ridership is almost non existent. TransLink loves to count boarding, as that figure can be manipulated at will, the real figure is cost per revue passenger and with TransLink’s cost per revenue passenger one third higher than Calgary,Edmonton and Toronto, makes me guess that 1) ridership is diminishing as per transit operated. 2) TransLink spends a lot more money moving passengers. What is happening is south Delta is that TransLink is reducing service, while at the same time population is increasing. Not a good scenario. You should try keeping your old timetables, they are a wealth of information. By the way, several times this summer, BC Ferries restricted the walk on numbers onto the boat because it would have been overloaded.

  7. Dondi says:

    Zwei: Peak hour transit service [I presume this refers to bus and Canada Line combined] is now less than before the Canada Line opened.

    Important claim, source please?

    Zwei replies: We were talking about peak hour service from South Delta and South Delta bus customers being forced onto the Canada Line. Source, TransLink’s time tables, where there has been a steady erosion of service due to people not taking the bus. Time tables are a wonderful source of information.

  8. zweisystem says:

    Here is something to ponder: The Expo Line has platforms 80m long, which will accommodate a 6 car set of MK.1’s (Max. capacity 450) or a two car set of MK.2’s (capacity 400). Now TransLink claims higher capacity but realistically this is a good as it gets, as higher capacity will delay service, which in the end lowers line capacity.

    The Canada Line has platforms that are 40m long and can only accommodate 2 car trains (capacity 330 persons) and again TransLink claims higher capacity, but this is a realistic number, based on similar cars in operation.

    Do the math (Eric is very good at this), there is no way TransLink is carrying the number of customers that they claim to and this is good evidence that TransLink’s fiscal ills are based on inflated passenger counts.

    Now American transit consultants base vehicle capacity at 5 persons per metre length of car, which if calculated in Vancouver, would mean that ridership is nowhere near what TransLink claims and is one reason why they have shunned SkyTrain and Vancouver’s planning. Remember not one SkyTrain project has ever passed the American federal vetting process, where new transit systems, requiring federal money, requires to be vetted by a panel of experts.

    Now we go back to former TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast who quit TransLink to take a lower paying job in New York. Evidence is now appearing that Mr. P was “sent to Coventry” by senior TransLink staff for his support of light rail, also, Mr. P did not sleep through is math classes like Mr. Factbender and the current Minister of Transportation and found that the ridership maths were badly fiddled, that TransLink could be over stating ridership by as much as over 20%.

    The illusion of over crowed buses on the Broadway B-Line and the Canada Line, give impetus for expensive subway and transit projects, where much cheaper and just as effective LRT were to be used. This would certainly maintain those 6 figure salaries!

    Here is something else to think about.

    In the 1983 edition of Modern Tramway and Light Rail Transit, the last of a three part article by Phillip Webb, titled “The direction of TTC planning in the 1980’s” has many references to the UTCD’s ICTS/ALRT system.

    “it now appears that the most claimed for ICTS capacity is 15,000 persons/hour/direction and that is crush loading.using the TTC’s figure for the working maximum capacity/vehicle for buses-wguch hare the same size as ICTS cars-the maximum capacity reduces to 10,800, less than the 12,000 which used to be carried at times on Bloor-Darnforth by the old pairs of coupled PCC cars with no transit priority of any kind (IBI study). Thus ICTS (ALRT/ART SkyTrain) costs anything up to ten times as much as a conventional light rail line to install, for about the same capacity, or put another way, ICTS cost more than a heavy rail subway, with four times its capacity.”

    BC Transit and the social Credit government knew, that Vancouver’s ALRT system was obsolete before the first train operated in 1985! To keep up appearances, phony ridership numbers have been used since day 1 and continues today!

    If this was done in the private sector, there would be jail time involved.

    No wonder no one buys ART anymore.

  9. Dondi says:

    Zwei, please clarify.

    Of course, some bus riders suffered when bus service was reduced (routes, frequencies and hours of service) or made to transfer onto the Canada Line to reach their destination area.

    Some other bus riders may have benefited, e.g., if the transfer to Canada Line reduced their total trip time.

    And the Canada Line brought in some people who did not use any form of transit before or are new to the area.

    So what is the change in numbers for each category and what is the change in the net number using transit, from before the Canada Line to after its initial Olympic/honeymoon phase?

    It is hard to sort this out from the boarding data. Your bus schedules are hardly a better source of information.

    What additional sources justify your factual claims? Is there more than just your say so?

    Zwei replies: When fewer buses operate, with fewer seats filled, the logical solution is that there are fewer customers. In the 90’s when I commuted by bus into town, it was standing room only, not no more and with fewer bus services.

    TransLink gets away with this crap because naive people like you; both TransLink and BC Transit have been very economical with the truth.

    Because there is no independent audit of ridership, TransLink can claim waht ever it wants to with impunity.

