As Predicted By Rail for the Valley, TransLink’s Financial Fiasco
Nothing shocking at all, as TransLink’s financial failure has been long known to those who understand all things transit. As predicted, TransLink is running head long into a financial wall.
The villains in this tawdry two-penny play is politcal interference, corruption, ennui, and the SkyTrain light-metro system.
Currently the province (that is the taxpayer) is spending over $11 billion just to extend the Expo and Millennium Lines a mere 21.7 km, using the obsolete Movia Automatic Light Metro (MALM) system (erroneously called SkyTrain, which is the name of the regional light-metro system) and using the equally obsolete philosophy of building a heavy rail metro as a light-metro (the Canada Line).
Score; only seven of the former mentioned system have been built since the 1970’s, with now only six still in operation and only one of the latter being built by the Gordon Campbell government.
Both are hugely expensive for what they do; both have failed in attracting the motorist from the car.
Why do you think no one has copied Vancouver’s transit planning?
To quote my grade two teacher, “I will give you three guesses and the first two don’t count”.
The proprietary trains used on the Expo and Millennium Lines are very expensive to operate and maintain. The Canada Line, internationally, is viewed as a classic transit “White Elephant“.
Building light-metro on two routes that have nowhere near the ridership to justify the construction; the Broadway subway and the Expo Line extension to Langley, is sending TransLink into a fiscal black hole.
Backed by the NDP government, Metro Vancouver, and the largely incompetent Mayor’s Council on Transit has now forced TransLink into a no win situation.
This is why the province hired an American spin doctor, Kevin Quinn as CEO, to massage the truth to the taxpayer as he did in his previous employ in Baltimore, “…….. where ridership was off (before pandemic) 2% year over year since he took over.“
Remember, almost 62% of the regional population voted no for more funding for TransLink in the 2015 plebiscite and in 2024, even though ridership is up, due to population increase, the actual percentage of population using transit is dropping and is now hovering around 10%. This is a vote of non-confidence that all levels of government is deaf to.
As the province and Metro mayors continue to operate what is largely a 1970’s transit system they fail to recognize than in the 2020’s, demographic and workplace change, makes the extremely inflexible SkyTrain and its equally inflexible “hub and spoke” (where buses feed transit customers to SkyTrain hubs) philosophy obsolete.
In the 21st centruy, successful transit systems are customer oriented and user-friendly; designed to service where transit customers want to go, in a seamless or no-transfer journey.
Sadly user-friendliness is not in TransLink’s, Metro mayors or Premier Eby’s lexicon and throwing more and more money into a transit system, regarded as “toxic” by the taxpayer, will enrage voters at election time.
Shocking transit report reveals large-scale cuts threatening Metro Vancouver
West Coast Express faces potential elimination, along with bus service to entire communities
Metro Vancouver’s transit system is on the precipice of some of the steepest service cuts in its history, leaving entire communities without bus service and stranding the most vulnerable passengers, unless the provincial and federal governments step up with additional funding, according to a new report to be released today.
The “” will land with a thud on the desks of the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation this morning — as it will on the campaign trail in this fall’s provincial election, where the document seems intended to whip up a flurry of debate over transit funding.
“Due to the magnitude of the financial gap, transit reductions would be in the range of 45-50 per cent overall and include elimination of entire routes plus significant reductions in frequency and start/end times of service,” reads the report.
“This would include cancelling approximately 145 bus routes, significantly reducing SkyTrain, SeaBus and HandyDART service, and potentially eliminating the West Coast Express. Funding for walking, cycling, and roads programs would also be cut.”
TransLink says it is $600 million short in annual operating funding for 2026.
The current funding model is failing to keep up with inflationary pressures on the system, due to the fact fare increases are held artificially low to ensure affordability for passengers and fuel tax revenue is in decline as motorists switch to electric vehicles, reads the report.
The B.C. government had offered increased financial aid to TransLink in the past, most recently during the COVID-19 pandemic, but that money is set to end in 2025.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a new $3-billion transit fund earlier this month, but the funding is earmarked for building new lines and not funding operational costs of existing systems. Premier David Eby has complained Ottawa did not consult B.C. on its transit needs before creating the new program.
The report will likely spur significant debate during the upcoming provincial election campaign and influence how political parties structure their party platforms on transit funding.
The new TransLink report suggests cuts first be made in expansion and upgrade planning, customer outreach and municipal planning divisions, which would save $175 million annually. Add to that a $41-million cut to operations and maintenance payments to local governments for things like road safety and bike infrastructure, and the total funding gap shrinks to $365 million annually.
