But, What About Hard Numbers?
In classic fashion, a TransLink news release to the mainstream media claims that, “there was a 17-per cent increase in the total number of trips taken on transit from 2008 to 2011.”, yet no hard numbers are used, and why not?
TransLink wants money, a lot of money and how better to groom the taxpayer into paying higher taxes, faresAi??and/or user charges/road pricing for general traffic, by releasing a golly gee whiz good news release claiming a 17% increase in ridership over a three year period; including, of course, the ridership spike during the 2010 Winter Olympicsai???.
Zwei has been around on the transit scene for over 30 years and this claim is just another from a long list of ridership bumf that TransLink releases to the media to counter claims by certain letters to the editor bad press in general.
Ridership claims given in percentages only and not includingAi??hard numbers mean absolutely nothing and until TransLink establishes a criteria for how it measures ridership and until then, any figures from TransLink must be treated as gravely suspect.
More using Transit
Vancouver/CKNW(AM980)People in Metro Vancouver are making more trips in a day and are more often choosing transit and cycling to get around.
The results are from the “trip diary survey” which draws data from over 22-thousand households.
The survey’s done every three to four years to get a ‘snapshot’ of a day of Metro Vancouver transportation.
Translink’s Drew Snider says there was a 17-per cent increase in the total number of trips taken on transit from 2008 to 2011.
The goal is to get 51-per cent of all trips to be made by transit, cycling or walking by the year 2040.
TransLink is being disingenuous. TransLink isn’t lying; it just isn’t telling the truth about the increase in trips. Transit by TransLink creates false trips because transit riders are often logged as making two trips when they transfer from a bus to either rapid bus or SkyTrain having distantly spaced stops requiring the added transfer.
There was a jump in false trips when RAV Line came on stream in 2009, a one time increase in 2010 for the Olympics (as pointed out) and another one time increase with the expansion of the U-Pass program in 2011 (making students who once walked for exercise and to save money, hop on transit since they have to buy the transit passes and have no choice).
Don’t expect any ridership records in 2012, just a modest increase or possible decrease in trips. TransLink knows this and is trying to secure funding before the bubble bursts. Regardless, transit by TransLink is not making a cultural shift from cars to transit. Each year we have another 30,000 cars on the roads and maybe 8,000 new transit users from more people moving here.
In 1999 before TransLink, about 10% of the population used transit on average and after zillions wasted on highly inefficient transit by TransLink maybe 12% of the population uses transit. So, instead of 77% of the population driving possibly as little as 75% of the population is driving – while the population has grown by about 500,000.
If BC Transit were running things, the operating budget for transit would be “$700,000 less” and we’d have another 10,000 cars on the roads (12% – 10%) * 500,000 = 10,000 cars, maybe. This isn’t all that impressive when you put it into context and realize that there are 1.5 million registered vehicles here.
Of course, the media are on team TransLink and have their advertising budgets from TransLink to protect – the truth about TransLink might get you fired so why bother – just play along with the crap from TransLink and profit, who cares!! Right Drew Snider? We are going to reach 49% of trips by car by 2040? If we aren’t there now, how are we going to get there, Drew? You couldn’t even do it even if you gave everyone a free bus pass.
There are some hard numbers here.
http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=7463693
Zweisystem replies: But are the numbers vetted by an independent source, like most other transit systems or are they what TransLink want us to believe.
Most transit agencies have independent audits from time to time from outside agencies to ensure the numbers are factual and this includes independent ridership counts. TransLink has never been independently audited, thus we do not know if what they say is correct.
You can even follow the links back to the source documents that include methodologies instead of just trashing something just because it is from Translink.
Zweisystem replies: You don’t get it do you, the numbers have not been verified independently, Translink can report anything it damn well pleases without fear of repercussion. I would love to see the Auditor General do an biannual report on TransLink, but both the NDP and Liberal governments have forbidden any audit of TransLink and Skytrain by the provincial AG, I wonder why?
@Richard, you are quoting a non-arms length survey by TransLink and reported by Kelly Sinoski who is essentially on the TransLink payroll. While the survey sample size of 2,200 hundred random people (for the 2.4 million residents in Metro Vancouver) might be reasonable, it is no more reasonable than me conducting a random survey in our office employing 400 people.
In my random survey in our office, Joe “takes transit” to work because Vancouver is a disaster without freeways and getting anywhere without a freeway is a pain. He also doesn’t want to pay the high parking fees imposed by TransLink. His wife who is a stay at home mom drives the car instead to visit her friends, pick up groceries and take the kids to the dentist, for instance. If Joe drove, she would do most of this on the bus or walk. So, in this case, TransLink has done almost nothing to reduce vehicle use.
In my case, when I briefly took transit for one year to work, it only cut my driving miles by about 30% (and lengthened my commuting time by one hour, by the way) because I do coaching and volunteer work where I must drive on weekends and after work. So, TransLink realistically for me and many other people does not reduce vehicle use by 100%, only by a small percentage, 30%.
The bottom line is this: can TransLink really say that it cuts down on gridlock (buses cause lots of gridlock on Broadway, too) and air pollution (diesel exhaust and carbon emissions from 3 mpg buses)? It depends on the questions asked by TransLink in the survey. Vancouver Sun reporter, Kelly Sinoski isn’t asking me about my survey, and I got 98% in statistics.
Here is my example of a TransLink Survey.
“Hello, we are doing a survey on the behalf of TransLink, my I ask you a few questions?”
Question; “Do you take transit regularly?”
Answer: “No”
“Thank you, no more questions.”
Result, TransLink is using a base of transit only people and not the population as a whole.
Why not actually look at the methodology….which seems almost the same as surveys I have seen for Calgary and Portland.
Zweisystem replies: Really, does TransLink employees look at surveys for Calgary and Portland?
Been a while since I could find the time to reply. First I am not associated with Translink in any way. Second don’t you think it would be a good idea for Translink (at least someone within Translink) to keep current with what is happening in other cities so they can learn from it? So I would actually hope that someone within Translink is looking at similar surveys in Calgary and Portland and any other relevant cities.
Zweisystem replies: In the USA, there are regular federal audits of public transit systems that have received federal money. In the UK, the National Audit Office (akin to the BC Auditor Generals office) does regular audits of all transit and transportation systems. In Europe, each country has strict audit procedures from government of all transit systems.
In BC, the Auditor General has never been allowed to Audit BC Transit of TransLink.