  10. Haveacow says:

    Not to complicate matters but, Translink uses boardings (unlinked trips) instead of total linked trips (linked trips are a better as well as much clearer industry standard for counting passengers), this use of boardings confuses people and politicians alike. The use of boardings has a tendency to inflate the meaning of passenger counts. For example, if I go somewhere on transit and I transfer twice before I reach my final destination that counts as 3 boardings or unlinked trips (I boarded 3 different vehicles by transferring twice). If I use complete or linked trips it counts as a single trip from my origin to destination (regardless whether I transferred or not). The TTC last year had a ridership of 534.8 million passenger trips and 877.2 million boardings.

    One reason that Zwei, gets much lower numbers than Translink, when he tries to calculate ridership is that the inputs he uses don’t rely on boardings but relies on complete linked trips. I have noticed this before. Zwei, the reason the industry still uses boardings is not a conspiracy to inflate passenger numbers to make it look good. The APTA’s public transit fact book, always use boardings because ITS CHEAPER! THE INFORMATION CAN BE GATHERED MORE QUICKLY AND IT IS A HELL OF A LOT EASIER TO DO! IT’S NOT A CONSPIRACY ZWEI! ESPECIALLY FOR SMALLER TRANSIT AGENCIES ITS THE ONLY RIDERSHIP STATISTICS THEY CAN AFFORD TO GATHER.

    Most transit agencies just don’t have budgets anymore for formal complex mathematically rigid ridership data models. Its usually done by office staff at the last minute. Most transit agencies barely have any information gathering office staff left any more. Planers and engineers are usually to busy trying to figure out what will give them the best bang for the public buck, coverage or ridership. One of the main reason’s/advantages there is a big switch industry wide to smart cards for fare collection is that, it is cheaper than having people to do the same job. It also tracks each individual card in the system and gets really good and accurate rate data that would be very costly and time consuming to collect and produce the old way. Like I said, most transit agencies just don’t have the staff, time and budget to do more than just really basic data gathering. That’s is one of the most common contract jobs I get when, I get an actual transit agency who wants to hire me. They don’t pay huge fees for this work, but its constant work!

    Zwei may have a point about the Canada Line and its unintended effects for bus passenger counts in southern Delta however, unless a complex and expensive/time consuming data project is done, its not definitively provable either way.

    Zwei replies: ridership issues have always plagued TransLink and one politician (now deceased) told me that when asked for ridership counts for particular routes in his municipality he was given different numbers each time he asked. Until about three years before the Canada Line opened, TransLink did head counts at main transfer points on each bus route to ascertain ridership and ridership numbers for each bus route were published annually. But this is no more.

    Just on the local news, a TransLink spokesperson said that; “SkyTrain is still on the table because light rail can’t carry more than 7,500 pphpd!” Another email fired off!

    What must be remembered that in Vancouver, every R/T line built has been ordered directly from the Premier’s office, with little or no public input and I have been told in the past that the order was given to make the R/T lines look good for political reasons. Senior bureaucrats want to keep their jobs and the Premier’s wishes were and still are catered too.

  11. Rico says:

    Unfortunately Zwei is not a big fan of sources so I will provide some for you. Transit mode share for journey to work went from 9% to 10.3% for Delta between the 2006 and 2011 censuses (Statistics Canada). I can’t find the time to break that down into trips/boardings but you could use the census to do that. If you google translink 2011 trip diary you can see what the changes to total trips are between 2008 and 2011…but the sample size is smaller and South Delta is lumped with Richmond…very impressive increases in transit though. You could also google the 2014 bus performance review, I can’t remember if it broke things down by trips/boardings or just % changes but the number of boardings increased 7% between 2010 and 2014….note the population of Delta has been growing at less than 1% for quite a while now.
    And for Zwei transit usage was even lower in the 90s according to that well known pro transit source Statistics Canada….

    Zwei replies: Sorry Rico, Stats Can counts ridership on bus routes? No. Oh yes, it is 2015, not 2010. Until Stats Canada actually counts ridership per route, their stats are next to useless. It is ridership on a bus route that is important. By the way, most people I know who filled out the long form, put in politically correct answers, such as claiming to use transit when they did not.

    Here is the problem, TransLink guesses its ridership and uses boardings to further confuse the matter. When we now have less peak hour bus service from South Delta to Vancouver (Bridgeport Station), is a good indication that fewer people now take transit.

    Until Rico actually reads a book about the operation of public transit, he will be easily fooled by questionable statistics. Remember the old saying, There are lies, damned lies and statistics. I got some swampland in Florida for you to buy, the local stats say it is a good deal.

    If TransLink’s brass’s approach to transit is the same as yours, it is of no wonder they are held in high odor.

  12. zweisystem says:

    Postscript: Just after I replied to Rico’s post, I had to take our homestay student to hockey practice at South Delta Rec. Centre, which happens to be the last stop out of South Delta for Bridgeport Station. Time 7:40 AM. The 603 bus (peak hour service only) only had 4 people on board and no one waiting at SDRC, which is also designated a park and ride. So poor is the ridership that TransLink has substituted a ‘city’ bus on the route.

    What I am trying to point out is that you can use statistics from StatsCan at your peril, when on the sight reporting shows little actual patronage.