“There are no positive, easy or correct ways to cut $365M from transit operations,” read the report.
“At that scale, it is not possible to simply reduce costs by lowering frequency or span of service. We would need to eliminate entire routes, as well as reduce frequencies and span of service on all remaining routes.”
The report proposes two alternatives for cuts to the region’s 230 current transit routes.
Under the first, TransLink would cut 45 per cent of bus service, focusing on the least productive routes first and saving those that have the highest ridership in Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond and central Surrey.
“Much of the rest of the region would be left with little to no transit access – particularly in the Northeast, Langley, White Rock, South Delta, and much of the North Shore,” reads the report.
“Remaining routes would likely carry higher overall system ridership, given relatively higher service levels.”
In this scenario, 15 per cent of SeaBus service would be cut, ending service an hour earlier and reducing peak frequency on weekdays to 15 minutes. The Expo-Millennium SkyTrain line would see a 10-per-cent service cut, and the West Coast Express would drop from five to three round trips per day.
Under the second option, TransLink would cut bus service 50 per cent (in the process eliminating more than 65 per cent of its actual routes) with the aim to retain reduced service for as much of the region, geographically, as possible.
It would mean steeper cuts to SeaBus, at 30 per cent, bumping service to 30-minute windows outside of weekday peak time, a 30 per cent cut to Expo-Millennium SkyTrain service and the complete elimination of the West Coast Express train.
In both scenarios, HandyDART service for those with disabilities would be slashed 35 per cent and be limited to medical trips, cutting off most day programs, education trips and other service for those with mobility issues.
The report notes the bus service reductions hit lower-income people the hardest, as well as visible minorities, youth and seniors. The changes would mean as much as one-third of those residents no longer live within walking distance to transit, according to the report.
“On the transit routes that remain, overcrowding would significantly worsen,” read the report.
“Late-night shift workers and those using transit later in the evening or early morning would have very limited or no transit option as service would end as early as 8 p.m. on some routes.”
The Mayors’ Council has warned transit cuts would have a dramatic impact on the region, at a time of rapidly growing population, but are not avoidable without financial assistance from the provincial and federal governments.
Rob Shaw has spent more than 16 years covering B.C. politics, now reporting for CHEK News and writing for Glacier Media. He is the co-author of the national bestselling book A Matter of Confidence, host of the weekly podcast Political Capital, and a regular guest on CBC Radio.
They knew this was coming! They’re blaming the federal government for not adapting their local transit funding model in time. Seriously Translink!
The first big problem is mainly a problem of forcing electric battery technology on the public before it was really ready to be used.
1.This cut production in gasoline and diesel powered vehicles thus simultaneously driving up their cost and forcing the big auto companies to have to close and retool many of their production lines.
2. The public didn’t like the high cost of purchasing EV’s and the complete lack of charging facilities and thus sales of EV’s have dropped. Due to the time and cost, automakers were unable to quickly switch back their production lines , even temporarily, to increase fossil fuel vehicle production. So the big car companies are stuck.
3. Transit agencies prematurely began to purchase battery electric buses in large numbers. Unfortunately they take a long time to charge thus requiring the transit agencies to buy 30% more electric buses compared to diesel buses.
4. Battery Electric buses are twice the price of the diesel buses.
A certain transit agency in B.C. knew their funding model overly relied on gas taxes and were heavily dependent on the fare revenue of people being required to commute to work by transit. They had years of warning and did nothing to promote or enlarge the number of non commuting transit riders or workers who don’t work in the traditional Monday to Friday 9 to 5 rider category. Something both Montreal and Toronto have long tried to concentrate on because even before Covid the proportion of Monday to Friday 9 to 5 workers on transit was dropping. Still they, Translink did nothing to change their funding model.
Translink’s projected $600 million/year deficit in 2025 is similar to Montreal Transit’s $560 million deficit in 2025. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/public-transit-agencies-funding-1.7249923 ).
There are more general reasons for the crisis in Vancouver than Translink and LIM trains.
Zwei replies: Yes, there are many issue with TransLink but it has been generally known, but not well broadcast, the the proverbial financial shit will hit the fan by 2025 and the reason is the massive amounts of money sucked up by the SkyTrain light metro system. The politicians tried to blame fare evaders, etc. but with light metro, it is far too inflexible to deal with changing customer demands.
Take south Delta’s rush hour express buses, 20 years ago standing room only, but today barely 10 people on a bus.
TransLink cannot cope with the demographic change and the destination changes now happening in the region and they keep doing the same thing over and over again hoping for different results.
