Eric Chris On “Puff” Stories In The Local Media

Eric Chris sent this letter to a local scribe who works for one of the dailies.

It is worth a read because Mr. Chris is an Engineer and knows a thing or two about maths and indeed, he seems to know more about calculations than those working in the premier’s office; oh sorry, I mean TransLink.

Zwei too, is baffled by the 1980’s rhetoric, about SkyTrain and transit in general that emanates in the local media; good lord it is 2016; only seven of the proprietary ICTS/ALRT/ART SkyTrain systems have been sold in almost forty years; the world has moved on, but not our local mainstream media it seems.

Iai??i??m baffled by your latest story on how more ridership on public transit is going to turn things around, financially, for TransLink.Ai?? TransLink spends $3 for every $1 collected from fares by users.Ai?? More service hours for public transit by TransLink merely loses TransLink more money, doesnai??i??t it?Ai?? On the other hand, fewer service hours for less ridership on public transit actually saves TransLink money, right?

Public transit by TransLink is welfare transportation.Ai?? It doesnai??i??t make money.Ai?? Otherwise, TransLink could list on the Toronto Stock Exchange and offer shares for investors looking to lose $2 for every $3 ai???investedai??? in public transit by TransLink.Ai?? Good luck with that.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Transit+users+keys+kick+starting+Metro+Vancouver+transit+system+expansion/11948064/story.html

In 2015, TransLink had an annual operating budget of $1.5 billion (before the hundreds of millions of dollars donated recently by the provincial and federal governments) for roads, bridges and transit.Ai?? Spending on public transit in 2015 took up 90% of TransLinkai??i??s annual operating budget ($1,400 million).Ai?? Fares from public transit only generated about $450 million annually in 2015.Ai?? TransLink stringing us along over the last 17 years to spend too much on public transit hasnai??i??t spent enough money on roads and bridges and has allowed the Pattullo Bridge, for instance, to rot into disrepair and become unsafe to use.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/5-months-of-traffic-headaches-coming-thanks-to-pattullo-bridge-closures-1.3551743

For the last two decades, TransLink has been spending wildly on public transit for developers to build housing density along its subways and viaducts, supposedly to make housing affordable and banish road congestion. With Vancouver having developed the most unaffordable housing in Canada, possibly the world, and the worst road congestion in Canada, how can any intelligent and sane person suggest that more funding for TransLink is a good idea?

Overhead at TransLink is about $100 million annually. Nobody at TransLink matters and nobody at TransLink does any work: everybody at TransLink is on overhead. TransLink is $3.6 billion in the hole. How many people know this?Ai?? How about you tell them?

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2015/10/27/critical-years-loom-for-translink-credit-rater

TransLink has no way to get out of debt. All that TransLink can do is come up with expensive subway and other money sucking projects to try to raise taxes – hence the call for road and bridge tolls, euphemistically referred to as mobility pricing in order to ostensibly curb road congestion; yet road congestion dropped during the transit strike in 2001 when transit buses werenai??i??t on the roads.

http://www.trucknews.com/features/transit-strike-improves-traffic/

TransLinkai??i??s whole theory that public transit cuts road congestion is flawed.Ai?? Transit buses clogging up the roads and interfering with traffic create more road congestion than they alleviate.Ai?? Road space created by drivers taking public transit is used by other latent drivers, and public transit accomplishes nothing in terms of cutting road congestion:

ai???The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from U.S. Cities, concluded that ai???the provision of public transportation has no impact on vehicle kilometres travelled. The transit advantages were offset ai???by an increase in driving by current residents; an increase in transportation intensive production activity; and an inflow of new residents.ai???

http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/columnists/hold-your-nose-and-vote-no-on-plebiscite-1.1791689#sthash.tOoDnBrY.dpuf

Diesel buses used for public transit spew out toxins causing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases; whereas, cars donai??i??t to any extent.Ai?? While ridership might be high on public transit during a few peak hours on weekdays, most of the time, ridership on public transit is abysmal.Ai?? Overall, carbon emissions drop without public transit by TransLink.

Ridership

On the topic of ridership on public transit by TransLink:Ai?? ridership on public transit refers to the number of times that transit users board buses and trains.Ai?? Ridership reported by TransLink is analogous to ICBC reporting how many times people get into or out of their cars.Ai?? In Metro Vancouver, about 300,000 people out of the 2.4 million people use public transit by TransLink, on average.

TransLink needs more service hours to create ridership from transit buses to the new driverless induction rail transit (DIRT) line in Coquitlam (11 km extension to the Millennium Line).Ai?? If TransLink doesnai??i??t add more service hours to recycle existing transit-bus users to the new 11 km extension to the Millennium Line, TransLink canai??i??t conceal that the new 11 km extension to the Millennium Line is a flop, like all the other ones in the past.

Express service (B-Line or DIRT) increasing ridership doesnai??i??t make drivers take public transit more; express service just makes existing transit users make more transfers and board public transit more (inflate ridership).Ai?? At least, this is what the facts say and the percentage of trips by drivers which TransLink published last in 2011 was the same then (57%) as it was in 1999 (57%) when TransLink was formed.Ai?? Maybe you can find out whatai??i??s preventing TransLink from publishing the percentage of trips by drivers in 2015.Ai?? Iai??i??m guessing; it is over 57%.

TransLinkai??i??s whole transit system based on express service is a hoax as is TransLink.Ai?? Conventional transit with transit buses or trams in regular service does a better job of moving transit users more quickly and economically than B-Line buses or DIRT trains in express service as the attached article by Charlie Smith (a real journalist) pointed out 17 years ago.

Ironically, increasing ridership through more transfers deters people from using public transit.Ai?? Hapless individuals who have no choice but to use public transit end up making more transfers (to lengthen their commuting times).Ai?? As ridership with express service (B-Line and DIRT) goes up, transit use in terms of the number of people using public falls.Ai?? This slashes TransLinkai??i??s fare revenue. Ai??It is no accident that TransLink keeps losing money as its ai???ridershipai??? (number of transfers) keeps going up in number.

According to scientific evidence, public transit by TransLink can be correlated to increased road congestion, unaffordable housing, increased cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and increased carbon emissions.Ai?? These are good reasons to fund TransLink?

Finally, TransLink doesnai??i??t have a 10 year plan to fund for public transit, any longer. Remember?Ai?? It was defeated in the transit plebiscite.

http://www.notranslinktax.ca/translink_tax_defeated

Get the facts right.Ai?? You arenai??i??t a journalist presenting the facts.Ai?? Advertising fees by TransLink to the The Vancouver Sun over the years have paid for your salary.Ai?? You are indirectly working for TransLink and likely would not have a job if you wrote the truth about public transit here.Ai?? So, kindly make it clear that the opinions expressed by you in your articles contradicting reality are nothing more than advertorials for TransLink.Ai?? Okay?

http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/sorry-david-suzuki-you-are-wrong/

Leave A Comment