  13. Rico says:

    So you don’t think the census journey to work mode share change between 2006 and 2011 combined with trip diary changes between 2008 and 2011 paint a pretty clear picture, especially if you include boarding numbers from the bus performance reviews? I think you have to be careful not to venture into Zwei territory for refusing to acknowledge the obvious.

    Zwei replies: I think Rico has made a grand error of logic, in fact ridership is dropping on transit. The census form does not give route by route numbers, which is needed to provide the quality of service needed to convey customers By the way Pico, mode share by car has stayed the same at 57% for over 20 years. What small increase to transit ridership seems to come from carpooling..

  14. Haveacow says:

    1. I rarely use census data for anything other than basic population amounts and service densities, the nature of its collection practices make it almost unusable for real passenger transit data. One report every 5 years is not a great basis.

    2. Trip diaries are better but they also have their shortcomings because they are rarely uniform from period to period beyond 2-3 years they become unreliable because the information they seek is generally subjectively collected and how it is catalogued. The processing of travel diaries leaves a lot answers subjected by different people doing it in different ways. This is a common problem of travel diaries.

    3. The best data is from machines that count automatically (no human involvement) and or simple machines that are operated by humans doing simple counts of various transport modes at transportation plan phase lines.

    4. I have no doubt that transit usage in southern Delta has probably grown over time in absolute terms. Its a suburban area where development is happening. My interpretation of Zwei’s point is that, unless there is a pretty massive and obvious increase in the use of surface transit, any increase can be explained by development or simple population growth and therefore no real growth has occurred because transit was improved by adding rapid transit, according to Zwei anyway.

    5. Do I think Zwei or you Rico, are correct? I don’t know! I don’t live in BC and since none of you want to hire me (hint, hint, hint) to definitively prove the point, I have no skin in the game, so to speak. My point is that, unless Zwei sees really large visibly obvious increases in passenger counts or increases in actual bus frequencies his point will not change. Since you Rico use absolute data and generally approve of the Canada Line I seriously doubt yours will as well regardless what I say!

    6. I have to go now and watch the end my daughter’s Ballet practice.

  15. eric chris says:

    @Rico, we’ve been through the “ridership” by TransLink how many times? On average about 315,000 people take transit currently in Metro Vancouver based on all transit users making two trips daily, and the number of people taking transit ranges from about 99,000 to 397,000.

    Nevertheless, TransLink expects that 800,000 people will be using Compass. TransLink is confusing the number of passenger trips which are about twice the number of people using transit, as usual. “Compass cards are already in the hands of 250,000 passengers including students, WestCoast Express passengers and TransLink employees. TransLink expects up to 800,000 people will eventually have a Compass card”.

    “One by one, Compass card faregates to go into operation

    TransLink lays out plan for transition to Compass card system

    By Kelly “the snake” Sinoski, “TransLink’s toady”, Vancouver Sun Sept. 30, 2015″

    I’m confident that after the Compass electronic system shows that TransLink ridership is not 800,000 people, more individuals at TransLink will be gone including the new PLO or CEO who you could replace with a monkey. He isn’t worth $350,000 to look stupid all day. If fact, he is essentially a white collar criminal funneling money from struggling families in Metro Vancouver to firms having a history of bribing corrupt government politicians funding transit infrastructure.

    TransLink unlike every other reputable transit organization in Canada runs two 100% transit services, side by side. One is the crappy s-train service and the other is the diesel bus service to get people to the crappy s-train disservice. TransLink is able to manipulate the ridership with forced transfers, therefore. For example, the “planners” at TransLink force riders going to UBC to alight from the No. 9 trolleybuses just shy of UBC to: board the 99 B-Line to reach UBC.

    That’s odd; what reason could the planners at TransLink have to do this? Could it be to inflate ridership, slowing the commute for the hapless riders forced to take the crappy 99 B-Lines?

    “However, TransLink is unique in using that number — both TTC and STM use “revenue passengers.” STM doesn’t even make “boarded passenger” counts public. Dermod Travis, executive director of IntegrityBC, questioned why TransLink would use a different term. He said… TransLink’s rationale is illogical.”

    “If you are using different measures, people will naturally feel that you’re doing it because you don’t want to be compared,” he said. “If you don’t want to be compared it’s because you don’t think you’ll measure up.”

    Dermod Travis is telling us, in a nice way, that TransLink is cooking the books to distort reality about the number of people taking transit by TransLink. TransLink can’t be trusted – surprise.

    Breaking news: duck calling creep spotted on s-train. “Suspect is described as a white male, 49-years-old and standing 5-feet, 10-inches tall [Rico?]. He has a medium build, bald, longer grey goatee, and was seen wearing a black long-sleeved shirt with a large cross on the back and the word CHOPPER written across the front.”

    Boom. Here comes the boom.

    Rico, get yourself a cool Triumph motor bike. If you don’t ride motorcycles and are too “afraid”, stick it, Mick Jagger doesn’t do s-train commercials for duck calling creeps.