I have been told there is now a general panic within TransLink because the politcal atmosphere is not to levy new taxes and they are asking for “congestion fees” for the region which if the NDP implemented, they would be below BC United in popularity.
Over $11 billion to extend the E&M lines a mere 21.7 km is coming back to haunt Eby and the NDP.
A complete managerial overhaul is needed, but I doubt the premier has the stomach for it.
Mr. Zwei, you miss the point, that the fundamental problem is not Translink and LIMs.
As Todd Litman notes in the July 18 Times Colonist (in an article about intercity transit):
“British Columbia governments spend about $1,000 annually per capita on roads, $215 to subsidize urban transit, plus about $50 on sidewalks and bikeways, but less than $5 on interregional bus services connecting communities.”
Urban transit everywhere in the rest of Canada faces the same general regime of priority given to subsidizing owners of private vehicles.
Zwei replies: Mr. Litman is somewhat out of his depth on this and his generalizations are not helpful. The problem was recognized almost as soon as the social Credit cut a politcal deal with the Ontario conservative government to build an unsalable proprietary light metro system, then known as ALRT. Experts at the time pointed out the huge costs associated with the system and how it will effect funding of the rest of the transit system.
The NDP ignored the GVRD’s warnings of the huge costs associated with the now called SkyTrain light metro system and the public got a 2nd rate system, with low capacity, so expensive it had to be built in two stages.
Today the provincial government is spending over $11 billion to extend the Expo and Millennium lines a mere 21.7 km. and that $11 billion has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is the rest of the transit system.
I also find his inter-regional bus system shtick somewhat naive because there ar no buses because there is no customers to put on those buses.
TransLink is in a transit crisis, predicted decades ago and predicted once again a decade ago and predicted again just a few years ago.
Sadly, if one wants to improve transit and transportation in the region and province, we must almost start from scratch, because the current system is broken; the taxpayer is maxed out; and the provincial government would rather listen to transit charlatans than real experts, with the result, as my old navy (RCN) dad observed,”when you have idiots in charge, do not be surprised at the results.”
I know transit fans get very upset when they hear this. As a planner there is just a cultural reality you have to deal with here in North America, Australia and New Zealand. We were set up as frontier societies and colonies, based on self reliance over government planning and as much as I don’t like it, 80% of all voters drive personal vehicles. It’s no surprise politicians respond to that.
This is isn’t Europe, we have a culture based on profit above all else, especially with infrastructure. It doesn’t matter that transportation infrastructure just isn’t profitable over the long term ever, that’s just the culture and you have to function within that. You can slowly guide it away from that to a more European ideal but that takes time, decades, maybe another century or more, that’s just reality.
As I see it, North American society operates on a several pendulums. Individual vs collective societal, profit at all else vs reality (sorry conservatives). Build or don’t build and Liberal vs. Conservative. All these pendulums are constantly swinging back and forth simultaneously.
Over the last few decades as a planner working in and around rail rapid transit, (including working for Bombardier) I discovered the main issues with the Skytrain technology. Since its introduction the technology’s shortcomings have become very apparent.
As much as people in Vancouver may like the Skytrain, for whatever reason. Both capital wise and operationally its very complicated technologically. It’s not anywhere near state of the art anymore, highly inflexible as well as very expensive for what it actually does. Especially, compared to other rapid transit operating technologies that are available. It’s capacity is limited, it’s not very robust and there are frankly better options used elsewhere. Its further use probably should be highly questioned. At the least, to a far greater degree than in the past.
Lastly, Zwei hates this, transit and transportation planning is and always was 65% a political process vs a technical one, this won’t ever change. IT HAS BEEN LIKE THIS ALWAYS, DEAL WITH IT EVERYONE!
Information about the financial statements of Translink
Revenue sources
fare box in 2019 at 57%or $685,362,000 now 2023 31% or $671,560,000 vs inflation $790,454,192.22 short $105,092,000
Taxation $978,412,000
Senior Government Funding $169,474,000 (Greater Vancouver Regional Fund (GVRF), Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP), the Public Transit Infrastructure Fund (PTIF), Canada Line funding, Build Canada Fund, Kids ride for free and U- Pass)
Golden Ears Bridge Tolling Replacement Revenue $67,268,000
Senior Government Relief Funding $478,926,000
Investment income $192,228,000
Development cost charges $17,301,000
Miscellaneous revenue $19,966,000
And Gain (Loss) on disposal on tangible capital assets $8,085,000
Total Revenue: net $2,626,493,000 or 2,577,834,000 not assistance net $2,147,567,000
Deferred concessionaire credit is a complex accounting concept that typically arises in the context of long-term contracts, often in industries like telecommunications, utilities, or transportation. It represents a liability for the concessionaire (the company operating the service) to the granting authority (often a government entity).
