Fantastic video! Many people misunderstand that this isn’t just about paying the higher level employees less. TransLink has great upper management and they are people we want to keep around, but the main cost of the company is just paying for bus drivers. TransLink is not a private company! We can’t just fix everything by firing everyone at their HQ.
Why are we paying the CEO a half million dollars per year if he's unable to keep the system viable? We could pay someone $40K/yr for the same thing. 'Great upper management' wouldn't be driving the company into the ground. If the funding isn't there to operate the system, it isn't there to pay inflated salaries either.
@@suddenlysolo2170 I do agree that we do need to look into some more efficiencies in the executive pay department, however, the CEO has done a fairly good job of managing the system, and these fiscal troubles have been around much longer than he has. Additionally, the deficit is $600 million, and a pay reduction for executives would probably save at most $1 million of that, so either way it wouldn't make a significant dent in the problem.
@@suddenlysolo2170can you tell me where you're going to find this person who will work for $40k doing the really stressful job of running and trying to find funding for a transit agency that needs hundreds of millions of dollars? Mind you, this is also $40k in Vancouver. I know some people make do with that with roommates and stuff but it's not exactly a salary that will have people lining up out the door.
I'm a transit operator, and here is what I can tell you: the job is far more intense than most people understand. Most people think "you're just driving, how hard can it be?!" but that's deceptive. Its much like how if you're using a computer at home for fun tasks, then you go to work and use a computer for work and the two tasks are deeply different and deeply divergent. Using Excel for 8 hours is much different than browsing the web for a few hours at home for pleasure... Being an operator requires multiple skills: people skills, geographic skills (especially true when you get assigned an emergency run for a route you've never driven in a part of the region you've never been in), and driving a huge piece of equipment is nothing like driving a car. You have to be attentive to road conditions and drivers while also not passing up potential riders who may or may not be standing by the bus stop properly, also you have to consider schedule adherence (there is a reason why we can't just stop and pick you up when you're not at a bus stop, a 20-30 second stop makes a difference and causes delays when its done multiple times, scheduling is literally done down to the second on my system, and I have to pass you by if you're not at the stop unless I'm running ahead slightly and can spare the time)... I've not even discussed the times we work, many operators are waking up at 3-4am and not getting home until 7pm. Our shifts are often not 8 straight hours, it severely limits your social life. Its a symphony of tasks that have to come together smoothly, it isn't 'just driving' for work. Every penny of our union contract is earned, I can guarantee you! :) Not an easy job. I also happen to be a transit and urban enthusiast, I think we need more people out of cars and in buses and trains, and they need to be doing it by choice not because they feel too poor... The key to any good transit service is having operators who know the routes, who can stay with the company, and are respected. The workers really are the key to the entire thing. If you have unhappy workers and high turnover, then you're going to have a miserable transit service. And yes, when they don't have staff, that means they're going to run fewer buses on a route and you're going to get service delay. Staffing is always key. In so far as budget shortfalls go, not to get too political, but we're living in late stage capitalism. Everything seems to be crisis. No funding for anything, supposedly... And not enough people are thinking about economic structural changes we need to avoid everything being in 'constant crisis' mode. Given our current realities: I think the key here is to get higher levels of government more involved in funding and get operations funding away from just municipal level sources. You aren't going to get a better transit system by relying on your property tax base. We have to ensure the feds have the cash to get more involved in regular operations and not just one time capital projects. Here's what I've learned in my experience: if you have a bus and train service that operates every 30 minutes or less, you'll get a few more riders of choice that want to leave the car at home. If you have buses that run frequency of 45 mins to an hour and end service at 8pm, you'll only get destitute people who just cannot afford or operate cars, you'll never have a competitive transit use in your city and region. If you have buses and trains that are running better than 10 minute frequency, with service ending after midnight and that starts back up at 5am. you'll get a healthy amount of riders of choice and make it competitive with cars. People start to have real choice with proper investment into transit, they will eventually choose to get on transit when service is properly run at 10 minute or better frequency. So you really do need frequency to be in that 10 minutes (or less) category to get people out of cars. This is going to take an investment into people (operators like myself) and the equipment to get it done. We have choices to make. But, that's just my opinion. P.S. One thing I really like about Vancouver is that the city has maintained its trolleybus infrastructure. We need to bring trolleybuses back here in Toronto, and all systems globally. It is crazy that in this day and age trolleybuses haven't been prioritized. We talk about climate change, there is nothing more green than a healthy, vast trolleybus network that operates on catenary wires. No batteries required, power straight from the grid, with endless range beyond even what diesel buses can do. Why we aren't doing this is beyond me. So far as I can tell, the transit agency I work for has only spoken about investments in battery electric buses with fairly limited range. Trolleybuses were around over a hundred years ago, and we don't seem capable of putting this reliable technology back in service with updated equipment that is faster, more comfortable, and has things like WiFi included for convenience. Our decision makers are stuck in greenwashing: talking about the urgency ALL THE TIME, without any tangible acts to improve things. Trolleybuses - in my humble opinion - are 100% key to a green future. You cannot build a green bus grid without them. There's zero talk in Canada or the US about significantly bringing this technology back in mass use. I suppose its immaterial, because they'll all tell us they can't afford it. That is, after they budget ample cash for bombs and guns for some far away war that has no point... Its sad, really. Greenwashing is infuriating when we could be building trolleybus networks here, today, for the future we need. Oh, and @1:09 it is hilarious seeing that a middle sized Canadian city like Edmonton (not even 2 million people yet) beats out Boston, a major top American metropolitan area, in transit usage. Boston has a dense urban core, has an urban regional population of about 5 million, is roughly in the top 10 American cities in this ranking, yet it can't get people out of cars?!? American cities suffer from a lot of that 45 min-1 hour bus frequency problem away from the primary rail lines, which makes people not choose transit. Its as clear as a clear sky blue day and yet so many agencies never fix a fundamental problem with lack of bus frequency. The problem in the US is even more distinct than in Canada, this has been a problem for decades. The damage is beyond done, there are now generations of people who have grown up not even considering a bus and literally don't even know how to use a bus or transit service. I suppose its a chicken or the egg syndrome, and its going to be a long time for change.
Simple proof: the lack of new people applying for the job. I don't want to do it, even with the pay. So, we could TRY to find ways to make the job suck less. Then we wouldn't need to pay so much.
Great insights. Though on the last point, the number of riders between US and Canadian cities are per capita and they are not the same as direct riding population. Been living in the Vancouver area most of my life and I have never thought too much of the transit system here, until I spent some time elsewhere and came back to realize how incredible the breadth & span of the system is (compared to the rest of North America, that is); I used the public transit system extensively for the first time on my first day back from YVR airport all the way to a rather remote corner of Maple Ridge.
You guys didn't go over the part where there are tons of people riding for free. I see people jumping over the turnstiles on the skytrain and crackheads just walking onto the bus. They would see a massive increase in revenue if they simply made everyone pay.
@@MrDwightsimon Vancouver has a fare evasion rate of less than 10%, one of the lowest in the world. It would cost more money to hire the enforcement officers than it costs now in lost revenue. Fares only make up about 25% of TransLink's operating revenues.
Amazing video. I find it infuriating that electric cars are advertised by politicians as a fix to all our problems, when in reality they actually introduce more problems than they solve.
@@thetransitbandit Also, getting the cars to the destination more efficiently would alleviate car jams. I'm thinking of more roundabouts, as discussed by Rob The Road Guy regarding Carmel, Indiana.
I love our transit system. Now that I've retired, I'm planning on taking the car off the road, and seeing if I can get by with transit alone, at least in the warm months.
Skytrain stations aren't safe. There are crackheads everywhere and Translink does nothing to keep them out. As an investor, why tf would I want to risk my life savings starting a business there?
I just figured out you're Canadian! Yay! I'm in Vancouver too and I agree it has the best transit in Canada. When I first moved to Berkeley, I hated the BART system always comparing it to Vancouver's SkyTrain. Toronto isn't even a close second to Vancouver either. Great video! I feel there is a need to extend the Millennium Line all the way to UBC and new SkyTrain lines to North Vancouver, on Hastings (Waterfront to SFU), and one along to Marine Drive.
Absolutely, all of those lines would be so important to have, and I'd love to see them happen someday! The same thing happened to me when I moved to Seattle, I was a little disappointed with the transit, comparing it to Vancouver. Although over time I've learned to love it, it's more than good enough haha!
@@tristanridley1601 Yes, five years. U of T undergrad. Left in 2010 and the system is still much the same, the rail cars are the same, especially on the Eastbound-Westbound routes. The streetcars are as slow as they were even if they are new stock now. There’s no major new lines already open and it’s been 14 years. Toronto is not what it used to be. Sadly.
If we had more than enough funding for what we need right now, then considering those extensions is a great idea, but simple express bus service and rapid bus should be enough. The bells and whistles of BRT, LRT, and ALRT are not necessarily helpful in such difficult times. We don't need new signage or more outdoor fare machines, for example.
I’m personally putting the blame on the oil subsidies; you must be kidding me at $214 per Canadian citizen. Redirecting a fraction of that to fund public services such as healthcare, education, and transit would be a step in the right direction. It’s a clear reflection where the continent’s values are divided all over the place.