3 increases in operations: wages, contacts and Inflation.
Wages just want to 11% in 2023
Contracts with $200+ Million in 2023
Information is across the board from Parts, Transport, Rent space, Construction and Interest on Debt.
TransLink at 10% Direct Debt Ratio at grade AA.
CONSOLIDATED EXPENSES (BY CATEGORY)
Administration $65,358,000
Amortization of tangible capital assets $259,680,000
Capital infrastructure contributions $76,433,000
Contracted services $257,653,000
Fuel and power $89,420,000
Insurance $24,484,000
Interest $180,455,000
Maintenance, materials and utilities $230,105,000
Professional and legal $45,434,000
Rentals, leases and property tax $37,677,000
Salaries, wages and benefits $886,891,000
Total Expenses: net $2,153,590,000 or $1,893,910,000
Amortization is the accounting process of gradually reducing the book value of an intangible asset over its useful life. Unlike tangible assets (like equipment or buildings) which are depreciated, intangible assets (like patents, copyrights, or goodwill) are amortized.
Five year different 2019-2023
Administration cost at $48.6M now $65.2M
Maintenance cost at $180.2M now $229.8M
Wages cost $697.6M – $882.7M
Expo & Millennium Lines $244.86M
SkyTrain: Canada Line $136.32M
West Coast Express $21.05M
Mr haveacow
1/2 Auto manufacturers got out of the market of producing commuter cars in USA. Not budget EV cars in the market. People are waiting for them to be second hand.
3. Nova bus LFSE+ downtime 19-21% in service 18 hours.
4. CMBC turn a key solution Nova Bus and Siemens Mobility. Installation of chargers and battery package.
9-5 CMBC and BCRTC 4 service adjustments a Year. Season Route to major destinations and Special events services(like:Celebration of Light). Translink is required to manage overcrowding with equipment available.
Lacking political will to have new policies towards transit.
The bus is being overcrowded go for industrial areas and secondary institutions.
ART Advanced Rapid Transit.
Half of the Maintenance staff is on rail grinding and rail replacement. 2 x rail infections and rail grinding new Normal ART. One major shop(OMC1) for servicing the cars is problem. Nice to have an overhaul shop OMC2. Reactive maintenance, not preventative maintenance. Hopefully once the new operation center OMC 4 Is online can relieve the pressure of the original operations Center OMC1. BCRTC look in to Automatic rail grinder Train. BCRTC responsible for a 108 km X 4 432 km Rail grinding each year in order to be a good neighbor.
Mr zwei
Most peak hour buses are suspended or discontinue. Additional capacity is not needed.
You are pointing your finger at the wrong institution. Fraser valley, BC Transit and Transport Minister of BC no Long-term planning or expansion.
One last thing.
Real state will be a while to do wrapped up as a staple source.
What’s the possibility of congestion pricing?
And what’s the possibility of annual vehicle charge?
Zwei replies: I disagree with some of your conclusions, except for congestion charging and an annual vehicle charge. They are coming because of the proliferation of electric cars, there is no fuel tax to be had and the government needs the revenue.
Your mention of peak hour buses being canceled doesn’t make much sense because peak hour services only operate in the peak hour. If Translink ceases all peak hour services, watch for a complete collapse of ridership, which means a complete collapse of any sort of funding and the collapse of the SkyTrain light metro system. Translink is like a house of cards, take one card out and the hose collapses.
You don’t get rid of peak hour buses unless ridership has dropped, like most cities in Canada and the USA, North American cities are averaging on 65%-75% of pre Covid ridership. The vast majority of the ridership drop is during the AM and PM peak periods.
(Data from CUTA & APTA)
Most transit services deploy 55% to 65% of all daily bus movements during the traditional AM peak and PM peak. What smart cities try to do is capture market share of passengers during non peak hours by redeploying buses that would have been deployed in the peak hours before 2020’s into the afternoon or evening services and or daytime peak hour service on weekends. Toronto by the way has a Saturday and Sunday AM and PM peak hour need, a Saturday and Sunday rush hour. Montreal noticed similar growth as well and responded with more service..
The traditional Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm full time job has been on the decline compared to part and full time job growth in non traditional hours/days since the 1990’s. This isn’t a new phenomenon. What the TTC, GO Transit, EXO & STCUM discovered was supplying these alternative time periods with service grew ridership using existing equipment that wasn’t being used. You just have to be very sensitive to it. Translink isn’t sensitive to this, instead of big user surveys that, rarely get filled out correctly anyway by the public. During the 2008 to 2012 era the TTC simply asked their operators to ask their neighbors, friends and families, when they actually worked. Certain similar days and times kept consistently appearing That information was then brought together with new service schedules. Very cheaply and easily the TTC greatly increased non traditional ridership.
Electric Battery buses cost double the cost of a diesel bus. The federal government money that transit agencies have been using to cover the increased purchase cost of electric battery bus is ending this year. The new coming Conservative government won’t continue this program, neither are the Liberals actually. You simply are going to have to use some of that federal transit infrastructure money for bus purchases instead of Skytrain lines. Transit agencies are allowed to do this.
The federal infrastructure money tap unfortunately, is slowly being turned off. Cities and their transit agencies are going to have to adapt. It seems were returning unfortunately, again, back to the austere 1980’s and 1990’s. Like I said before, the pendulum, in this case, the federal money pendulum never stops swinging.
How do we get to ‘bad planning?’ The answer is: ‘when government is captured by industry.’
The Skytrain-and-Tower plans are driven by election contributions made to political parties by the development industry. The newly elected governments then appoint industry insiders into government positions, including planning and regulatory bodies. The proverbial revolving door starts to go round and round. For example, our planners wind up working for industry, etc. In BC the provincial government is now ‘both feet into it.’ Translink has turned developer.
We’ll see how all that goes…
Looking ahead to the fall elections, I predict there will be no alternative political choices to Skytrains-and-Towers. The only remedy against this is ‘transparency.’ How about, Transport Canada reporting by-annually on levels of service and costs for all transit systems in Canada? Hopefully, those numbers would balance out the political shenanigans.
Would it not be possible to redesign the service pattern to save $1 million per day? The empty buses are most obvious at night… A combination of removing the least efficient routes and remapping the rest? While we abandon the Tower-and-Skytrain paradigm? Here are six steps to consider:
1. With apps alerting us to bus and train locations, folks can function with lower levels of service and still get where we are going on time.
2. Walking distance to transit should be proportional to population density. In the lowest density areas, folks should be able to bike-to-transit. In mid-density neighborhoods, a 16-minute walk to transit can be the norm. In high density areas, 12-minutes. To put some scale to those numbers, the entire West End is just about covered by a walking circle with a 12-minute radius.
3. Stop Skytrain expansion. Keep it in operation as a very expensive People Mover (which is its true paradigm) serving (with reduced frequency) the urban core.
4. Start building the inter-regional service lines that will allow government to deliver guaranteed affordable housing (GAHP) in quantities sufficient to meet or exceed demand, thus ending the housing crisis.
5. The previous point (#4) is the reason to build transit in the first place: enhance mobility as a means of easing pressure on land values. Economists remind us that the inflation of house prices is ‘all in the land.’ Yet, planners resist ‘building transit to nowhere.’ When in fact ‘nowhere’ is where we can and should build GAHP.
6. Before the peanut gallery starts screaming “Sprawl!!” consider that transit is a key to achieving zero-carbon urban footprint. Most places in Canada & US were not designed that way. Towers are carbon hogs. Today, we can match emission reductions achieved by EVs by building neighborhoods in the regional vernacular (at human scale). Western framing today is high energy efficiency construction. Then, a chunk of what is released into the atmosphere from urban footprint can removed by converting it into leaves, bark, wood & roots in the urban tree canopy. Every street needs street trees planted at 20-foot centers. The air will smell better when we do that.
To a great extent Translink’s problem, and the Housing Affordability Crisis, rhyme: planning systems in Canada still lack of urban design. In Ottawa, Kitchener, Calgary, even Edmonton (and obviously Greater Vancouver & Toronto), I saw ample evidence of high-density projects building in proximity to LRT. When land is allowed to return higher yields by permitting high densities, land prices inflate.
In order to keep land values low, thus avoiding crises in house affordability, neighborhoods should built out in low and medium density products. The medium densities can be achieved as infill, shaping cores fitted out with local shopping, services and transit. High densities should be restricted to tower districts in the regional center, where the big developers can duke it out for space, and be taxed accordingly. If all municipalities continue to build tower zones in order to extract government revenues, we will see no end to the housing crises in the Toronto and Vancouver areas. Further, if tower contagion is allowed to spread, new crises will develop. First in Montreal and Calgary, then in all other major urban centers.
It’s not just the Translink equation that is woefully out of balance. Translink is just another canary in the coal mine alerting us that we’ve taken a wrong turn.