Transit doesn't need funding. They have a monopoly and millions of customers willing to pay for their services. What Translink needs is competent management. They owe taxpayers money and should be using profit to pay us back. Translink is a joke
Actually it would be better if TransLink did actually get funded from a floating property tax rate. Property values increase when there is a good public transit nearby - the value of the property directly benefits from transit and therefore landowners should pay tax to fund the improvements that the government has done to improve their property. Property tax is usually set in order to raise a flat amount, with property values only determining how that flat amount is allocated. So if TransLink needs $600 million a year, it could raise exactly $600 million a year from property taxes and that would be way more stable than any other suggested funding model, including income or sales tax. Metro Vancouver could also already set that property tax rate with their existing powers, which lines up with the fact that TransLink exists to serve Metro Vancouver. So it's absolutely clear that property tax should be funding TransLink operationally. (Congestion pricing is good for other reasons, but not as stable operationally). The only thing in the way is that Metro Vancouver is run by a bunch of mayors who are afraid of raising property taxes despite the fact that we have some of the lowest in Canada, and would still have some of the lowest even if we raised property taxes to fund that $600 million gap.
Great video. You included great shots of the transit hubs around the region: downtown, Metro, Coquitlam, etc. I love the additional shots around the US (like Chicago) added in. I’m thankful you stressed the impact the large, negative impact the service cuts will have on workers who rely on the system. While waiting for SkyTrain or bus on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night, yes, it’s busy with those who have gone out to enjoy the day, it’s also filled with workers ending a day or late night shift. We need to help these people continue to make a living by getting to where they need to be. Your final sentiment really hit home. Having a high quality transit system is good for everyone: workers, those who cannot drive (like youth, elderly, other), those who want to enjoy a drink at dinner and not drive, tourists. TransLink is a big promoter of the 20 minute community which would increase one’s standard of life. Transit is important and service cuts just “ain’t it”. Buses and SkyTrain are already very full as-is (and as you mentioned). I initially ran into your videos because I fell in love with Seattle a few years back and was curious about their system. I’m also a big fan of transit. Nice to hear that you grew up in the Metro Vancouver region! It explains why you’re so well versed with transit. I complain about Metro Vancouver transit on the often but then when I visit other US cities, I realize that I don’t have it too bad lol. Keep up the great work.
You people need to get a car. My 98 Camry is cheaper, more reliable and safer and safer than taking transit. I would rather sit in traffic than sit beside a stinky, crazy crackhead on the way to work
Thanks for this video. If we want the public transit we need, you're right that we can and must fight for it. Please keep us posted on who's organizing to support and pressurize our politicians into funding TransLink properly. I watched RMTransit's "The Transit Vancouver Needs" video last year. I was stunned to hear from you that TransLink's growth plan was going to be gutted. And the CEO's official explainer is as close to an FU to gov't policy as I've ever heard. We must build public support for public transit, before, during and after any election.
Yea so public transit is GREAT in Vancouver and gets worse as you go out to the suburbs, if they keep cutting service in the suburbs how do they think the Mayors Council will react to future proposals?
Of course, although the Massey Tunnel replacement is at least somewhat necessary as the existing one is not earthquake-safe, and could cause a lot of harm (including to the thousands of daily transit riders who use it) if something were to go wrong.
How about we don't fund Translink at all? They have a MONOPOLY and should be making a massive profit every year. The problem is that they have incompetent, corrupt management that has been gutting the company for decades. Another problem is the stupid taxpayers who keep falling for their nonsense. I say let Translink burn and let the free market sort it out
@eugenetswong No it wouldn't help. What would help is defunding Translink all together. We need to force them to make a profit so our tax dollars aren't wasted on nonsense
@@MrDwightsimon Likewise, all health care providers, police, and fire prevention, should make a profit for share holders, or you get nothing, so our tax dollars aren't wasted on nonsense. Government and the free market must never reduce risks and costs, and you should bear all costs and risks, while share holders should bear all profits...or else.
As an LA resident, I have visited Vancouver couple times. I hate to leave Vancouver because I have to deal LA hell transit problems. I hope Vancouver doesn't end up like LA. Every poor work hard to make money to own cars. Unlike LA, Vancouver designs the transit system for non car drivers. In LA, car drivers dictate the public transportation. Thats the reason LA has a lot rails that requires car driving. Vancouver has grid system. People want the rails, but they want to make sure non car drivers can be benefit. The grid bus system is excellent. Unfortunately, the budget is always the issue. Besides New York, i believe every transit system in USA is losing money. I am not familiar with Hong Kong, but HK bus systems are privately own. Same thing with Taiwan. In Taiwan, the CEO of bus operators makes so much money, the CEO daughter lives like princess. You are lucky that any transit companies don't lose that much money. So many taking public transportation that bus operators can make so much money. Rails probably have to be subsidized because they are too expensive to maintain. The real estate just helps to reduce subsidy. There is no easy solution. LA has figure. Whatever LA is doing. US car drivers hate the gasoline tax goes to public transportation. Many even want gasoline tax for road n freeway only. Since car drivers pay most tax, they dictate the horrible public transportation policies in USA. Oh, its ok to expand rail so long it does not damage existing bus services. LA spend so much on limit rail services n cut the so call duplicate routes. Conceptually , duplicate means buses n rails running parallel. In LA, it meant if you catch 2 or 3 lousy buses routes to replace one, that is duplicate. Don't learn from LA. If things are get worst, poor will to get cars n will never get back to public transportation, then services will get worse. The cycle keep looping. That's what happens in LA. I am looking for success of autonomous cars. After 3 decades of helping car drivers to get to rail stations, i don't see way out. Anyway, just watch out the cut. Any cut will hurt disadvantage people. It will force people to drive. Oh, I don't trust APTA. APTA praises LA you need car rail system n never care non car drivers. Keep good fighting. I love Vancouver. Its paradise. Its place I never fear not having car, don't lose it.
Great points made in this video - I really appreciate how you touched on these important areas of concern. These are also a lot of areas I covered in my community development major in college. Hoping I can visit Vancouver, BC, soon, and ride more Translink routes that I have not before.
The crazy thing is, we already had that for years! Somehow the NDP of all parties decided that it needed some extra popularity in the 2017 provincial election, so they scrapped the tolls on the Port Mann early.
It's an absurd system that makes every US/CA agency beg for funding each year. Hong Kong is an opposite but also unfair system where the government owns all the land around stations and limits housing to ensure the Subway (which they own) is the transit system with the highest profitability ratio (there's a term that I can't think of atm) on the planet.
Asian housing is honestly something I envy. Not everyone may agree with not being able to own land or a house. But considering that the common man can’t do so under this economic system. I’d rather. If things get really desperate. Just lose ownership of the land and housing. Just so I can easily afford a roof over my head.
They need to be audited to see where the money is going. I know people on the inside who have mentioned how much corruption and waste exists in the companies that TransLink pays for the transit system. That's the problem.
Great video, thanks for spreading the topic! We certainly need to rethink taxes (increase or shift) to fund transit. Translink wants the feds and the province to kick in the funds, but I agree Metro Van should first look at increasing our incredibly low property taxes because it's a direct service of this region. There are arguments that low property taxes encourage high property prices, and a percentage based increase would be fairer. (Also, neither the feds or provinces have the money after years of tax cuts; the next federal government will kill any hope of fighting climate change), Sure the Metro Van tax increase would take courage because motorists have far too much influence, yet no one questions the Metro Van fee increases for water and sewage! Another source, that could help fund those roads and bridges that should remain Translink's responsibility, congestion charges. Vancouver roads are clogged and from the backups on suburban bridges, I can guess where the traffic comes from. TfL lists several road charges as a funding source, and congestion charges helped reduce traffic in London. We can't build more roads in Metro Van; there is no space, and what little space that's left is needed for light industry (for jobs), and housing (which we're short on). It's almost as if the original idea (before the gas tax) of a vehicle registration charge wasn't that bad an idea given it could include EVs and over-sized SUVs.
We have lived with this for years here in Toronto. Our reads are congested. Transit it built to fund developers and ensure thier profit. Transit fares continue to rise.
That's right! All these transit channels go on about how we need more tax money to fund them but they never talk about how poorly managed and corrupt these transit systems are
Raise property taxes, especially on single family detached homes and use it to fund Translink. It's really difficult to serve transit to areas that are majority single family homes. It makes no sense to have low density housing within 10 minutes of a Skytrain station (22nd Street, 29th Avenue, Nanaimo, all Langley extension stations and half of the Millennium line and Canada line stations) or along a RapidBus route. I say this as someone who lives basically next to a future Expo line station. You can throw money at Translink but putting expensive high frequency Skytrain or RapidBus through low density areas is never going to be cost effective.
Watched this happen to KCM in 2014, I really hope it doesn’t happen to TransLink. Even today KCM still hasn’t fully recovered from that so I can’t even imagine the long term damage, and TransLink’s situation is far worse.
Thank you for making this video. Can't imagine what this city will become if the transit gets any worse. I can't vote in the feds or provs so I'm sharing this with everyone I know who can. Whoever's reading this, please do the same 🙏, and whoever you vote for, please make sure it's a vote for transit.
One Solution I can think of that will garner a lot of hate although that is not my intention is to have Rush hour fares all day. So right from start of service to end on weekdays. Now one problem with this solution is. Transit no longer monitors bus route traveling from zone to zone as they used to do (got nailed myself a couple of times back then 😉) One Idea quite sometime ago that was passed around was the distance based model ie : The further you go, the more you pay. I could never understand penalizing one with a two zone fare charge to go from Patterson to Joyce stn. so whatever happened to this model? Please no hate. Lifetime transit user.
Vancouver just needs to bite the bullet and raise taxes. It cant just keep expecting big-city services with a tax structure from 50 years ago. Property taxes are by far the best way to fund transit - its the fairest, least distorted, and most appropriate way to fund transit given the relationship between transit and property values. Vancouver cant keep having the lowest property tax rates in Canada forever. Just do it!
Just listening to this makes me wonder how much money is going to things that aren't running buses or other transit? Why should a 25% reduction in the budget lead to a minimum 50% cut in bus service, the elimination of road maintenance, pedestrian improvements and the curtailing of train services? I live in the SF Bay Area and I have followed the "discussion" around trying to implement a new sales tax to fund our transit agencies. Yes agencies, we have 27 different agencies, existing under at least 3 different legal structures scattered across an area comparable to New Jersey. The best idea the legislature can come up with is implementing a tax now, the consider getting on a pathway to having a commission study consolidating some of the agencies over the next how ever many years. Meanwhile, legally they could consolidate about 20 out of the 27 agencies into 1 with a 2/3 vote of the Legislature, which the Democrats have. The problem is that these plans aren't popular with the public. These plans don't promise the restoration to pre COVID service levels for the agencies that haven't done that yet, there is no guarantee that we are going to pay more in taxes and get a more efficient service for them, and the county governments are already squabbling over who is going to have the most influence in a hypothetical Bay Area RTD that they are derailing some of the ideas. At least Trans Link is one agency. In California, and I have no idea if this feeling is true in Canada, but a lot of us don't want to pay more in taxes and not get anything better out of it. At this point, the Legislature forcing an RTD on us and letting it deal with the mess is competing with just letting the exiting agencies go over the cliff and sorting it out later. As someone who might have to vote on this, I'm honestly fine with letting these stupid agencies go over the edge. I live in decently sized town and I have more frequent Amtrak service than I do local buses. I can literally get to Sacramento or LA easier than 2 towns over for a doctor's appointment.
Translink serves 430,000 users on an average weekday. Translink spends $2,400,000,000 in its operating budget. Translink spends about $5,600 per user, per year.
That is not correct as that is only the daily ridership of SkyTrain. They also have a mandate to maintain bus, seabus, cycling, handydart, roads and bridges. APTA 1st quarter report says TransLink serves 1,178,000 riders daily through transit. Many more are served through the MRN (major road network) totaling 675 km of roads and 5 bridges.
So if we take that number of 1,178,000 riders per day with an average of $5.00 fare per rider, that comes out to $164,920,000 per month of revenue. That's over $1.9 billion per year. If we take into account the millions of dollars of tax money they take from us, with $2.4 billion in expenses every year, they should be in massive profit. Upper management is either corrupt, incompetent or both
Such an amazing video! I lived on the north shore for a few years while attending university, and then working downtown, and with the maps alone I can see the routes that I took everyday being removed completely. I have since moved back close to my hometown on the island, and I genuinely miss Vancouver transit. It's impossible to get around where I'm at unless I want to walk on the side of the highway for an hour and a half. I would hate to see that same fate happen to my other friends who are out on the outskits of metro vancouver, where transit can already be so unreliable
I used to ride every day and think this video is excellent and well researched and put forward. I made a choice to buy a car for convenience. I can sit comfortably, a/c or heat and most importantly, a lot more control over my safety as well as schedule. I don't sit in traffic nearly as much as I thought I would and I can go and do a lot more and I only fill up once a month which costs 80 dollars. We will figure this out as a community, one way or another.
Great video! It is important that we are talking more about this! One point I would like to bring up is that I would have loved to see more emphasis on just how bad of a death spiral reduced transit service will cause. You talk a little bit about car dependency but don't go very in depth on just what that means. What drivers fail to realize is the extent to which driving creates massive externalities in all other sectors. Not only will more cars on the road increase congestion, but it will increase costs elsewhere and significantly! More cars on the roads means road maintenance needs to increase. It also means an increase in pollution (even from electric vehicles, which still produce tire particulate). Increased pollution has knock on effects that will also create additional financial burdens. And that is to say nothing of the increase in health care costs due to both pollution and injuries directly resulting from more car dependency. The extent to which car dependency creates widespread burdens for society as a whole is more than enough reason to justify a heavy emphasis on public transit, and that we should expect those who choose to drive to pay the full cost of that choice through congestion taxes and tolls. And on that note, It is imperative that driving remain a choice and not become non-optional, as that will really lock us into the death spiral and create massive burdens for those who are already the worst off.
@@thetransitbandit I look forward to watching it! Ha ha :D The bottom line, which I neglected to mention, is that attempting to save money by underfunding transit will in the end result in greater financial burdens than funding it. We would lose more than we would save and frankly that is asinine
I would rather have my tax money going to repairing roads than continuing to fund Translink. That whole organization is a giant money laundering operation. The more money we pay, the worse the service gets. Not to mention that many of the Downtown bus routes are unsafe due to the amount of crackheads riding on the bus for FREE. Translink does not have a lack of funding, they have a lack of uncorrupt and competent management.
@@MrDwightsimon 1. Funding roads over transit will result in a bigger financial loss overall. You are literally chasing your own tail in this scenario. It creates a scenario were the costs of repairing roads, (among many other costs) will continue to rise as a direct result of induced demand. For every dollar you divert from other modes of transportation, the cost of the roads goes up by two. This is a direct factor of roads and private car ownership and the sprawl that goes with them, being the least efficient modal form financially. 2. There are too many assumptions with this claim to break down here. Your comprehension of cause and effect is severely lacking and I don't feel like writing an essay right now. 3. Even if true (we are dealing with assumptions again), when compared to the the level of systemic issues at play in our society's tremendous bias towards car dependency, pointing the finger at transit is like blaming your jacket for costing too much after literally buying a yacht.
@AbsolutePixelMaster Yeah #1 is true but you didn't put the part about Translink being a MONOPOLY with MILLIONS of customers and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer funding. But yet they still find a way to be $600 million in the hole every year. Translink should be self sufficient and have no excuse to be unprofitable.
Anyone with one percent of common sense and a calculator could have seen this coming. The problem with transit activism is that proponents are living in an alternate reality where any pushback about costs or developing a sustainable system is met with the same arguments about benefits to society and car free lifestyles. Under this thinking, every dollar spent is good because it generates 5 somewhere..., so more spending is always better and the realities of feasibility are lost in chasing a fantasy utopia where everyone gets around everywhere any time without a car and without a fare. Yet the fact is, that dollar has to come from somewhere and if you want a system as costly as TransLink you need to be prepared to pay for it. Maybe it is time to put down watching Star Trek. Money may not be important to Starfleet but we're still waiting for that vulkan ship and warp drive before we get rid of money and build things because of the benefits to society 😅
@@donwest5387 Yes, although compared to other suburban and rural areas across the US and Canada, they do tend to have better frequency, coverage and span overall. Many American suburbs have no bus service at all.
I think it would be interesting to see a retail destination tax, especially downtown. With these taxes, we could have more frequent routes to these destinations causing them to get more foot traffic and sales to help offset the cost of the tax. Imagine places like Metrotown bring taxed higher, maybe in exchange for more frequent routes, while still subsidizing other non commercial routes. It would also be interesting to see a non retail only destination tax. Especially high density urban areas with high transit traffic like downtown. Those high density areas could provide a huge amount of tax revenue compared to the property tax of residential areas. This would also likely be far more politically accepted since the largest voter base, non commercial property owners, would be largely unaffected by it. These destination taxes could be calculated by ridership numbers. For example, if one person starts their trip in a residential area, the tax burden of the area would be practically nonexistent, while high traffic downtown areas would have the highest burden. Also, even if a residential area has high ridership like near apartments, the tax burden would be shared amongst the residents, lowering the individual impact. That might encourage people to avoid using transit to lower their own tax, but it's like the prisoner's dilemma; if everyone uses transit, the small group of people that avoid transit will still be paying tax 'caused' by transit riders. With this system, property owners that benefit the most from transit can also be the ones paying for it. One thing that could make this hard to calculate would be transfers, but if Translink can track the location that users tap their card, they could probably get very accurate insights.
I can definitely see the logic behind this, although to me it seems like a volatile source of income, and one that could change easily without much notice, causing future funding rollercoasters.
Few points: WHY does translink have to maintain certain roads? Why isn't it the municipality paying for them like all the other roads they have built? Why is translink in charge of bike lanes? That should be the municipality as well. I understand that places like Edmonton have horrendous public transit, but if they had to maintain certain roads too, there would be NO transit there. The problem with the fuel tax, in general, is the goal of transit is to decrease the need for cars therefore, a successful transit system would decrease the need for fuel (it is not just the electric cars fault) and would also cause a death spiral in funding and correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe the fuel tax is implemented throughout the valley either, like Mission who uses the west coast express. Why is everyone is talking about Metro vancouver needs to cough up more money... this is a multi municipality problem that extends all the way to Mission. I wonder if the leaders in all those communities are taking this seriously or treating it as a metro problem that will not affect them ?
@@ashacura812 As for roads and bike lanes, agreed, it is pretty strange to saddle TransLink with that responsibility. For the fuel tax, I agree as well, successful transit can take away its own funding with a fuel tax setup. And finally, I do agree that it’s so important for local governments to step in here. I do know that the city of Delta has put in decent effort to educate people and take action as much as possible, but of course everyone needs to put in as much effort as possible for this.
One thing I don't see many talk about in terms of taxing electric private vehicles is weight-based taxes. Electric vehicles are large and heavier anyway, so this will target all big trucks, SUVs, and electric vehicles.
Excellent video. More dysfunctional planning. As the Massey tunnel is upgraded by 2030 with bike and dedicated bus lanes the bus services are threatening to be reduced. Ridiculous. The services need to be expended not reduced. BTW public transport should be free or nearly free, paid by tax dollars.
The ultimate sigma move some US cities did in the pandemic was to make public transport free. Falling ticket sales? Why bother selling tickets. Clean solution.
What's really blowing my mind right now: Public awareness of the car problem, and solid transit as the solution, has ballooned exponentially in just a few years, yet our cities, provinces and fed all seem to be going in this inverse, anti-transit direction. Although some of our political parties, who are highly concerned with maintaining their image {and nice hair} rather than actually leading us with innovative progressive policies and actions, sure do a good job of constructing this illusion that they're "pro transit" or "pro urbanist". Yet, one only has to look around at the timeframe of their reign and see that we're not just falling behind, but we seem to be literally undoing prior won progress. Unfortunately, the spin masters are good at taking small progressive changes, in tourist friendly places especially, and blowing them up larger than life, to give even us critical progressives the false idea that we're "catching up" with the rest of the world... What they're not showing us, on purpose, is that while that bike lane was installed for the cameras to focus on, dozens to hundreds more acres of the city was being developed as car-serving sprawl, or that previously publicized bike lanes or walking infrastructure were being abandoned, pulled out or downgraded, quietly. Then, there are the small places that aren't tourist friendly or provincial/fed capitals. Ottawa, Edmonton and Vancouver are always at the center of the discussions, and seem to be the only places that UA-camrs take any interest in (besides Amsterdam and American cities), but for people like my wheelchair bound Mom and myself, stuck in a small city without transit or any accessibility infrastructure, what's happening in Ottawa is making no material difference. But good luck getting anyone to talk about Lloydminster; a place that just spent another million dollars on a consultation, to justify not having transit in this "city". We really need bigger change than we're seeing right now, and we really need to go after the Big Auto lobby and advertising. And we need to spend some time focusing on smaller places that desperately need a light shed on them.
100% agreed, yes! This is such an important perspective, especially with regard to paying attention to smaller, more often forgotten cities that still need strong transit and car-free mobility infrastructure! And of course the auto lobby, it's a big fight but we need to be fighting it more!
@@thetransitbandit I've been trying to popularize the idea that we need to hit big auto where it really hurts: advertising. Either we need a public action group, to fundraise and make professional commercials and then put them right next to auto commercials on TV, the internet or wherever they advertise... I even have a few clever ideas for commercials. Or, we need policy to crack down on the highly manipulative way they advertise. Force them to show shots of traffic jams and accidents, add climate change and death statistic warnings/disclaimers (like cigarettes are required), and not use such emotional language, music or imagery. Although, that should apply to all advertising, for everything, but I digress. Fun fact: I worked on Supergirl and The Flash in Vancouver, before the pandemic got me stuck back in... Ugggh... Alberta... And In the film industry, auto commercials are well known around Van, for huge budgets and high pay. Turns out, a lot, if not most, car commercials are shot there.
Translink is actually terrible. Maybe only in the city of Vancouver or Burnaby. If you live in the suburbs it's awful. Say hello to having once and hour buses that only show up once they feel like it.
@@erge-px8up Unfortunately, that is very much the standard for suburban transit service in the US and Canada. And in most metro areas, there are huge gaps in coverage in the suburbs, meaning many don’t get any service at all. TransLink, on the other hand, has excellent coverage of the suburbs, and just about everyone is served. As for the hourly service, most TransLink suburban service is every 30 minutes or better, hourly service is really only in the lowest ridership areas.
Well done video, and thanks for informing us how serious this is. I didn't think there was a problem and thought they settled the Union strike a few months ago. I thought they got a lot of federal funding for the Langley Sky train expansion.
@@cybernit3 All federal funding for TransLink is entirely for capital projects, such as constructing SkyTrain extensions and bus loops as well as buying new buses and trains. So while there’s enough capital money to buy these things, they’re running very short on operational money to buy fuel, pay workers, and so on.
What caused such a fiscal cliff? Normally a shortfall of funding should be relatively predictable and spread out if it's things like decline of ridership. Was there a change in government recently who decided to cut off the agency?
Maybe if they didn't pay their top executives such high salaries. 18 plus executives all making $200k per year with the CEO topping off at over $500k per year. Maybe roll back the salaries a bit and stop the annual bonuses, then maybe they are able to work closer to within budget.
Unfortunately, infrastructure comes from a capital budget, while operating funds are in their own budget, and the issue here is with operating funds. So while it is great to have funding for new infrastructure, that doesn't pay for the cost of actually running the service. Glad you enjoyed the video!
The politics in this country has become obsessed with axing taxes and defunding government programs. I suspect things will get worse before they get better.
This is part of “starve the beast” (look it up on Wikipedia) tactics. They want you to loose faith in the system so they can justify more privatization and defunding. Politicians and “think tanks” always talk about operating costs but never the economic benefit of transit.
Dude, night buses are only in Vancouver area, not in other parts of Lower Mainland. How can they have no money when they raise the transit fare every time? Is there mismanagement or corruption of money going on? I hope they upgrade the transits to electric (buses, and ferries) and make more of those trolley/cable buses (the ones attached to cables above, idk their official name).
I was an avid transit user for 3 decades. Unfortunately its no longer comfortable to use with children in many places as the vehicles have been taken over by those in need of housing, addiction services and mental health support. There are also exceedingly few washrooms. If washrooms were added to a few hubs that would make a huge difference and I would be willing to buy a monthly pass or pay a nominal fee on compass to access them.
Translink has been here before, and this warning of a fiscal cliff is the same tactic they used to plea for more public money. As pointed out in the video, there are many opportunities to improve revenue and reduce expenses. However, this system is in the midst of a massive investment to build a huge addition to the skytrain network all the way out to Langley. A $600M deficit should be somewhat expected following Covid and such a large investment. But that investment will most definitely solve their revenue woes and reduce strain on their suburban bus network. A major redistribution of their bus network will need to be done in order to serve the influx of passengers the new skytrain line will add. The increased ridership should push them well over $3B in annual revenue. What they need to solve is their miss management of those funds.
If you think Vancouver transit is the best you've just wasted a thought. The buses can't even leave the point of departure on time. With a dozen empty buses sitting there, I was told that they can't use them to cover for the bus that was very late. This was at the point of departure. I don't drive, and lived in Vancouver for 6 years and never thought the transit there was average at best. Granted, I left there 15 years ago, but in my experience, it left something to be desired.
In my opinion, it's the best compared to other agencies. I'd much rather have a delayed bus running every 10 minutes than an on-time one running every 30. But maybe that's just me!
@@thetransitbandit this happened multiple times, not just once or twice. Everyone understands traffic potentially delaying buses, so I stress this was from the point of departure. It's an insult to the transit user, who goes to the point of departure, to be met with an extremely late bus and half a dozen empty buses and drivers seemingly laughing at the situation and doing nothing to rectify it.
@@whyme943 Fare increases would have two major issues: firstly, equity, and placing a bigger financial burden on riders, especially those who have no other choice than to ride transit. And second, supply and demand would cause fewer people to ride, and for people to ride less often if fares were increased a significant amount.
@@whyme943 The funding gap is $600 million, TransLink’s current fare revenue is slightly more than $600 million, so accounting for the loss in passengers they would need to more than triple fares, which would be completely unacceptable for riders.
@@eugenetswong True, although that then brings up significant inequities with being able to afford transit, so it's not something that I would be a fan of.
Having spent time in NYC and vicinity, their transit and train (amtrak and others) system is leagues better than Vancouver. The Broadway extension is an example of WTF. Ending at Arbutus? It will cost far more to finish it to UBC in the future. Zero forethought.
That is unfortunate, but is a factor of the suburban Mayor's Council and the lack of adequate funding from provincial and federal governments. NYC has excellent transit, but it has lagged behind the times, and doesn't serve a lot of super important trips. It is also very slow to expand, and is behind on critical maintenance projects. Not to say that NYC isn't admirable, and I absolutely love visiting and riding the subway, but I do think that Vancouver has a system that serves the region better and serves all possible trips more efficiently and effectively.
I think of TransLink like the MTA when it comes to the wide range of transit and public infrastructure they both manage. I also think the same when it comes to mismanagement of government funds due to a system of political interference when it comes to transit. Both MTA & TransLink have had terrible political governance that has resulted in a deficit and both are cash strapped. Yet both are expected by the political entities to continue expanding and give a reasonable service. We need to get things straight and realize we need to fund public transit like we do with road infrastructure. If TransLink gets lots of money to build roads, maintain the FTN road network as well as some metro Vancouver bridges we need to give them the same funding for transit as well.
So you're suggesting to pay more taxes to fix the problem. This is so typical for our incapable liberal government. Put the responsibility on taxpayers. Disgusting.
I feel like you should watch the entire video before calling it disgusting? Also, I'm not sure how else you plan on the government getting money to pay for a publicly funded transit service without taxes?
@@thetransitbandit I didn't want to sound mean, I'm sorry if my comment came out this way. I watched the whole video and actually liked it, you did a great job with it. My "disgusting" comment was addressed to our government, specifically regarding taxes, because this seems like the only thing they do - put more burden on taxpayers and not address efficiency (or lack thereof) of their money spending. I pay 53% of my income in taxes, I'm sure they should splurge some on public transport instead of adding yet another tax.
Great video and we really need to discuss this more. I'm really not looking forward to this becoming a reality, just getting to work now is not reliable as once was due to the cuts mentioned already. It's already tough enough that we must fund the ridiculous housing prices (which is another problem in itself that needs to be addressed immediately) but imagine cutting a good chunk of the population's transportation to work...... I can already see how much more unsustainable most businesses will become as people scramble to try and save money.
Charging drivers, who already pay a lot just to drive and to now fund translink, is a massively stupid idea. This is not equitable as drivers on the road are not one class. They are already paying more for the gas tax, yet you want drivers to pay more? Its weird to go to this solution as opposed to ones where to government generates more revenue or increases funding. Drivers and citizens are already paying the government, stop this keep taxing the people crap
In Metro Vancouver, driving is very much a choice for about 90% of drivers. Transit is a very strong alternative for the vast majority of trips, and so I definitely think it's fair that drivers pay their fair share. Driving has massive externalities, both socially and economically, that are subsidized by the government as-is. If we are striving for equity, we need to tax these externalities and use that income to fund transit, walking and biking to be even stronger alternatives.
@thetransitbandit what metric is telling you it's a choice for 90% of driving is a choice? Do you live in Vancouver? There are countless jobs where people must drive to. One clear and obvious example would be contruction, other times the time to travel based where you live because housing is so expensive is not reasonable to take a transit. Aka the countless people who live in Langley or white rock that must commute to Vancouver proper. That isn't 10% of the population nor is it far to assume people here are able to choose where they want to work at luxury. Besides all of this it's very strange you say metro vancouver when driving policies are based around icbc and not cities. What is more, people who live in work in metro Vancouver make less than people in west and north Vancouver on average. Yet you are focused on taxing a class that is already pressed by inflation? Still think it's an absurd idea when you can simply get the government to increase funding. People in Vancouver are already drowning in taxes, not to mention the consistently high gas prices, cost of food, cost for basic car maintenance, and materials all increasing since covid. Kind of sounds like to me you don't live in BC.
@@Nites2k I lived in Vancouver for 12 years, up until 2021, and continue to visit every month or two, I am well aware of the region's geography and commuting patterns. My reasoning for saying that most driving is a choice is based on the coverage, frequency and span of the current TransLink network, which even serves many places in cities like Langley with more than usable service for the majority of jobs. Yes, there are some jobs, like construction and farm work, that may require a car, but these are a significant minority of jobs, and cars, in the region at the moment. While I would be in support of a wealth tax as well, I believe that the cost of driving a car should be much more in line with the real-world cost of that car on society.
They will find the money because the ridership will force them to. Réductions in transit are unacceptable and a backward step. Public transit is the future. Maybe the provincial government will step in. Maybe taxes will go up. Maybe fares will increase.
Hk approach? I dont want to live in even tinier condos… hk one of the lowest birth rates due to city design. The more you keep people in smaller space less baby and higher inequality of land value depending on whether you are close to skytrain station or not. You need to increase property tax to lower property values and people who dont have property can get into the market. Also there are too many green space in cities, need to turn those into concrete jungle to resolve housing issue.
Housing is number one issue, as long as house becomes cheap, people can afford cars due to higher disposable income which will enhance quality jobs that can be spreader out.
Taxing ev cars per usage isn't going to work. It would be just as volatile as gas taxes and the more people switch to transit then less funding 😂 You need to stop relying on funding from cars if you're building a system to eliminate cars. A stable source of funding is one that doesn't errode itself when people use your service. That's probably the worse type of funding there is. Paying your fare share per use is the only way. Fares should cover the system cost and be locked to regional inflation. The private sector should also be allowed to profit just like in Japan and it's many private railways via retail and fares. Federal funding is the worse idea of all. All it takes is one party to get in control and funding can b slashed overnight. If transit is going to be stable, users need to pay their fair share and true cost. Any system that is subsidized cannot be stable. It simply is a mathematical reality.
Why are they then extending Millenium line all the way to UBC? That's crazy expensive and Broadway is all open already.. There has to be some subsidy going on anyway. It is not cheap for an everyday transit as it is, compared to gas. Hoping everything goes towards electric, would shift things around well.
@@fUtal1mistake The Millennium Line extension is a capital project, for which there is funding. The issue here is operational money, ie paying to run the service once you’ve built it. The Broadway/UBC subway would also help with this situation by eliminating the 99 B-Line, which takes enormous resources to run
Comparing the Vancouver/Lower Mainland Metro Transit Systems to those in the Golden Horseshoe is frankly laughable. The GO Train & Bus system alone dwarf in size and effectiveness any regional transit in all of BC. Is the SkyTrain comparable to the TTC, not really as it is a completely different style of transit system that has to deal with many magnitudes less of daily passengers and it lacks real downtown access. I live in both cities and have for the past 30+ years so I'm talking from personal experience on this matter. Until there is frequent rail service between Vancouver & Abbotsford & Squamish there is no question which transit system is more effective at its basic tasks. PS; Also the graph you used for the Trips Per Person claim uses Canadian Stats from 2021 & 2022, years where Toronto was shut down far more dramatically than Vancouver, using the 2019 example is a far more accurate depiction of the actual Per Capita ridership in which Toronto is actually #2 and Vancouver falls behind Montreal.
When your only response to the problem is MORE taxes in one of the highest-taxed cities on the planet, you failed the assignment. You sound young and fairly uneducated on the bigger picture problems facing Canada and how they relate to the country's transit issues, so I challenge you to find a real solution without raising the taxes on Canadians... And saying the word "progressive" doesn't mean you know what your talking about when it comes to Taxation Policy, Taxation is ALWAYS theft. Do Better and seek out other opinions that challenge your own assumptions.
@@adellis24 As someone who doesn't vote conservative, my age doesn't make me naive. We can have a difference of opinion without me being someone who apparently doesn't know what they're talking about. There are benefits to taxation, and there is no other way to fund a public service without taxes of some kind. I'm proposing taxes that ensure that those with the most money pay the most for these services, ensuring those who need the services are more likely to afford them. That's all I mean by progressive taxation. As for Toronto, having a large network of suburban transit doesn't necessarily make the system as a whole better. GO is great for getting to downtown, but for other things it becomes challenging, and many lines have no off-peak or weekend service. As for the subway, it's adequate, but doesn't cover nearly as much of the area as SkyTrain does, nor does it run as frequently or reliably. At the end of the day, you're definitely entitled to your own opinions, I just presented my thoughts as to why I think TransLink does a better job.
The NDP government has been eerily silent on this issue. I know you're not supposed to campaign outside of the writ period, but they could at least give some hints which would be cause for optimism. I assume if the Conservatives win provincially, it will be a nightmare scenario. Our transit system sucks. It's overcrowded and frequencies are worse than before. The idea of trying to equalize the suburbs with Vancouver was completely insane. It takes a lot more money to provide good service to a place with low population density, bad urban planning, and low ridership.
Best Transit system in NA? If you live in Vancouver yes anywhere outside zone 1 it falls apart. Buses run at molasses speed south of fraser. It took me longer to get to Scott road station than to get to Vancouver. Trust me, I lived in Surrey on Scott road for 5 years exclusively used transit for work and school.
It says more about state of NA public transit than how "good" Vancouver's transit system is. Out of the few NA cities I've been to or lived in, Vancouver does have one of the best transit system. Though it's still not even close to what major Asian cities have
Comparing transit in Surrey to transit in, say, downtown Seattle, then sure, it's not great. But as far as suburban transit goes, it's still some of the best out there, at least in these countries. There are definitely things that need to be improved, but comparatively it's one of the best.
Try living in Langley it's even worse. Buses come every 45 minutes - 2+ hours if you are lucky on some routes. Getting home from vancouver at night is nearly impossible on transit alone after a club show.
I hope so, but it does indicate a bigger issue with the way we fund transit everywhere. We shouldn't have to be pushed to the brink of disaster so frequently in order to maintain our systems, especially at a time when we desperately need to be expanding them.
Much of the malaise can be laid at the feet of the decision to burn down billions of dollars to build the Broadway Skytrain extension, which, when complete (years late and over budget), will take riders to the nowhere intersection of Arbutus and West Broadway. Yeah, it would be great to someday replace the fleet of 99Bs that ferry UBC students from points east with Skytrain, but this ain't that, and evidently it will be decades if ever before we can kick free enough discretionary funding to do it. Meanwhile, back to gridlock and personal cars citywide and we don't even get bike lanes on West Broadway. Voters had the opportunity to head this off with a sales tax bump, but the 2015 referendum failed decisively.
The only thing that will solve this fiscal cliff is proper congestion charging and better bus infrastructure to increase efficiency. Vancouver has no more room for cars, to the point that buses are constantly slow and delayed. Meanwhile, traffic has made parts of Vancouver absolutely miserable, there's not nearly enough bike infrastructure, and most of the city is a sea of decaying Vancouver Specials that frequent buses are forced to serve instead of multi-unit apartments. Usually I'm blowing the horn on the need for proper regional rail to drive transit ridership and reduce congestion, but there are huge swaths of the lower mainland that are so sparsely populated that they don't justify more than one bus an hour. Meanwhile, the busiest corridors operate beyond capacity. High frequency buses should serve density so that more fare can be recovered.
The night bus is a joke anyways so seeing it go does not change that much, I am saying this as a person with a graveyard shift. The rest I mostly agree, Translink is essential for the region. However in terms of tax increases, congestion pricing is not too useful in Vancouver as most congestion in the region usually located outside of the transit coverage, and the places that has transit coverage usually has less congestion. Most of the congestion in Vancouver is mostly due to the fact there are not much alternative going around, such as the North Shore. Bridge tax will work, especially the oak, Arthur lang, Portello, and hw1 as these bridges have sufficient alternative transit modes. The other bridge and tunnels will only work if a bus lane is in place, which is next to impossible on the rate on how roads are built throughout the region. Additionally transit congestion pricing/time based pricing should also be considered as we are facing a shortage of fund to improve facilities, and crowded routes needs to be slightly alleviated.
@@thetransitbandit Your opinion is worthless unless you can prove that Vancouver's is the best transit system. I live in West Van, you need a car to get anywhere outside of Ambleside and Dundarave because the buses don't run very often towards Horseshoe Bay, and they sure don't run anywhere near as often in the Properties and West Hill. Toronto's system goes all over the city and extends past Guelph, Oshawa, etc. Vancouver's is no where near as comprehensive.
@@JB-yb4wn I went to school in the British properties for a while, I am aware of the shortfalls of suburban transit. However, in just about any other city, a place like British Properties or any of the places between Dundarave and Horseshoe bay would most likely have no service at all, they're extremely low-density, high-income places that need transit the least. And considering that they all get half-hourly or better peak frequency and hourly or better midday and weekend service, it could be much, much worse. I guarantee there are comparable places in Toronto or anywhere else.
@@thetransitbandit FFS just look at the transit map of Toronto and I dare you to say that Vancouver's comes anywhere close to that. I was born in Vancouver and its many a time when I was a kid I had to walk up Taylor Way because I missed the last bus up the hill at 5:45, next one coming at 11Pm.
Not the only crisis in this country. Sure probably unrelated to all the other crises. But. I swear. Can’t go for more than one month without another bad news in this place. I take transit. Transit in this city for all the suburban cities that isn’t Vancouver has been expensive with all the price hikes. People tout that Vancouver has the lowest fares. But if you live in Surrey or Langley. You live in the city with the highest train fares. Which is messed up considering people from these cities are of lower income. Now plus price on vehicles and gas being expensive. Harder to find a job. Increase crime rate and higher housing prices. Only to see the cost of living here being paid in full by cut backs on essential services. Doesn’t bode well for a country once toted as the “best country in the Americas”
The two pie charts @10:13 are such manipulative graphic and a lie by omission. The reality is that transit revenue is somewhere ~20% of the total, the rest is subsidies. I generally support public transit and good urbanism, but that all can only be achieved by being objective and having the intestinal fortitude to look at the realities of who is paying for what here, and whom is the public transit prioritizing in serving. People will vote for populists who will starve out/bleed out, then privatize things like transit and healthcare if the needs and interests of the majority of the taxpayers won't get prioritized, and most importantly --- the impact of having a good transit system gets driven home and explained with abundant clarity to Joe Taxpayer. HINT: hot air about equity groups and environment won't sway the voters. Explaining how the Skytrain will actually be more reliable (or, gasp -- just as comfortable and convenient!) for someone who takes their car from Surrey to Burnaby would be the winning approach. Not tip-toeing around bus routes and making sure that one person is able to get to their graveyard shift at 2am from Chiliwack to Vancouver. Sorry if this comes off toxic, but the planners, analysts and policy makers are sometimes SOOO FAR UP THE IVORY TOWER that they don't see the ugly realities of municipal and provincial politics.
@@freezerlunik I don’t believe you’ve read those pie charts if that’s what you think quite frankly, one discusses transit revenue and the other discusses tax revenue. Together they make up the entirety of TransLink funding. Additionally, the bus routes are what make the SkyTrain successful. Feeding passengers into a rapid transit system is a huge model for success, and making useful service is usually the best way to convince riders to use transit. In addition, while I’m all for convincing those with cars to convert to transit, we do need to prioritize those who rely on it first and foremost. I also object to your ivory tower statement. As a transit planner, I’ve also ridden about 90% of the bus routes in the TransLink system, as well as around 95% of the bus routes in and around the Puget Sound. I take great pride in observing what people do, how they use transit and how they don’t, and I consider it to be the most important part of the job.
15:25 Definitely #TransLink needs to be more like systems in developed Asian countries. Though #TransLink should also open up their #CompassCard systems to third party applications (payments, private transport, access control, etc.) like such systems in such countries (#Japan, #Korea, #Taiwan, etc.).
I would never say that Vancouver has “objectively excellent transit”. If anything it’s objectively sub par for a metro area of this size and density. Yes it’s one of the best in NA but that’s a very low bar. I moved here from Europe 3 years ago and compared to what I’m used to this is pathetic. 3 Sky train lines that cover only a small portion of the area with long distances between stations. When they extend Sky train to UBC and Langley that would be better but still not good enough. Busses that suck themselves and get stuck in traffic. I often have to wait for a bus for 15 min or more. That’s not acceptable. West coast express is a joke it has a few trains early in the morning to Vancouver and a few early in the evening in the opposite direction . That’s a glorified commuter train and not a functioning transit link. But I guess it could always get worse.😅
Vancouver has a terrible transit system. Skytrain has small-town service on weekends and holidays. 20 minutes between trains is unacceptable given how crowded these trains are. Buses are unreliable and often don't show up.
@@Sc00terNut-zq3gs Either you don’t ride SkyTrain much or you enjoy spreading misinformation… the expo and Canada lines run every 3 minutes on weekends, while the millennium line runs every 6.
@@thetransitbandit I stopped riding transit for the reasons I mentioned. Not misinformation at all. Just talk to anyone that does ride transit. You're clearly spreading misinformatio, pal. Perhaps you should ride the trains and buses. You'll learn a thing or two.
@Sc00terNut-zq3gs As a transit rider myself and thetransitbandit is actually right.. The trains are very frequent, and if not then it's usually due to unforeseen circumstances such as train malfunctions especially with the Gen1 trains or even weather such as when Vancuver was hit with -10°C weather with snow falling.
I’ve lived in both. Montreal has better train service to the suburbs and the REM, when finished, is promising, but if you live in or near downtown Vancouver, or even Richmond and Burnaby, Skytrain is better. Montreal has too many cars, too many freeways cutting through the city and eyesores like Decarie.
Fantastic video! Many people misunderstand that this isn’t just about paying the higher level employees less. TransLink has great upper management and they are people we want to keep around, but the main cost of the company is just paying for bus drivers. TransLink is not a private company! We can’t just fix everything by firing everyone at their HQ.
Absolutely, that's a very important point!
Why are we paying the CEO a half million dollars per year if he's unable to keep the system viable? We could pay someone $40K/yr for the same thing. 'Great upper management' wouldn't be driving the company into the ground. If the funding isn't there to operate the system, it isn't there to pay inflated salaries either.
@@suddenlysolo2170 I do agree that we do need to look into some more efficiencies in the executive pay department, however, the CEO has done a fairly good job of managing the system, and these fiscal troubles have been around much longer than he has. Additionally, the deficit is $600 million, and a pay reduction for executives would probably save at most $1 million of that, so either way it wouldn't make a significant dent in the problem.
argentina
@@suddenlysolo2170can you tell me where you're going to find this person who will work for $40k doing the really stressful job of running and trying to find funding for a transit agency that needs hundreds of millions of dollars?
Mind you, this is also $40k in Vancouver. I know some people make do with that with roommates and stuff but it's not exactly a salary that will have people lining up out the door.
I'm a transit operator, and here is what I can tell you: the job is far more intense than most people understand. Most people think "you're just driving, how hard can it be?!" but that's deceptive. Its much like how if you're using a computer at home for fun tasks, then you go to work and use a computer for work and the two tasks are deeply different and deeply divergent. Using Excel for 8 hours is much different than browsing the web for a few hours at home for pleasure... Being an operator requires multiple skills: people skills, geographic skills (especially true when you get assigned an emergency run for a route you've never driven in a part of the region you've never been in), and driving a huge piece of equipment is nothing like driving a car. You have to be attentive to road conditions and drivers while also not passing up potential riders who may or may not be standing by the bus stop properly, also you have to consider schedule adherence (there is a reason why we can't just stop and pick you up when you're not at a bus stop, a 20-30 second stop makes a difference and causes delays when its done multiple times, scheduling is literally done down to the second on my system, and I have to pass you by if you're not at the stop unless I'm running ahead slightly and can spare the time)... I've not even discussed the times we work, many operators are waking up at 3-4am and not getting home until 7pm. Our shifts are often not 8 straight hours, it severely limits your social life. Its a symphony of tasks that have to come together smoothly, it isn't 'just driving' for work. Every penny of our union contract is earned, I can guarantee you! :) Not an easy job. I also happen to be a transit and urban enthusiast, I think we need more people out of cars and in buses and trains, and they need to be doing it by choice not because they feel too poor...
The key to any good transit service is having operators who know the routes, who can stay with the company, and are respected. The workers really are the key to the entire thing. If you have unhappy workers and high turnover, then you're going to have a miserable transit service. And yes, when they don't have staff, that means they're going to run fewer buses on a route and you're going to get service delay. Staffing is always key.
In so far as budget shortfalls go, not to get too political, but we're living in late stage capitalism. Everything seems to be crisis. No funding for anything, supposedly... And not enough people are thinking about economic structural changes we need to avoid everything being in 'constant crisis' mode. Given our current realities: I think the key here is to get higher levels of government more involved in funding and get operations funding away from just municipal level sources. You aren't going to get a better transit system by relying on your property tax base. We have to ensure the feds have the cash to get more involved in regular operations and not just one time capital projects.
Here's what I've learned in my experience: if you have a bus and train service that operates every 30 minutes or less, you'll get a few more riders of choice that want to leave the car at home. If you have buses that run frequency of 45 mins to an hour and end service at 8pm, you'll only get destitute people who just cannot afford or operate cars, you'll never have a competitive transit use in your city and region. If you have buses and trains that are running better than 10 minute frequency, with service ending after midnight and that starts back up at 5am. you'll get a healthy amount of riders of choice and make it competitive with cars. People start to have real choice with proper investment into transit, they will eventually choose to get on transit when service is properly run at 10 minute or better frequency.
So you really do need frequency to be in that 10 minutes (or less) category to get people out of cars. This is going to take an investment into people (operators like myself) and the equipment to get it done. We have choices to make.
But, that's just my opinion.
P.S. One thing I really like about Vancouver is that the city has maintained its trolleybus infrastructure. We need to bring trolleybuses back here in Toronto, and all systems globally. It is crazy that in this day and age trolleybuses haven't been prioritized. We talk about climate change, there is nothing more green than a healthy, vast trolleybus network that operates on catenary wires. No batteries required, power straight from the grid, with endless range beyond even what diesel buses can do. Why we aren't doing this is beyond me. So far as I can tell, the transit agency I work for has only spoken about investments in battery electric buses with fairly limited range. Trolleybuses were around over a hundred years ago, and we don't seem capable of putting this reliable technology back in service with updated equipment that is faster, more comfortable, and has things like WiFi included for convenience. Our decision makers are stuck in greenwashing: talking about the urgency ALL THE TIME, without any tangible acts to improve things. Trolleybuses - in my humble opinion - are 100% key to a green future. You cannot build a green bus grid without them. There's zero talk in Canada or the US about significantly bringing this technology back in mass use. I suppose its immaterial, because they'll all tell us they can't afford it. That is, after they budget ample cash for bombs and guns for some far away war that has no point... Its sad, really. Greenwashing is infuriating when we could be building trolleybus networks here, today, for the future we need.
Oh, and @1:09 it is hilarious seeing that a middle sized Canadian city like Edmonton (not even 2 million people yet) beats out Boston, a major top American metropolitan area, in transit usage. Boston has a dense urban core, has an urban regional population of about 5 million, is roughly in the top 10 American cities in this ranking, yet it can't get people out of cars?!? American cities suffer from a lot of that 45 min-1 hour bus frequency problem away from the primary rail lines, which makes people not choose transit. Its as clear as a clear sky blue day and yet so many agencies never fix a fundamental problem with lack of bus frequency. The problem in the US is even more distinct than in Canada, this has been a problem for decades. The damage is beyond done, there are now generations of people who have grown up not even considering a bus and literally don't even know how to use a bus or transit service. I suppose its a chicken or the egg syndrome, and its going to be a long time for change.
@@BTin416 Excellent insights, thank you!!
Simple proof: the lack of new people applying for the job. I don't want to do it, even with the pay.
So, we could TRY to find ways to make the job suck less. Then we wouldn't need to pay so much.
@@tristanridley1601 Of course, improving conditions for operators is important!
Great insights. Though on the last point, the number of riders between US and Canadian cities are per capita and they are not the same as direct riding population.
Been living in the Vancouver area most of my life and I have never thought too much of the transit system here, until I spent some time elsewhere and came back to realize how incredible the breadth & span of the system is (compared to the rest of North America, that is); I used the public transit system extensively for the first time on my first day back from YVR airport all the way to a rather remote corner of Maple Ridge.
I couldn’t find three hours to read your essay. I’m sure it was good.
This is so sad. Vancouver needs more transit, not less.
@@kbeeistley 100% agreed!
Yes anything that cuts costs will also slash revenue to due less ridership.
You guys didn't go over the part where there are tons of people riding for free. I see people jumping over the turnstiles on the skytrain and crackheads just walking onto the bus. They would see a massive increase in revenue if they simply made everyone pay.
@@MrDwightsimon Vancouver has a fare evasion rate of less than 10%, one of the lowest in the world. It would cost more money to hire the enforcement officers than it costs now in lost revenue. Fares only make up about 25% of TransLink's operating revenues.
Amazing video. I find it infuriating that electric cars are advertised by politicians as a fix to all our problems, when in reality they actually introduce more problems than they solve.
@@Droxal 100% agreed! Transit is a much more sustainable and useful solution
I hate the focus on making our buses be low emissions, as if the are the main culprits, and don't have economy of scale.
@@eugenetswong Absolutely! Having more buses, period, is more important, and reducing the number of cars on the road should be our goal instead!
@@thetransitbandit Also, getting the cars to the destination more efficiently would alleviate car jams. I'm thinking of more roundabouts, as discussed by Rob The Road Guy regarding Carmel, Indiana.
Laughs in my 1 local bus line that only runs once every hour 😂
@@timr.2257 ouch!
I love our transit system. Now that I've retired, I'm planning on taking the car off the road, and seeing if I can get by with transit alone, at least in the warm months.
Awesome! Best of luck with your car-free adventures!
Amazing video, so sad to see as a resident of Burnaby. Praying that they manage to breach the budget gap.
Absolutely, fingers crossed!
We need to be subsidizing highways less and subsidizing transit more (also rent real estate within stations for commercial businesses)
Absolutely, agreed!
...and apartments, and a variety of other spaces.
@empi492 missin a few words there but yep you got it
@empi492
Environmentally friendly but not particularly reliable.
Skytrain stations aren't safe. There are crackheads everywhere and Translink does nothing to keep them out. As an investor, why tf would I want to risk my life savings starting a business there?
I just figured out you're Canadian! Yay! I'm in Vancouver too and I agree it has the best transit in Canada. When I first moved to Berkeley, I hated the BART system always comparing it to Vancouver's SkyTrain. Toronto isn't even a close second to Vancouver either. Great video! I feel there is a need to extend the Millennium Line all the way to UBC and new SkyTrain lines to North Vancouver, on Hastings (Waterfront to SFU), and one along to Marine Drive.
Absolutely, all of those lines would be so important to have, and I'd love to see them happen someday! The same thing happened to me when I moved to Seattle, I was a little disappointed with the transit, comparing it to Vancouver. Although over time I've learned to love it, it's more than good enough haha!
Gotta ask... Ever actually lived in Toronto?
If so, you should qualify your statement with a specific definition of best.
@@tristanridley1601 Yes, five years. U of T undergrad. Left in 2010 and the system is still much the same, the rail cars are the same, especially on the Eastbound-Westbound routes. The streetcars are as slow as they were even if they are new stock now. There’s no major new lines already open and it’s been 14 years. Toronto is not what it used to be. Sadly.
If we had more than enough funding for what we need right now, then considering those extensions is a great idea, but simple express bus service and rapid bus should be enough. The bells and whistles of BRT, LRT, and ALRT are not necessarily helpful in such difficult times.
We don't need new signage or more outdoor fare machines, for example.
@@thetransitbanditWhy did you move to Seattle?
I’m personally putting the blame on the oil subsidies; you must be kidding me at $214 per Canadian citizen. Redirecting a fraction of that to fund public services such as healthcare, education, and transit would be a step in the right direction.
It’s a clear reflection where the continent’s values are divided all over the place.
@@jmstransit 100% agreed. We’re subsidizing a lot of the wrong things!
It's especially unhelpful if the government wants to reduce emissions. Public transit is one of the most efficient ways to reduce demand for oil
We have oil subsidies ? I thought it’s more taxes on oil not subsidies
Transit doesn't need funding. They have a monopoly and millions of customers willing to pay for their services.
What Translink needs is competent management. They owe taxpayers money and should be using profit to pay us back. Translink is a joke
@@MrDwightsimon Or maybe you are the joke for not actually watching the video and learning about the funding structure I explained in great detail...
Actually it would be better if TransLink did actually get funded from a floating property tax rate. Property values increase when there is a good public transit nearby - the value of the property directly benefits from transit and therefore landowners should pay tax to fund the improvements that the government has done to improve their property.
Property tax is usually set in order to raise a flat amount, with property values only determining how that flat amount is allocated. So if TransLink needs $600 million a year, it could raise exactly $600 million a year from property taxes and that would be way more stable than any other suggested funding model, including income or sales tax.
Metro Vancouver could also already set that property tax rate with their existing powers, which lines up with the fact that TransLink exists to serve Metro Vancouver. So it's absolutely clear that property tax should be funding TransLink operationally. (Congestion pricing is good for other reasons, but not as stable operationally). The only thing in the way is that Metro Vancouver is run by a bunch of mayors who are afraid of raising property taxes despite the fact that we have some of the lowest in Canada, and would still have some of the lowest even if we raised property taxes to fund that $600 million gap.
Great video. You included great shots of the transit hubs around the region: downtown, Metro, Coquitlam, etc. I love the additional shots around the US (like Chicago) added in.
I’m thankful you stressed the impact the large, negative impact the service cuts will have on workers who rely on the system. While waiting for SkyTrain or bus on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night, yes, it’s busy with those who have gone out to enjoy the day, it’s also filled with workers ending a day or late night shift. We need to help these people continue to make a living by getting to where they need to be.
Your final sentiment really hit home. Having a high quality transit system is good for everyone: workers, those who cannot drive (like youth, elderly, other), those who want to enjoy a drink at dinner and not drive, tourists. TransLink is a big promoter of the 20 minute community which would increase one’s standard of life. Transit is important and service cuts just “ain’t it”. Buses and SkyTrain are already very full as-is (and as you mentioned).
I initially ran into your videos because I fell in love with Seattle a few years back and was curious about their system. I’m also a big fan of transit. Nice to hear that you grew up in the Metro Vancouver region! It explains why you’re so well versed with transit. I complain about Metro Vancouver transit on the often but then when I visit other US cities, I realize that I don’t have it too bad lol. Keep up the great work.
Absolutely, growing up in Vancouver really helped me learn transit! Glad to have you onboard!
You people need to get a car. My 98 Camry is cheaper, more reliable and safer and safer than taking transit.
I would rather sit in traffic than sit beside a stinky, crazy crackhead on the way to work
I feel like people who complain about Canadian transit obviously haven’t been to the US.
Thanks for this video. If we want the public transit we need, you're right that we can and must fight for it.
Please keep us posted on who's organizing to support and pressurize our politicians into funding TransLink properly.
I watched RMTransit's "The Transit Vancouver Needs" video last year.
I was stunned to hear from you that TransLink's growth plan was going to be gutted.
And the CEO's official explainer is as close to an FU to gov't policy as I've ever heard.
We must build public support for public transit, before, during and after any election.
Yea so public transit is GREAT in Vancouver and gets worse as you go out to the suburbs, if they keep cutting service in the suburbs how do they think the Mayors Council will react to future proposals?
Good point!
“Transit in Vancouver has a problem, it’s run out of money” every transit system in North America ever
They haven't run out of money, upper management steals it
Skytrain is awesome. Thank you to all the Translink drivers!
How many billions are being spent on a Massey tunnel replacement? Couldn't that finance translink for a decade?
Of course, although the Massey Tunnel replacement is at least somewhat necessary as the existing one is not earthquake-safe, and could cause a lot of harm (including to the thousands of daily transit riders who use it) if something were to go wrong.
If they reduced 2 lanes each way, then that could help.
How about we don't fund Translink at all? They have a MONOPOLY and should be making a massive profit every year. The problem is that they have incompetent, corrupt management that has been gutting the company for decades.
Another problem is the stupid taxpayers who keep falling for their nonsense. I say let Translink burn and let the free market sort it out
@eugenetswong No it wouldn't help. What would help is defunding Translink all together. We need to force them to make a profit so our tax dollars aren't wasted on nonsense
@@MrDwightsimon Likewise, all health care providers, police, and fire prevention, should make a profit for share holders, or you get nothing, so our tax dollars aren't wasted on nonsense. Government and the free market must never reduce risks and costs, and you should bear all costs and risks, while share holders should bear all profits...or else.
As an LA resident, I have visited Vancouver couple times. I hate to leave Vancouver because I have to deal LA hell transit problems. I hope Vancouver doesn't end up like LA. Every poor work hard to make money to own cars.
Unlike LA, Vancouver designs the transit system for non car drivers. In LA, car drivers dictate the public transportation. Thats the reason LA has a lot rails that requires car driving. Vancouver has grid system. People want the rails, but they want to make sure non car drivers can be benefit. The grid bus system is excellent.
Unfortunately, the budget is always the issue. Besides New York, i believe every transit system in USA is losing money. I am not familiar with Hong Kong, but HK bus systems are privately own. Same thing with Taiwan. In Taiwan, the CEO of bus operators makes so much money, the CEO daughter lives like princess. You are lucky that any transit companies don't lose that much money. So many taking public transportation that bus operators can make so much money.
Rails probably have to be subsidized because they are too expensive to maintain. The real estate just helps to reduce subsidy.
There is no easy solution. LA has figure. Whatever LA is doing. US car drivers hate the gasoline tax goes to public transportation. Many even want gasoline tax for road n freeway only. Since car drivers pay most tax, they dictate the horrible public transportation policies in USA.
Oh, its ok to expand rail so long it does not damage existing bus services. LA spend so much on limit rail services n cut the so call duplicate routes. Conceptually , duplicate means buses n rails running parallel. In LA, it meant if you catch 2 or 3 lousy buses routes to replace one, that is duplicate. Don't learn from LA.
If things are get worst, poor will to get cars n will never get back to public transportation, then services will get worse. The cycle keep looping. That's what happens in LA. I am looking for success of autonomous cars. After 3 decades of helping car drivers to get to rail stations, i don't see way out.
Anyway, just watch out the cut. Any cut will hurt disadvantage people. It will force people to drive.
Oh, I don't trust APTA. APTA praises LA you need car rail system n never care non car drivers.
Keep good fighting. I love Vancouver. Its paradise. Its place I never fear not having car, don't lose it.
Great points made in this video - I really appreciate how you touched on these important areas of concern. These are also a lot of areas I covered in my community development major in college. Hoping I can visit Vancouver, BC, soon, and ride more Translink routes that I have not before.
@@joshuateicher3553 Thank you!
I moved to Vancouver in 2019 and I have been using the transit system since then . I love our transit system. I hope they find solution
They won't. They have never made any money. Service will get worse and more expensive
Vancouver could do a congestion charge very easily with the current transit network. Wait until after the cuts though (if they happen) and it's toast
@@CyanideCarrot Absolutely!
The crazy thing is, we already had that for years!
Somehow the NDP of all parties decided that it needed some extra popularity in the 2017 provincial election, so they scrapped the tolls on the Port Mann early.
@@Abrothers12 Right, totally forgot about that! Such a shame
@@Abrothers12 I was shocked that the NDP wants 4 lanes each way in the new tunnel.
It's an absurd system that makes every US/CA agency beg for funding each year.
Hong Kong is an opposite but also unfair system where the government owns all the land around stations and limits housing to ensure the Subway (which they own) is the transit system with the highest profitability ratio (there's a term that I can't think of atm) on the planet.
Do you think the induction of bill 47 will help offset the costs of maintaining the skytrains?
@@mymocs61 Sorry I'm not from US or Canada so I have no idea what that bill is.
Asian housing is honestly something I envy. Not everyone may agree with not being able to own land or a house.
But considering that the common man can’t do so under this economic system.
I’d rather. If things get really desperate. Just lose ownership of the land and housing. Just so I can easily afford a roof over my head.
@@Somethingaweful
But HK has the world's highest average rent.
They need to be audited to see where the money is going. I know people on the inside who have mentioned how much corruption and waste exists in the companies that TransLink pays for the transit system. That's the problem.
Great video, thanks for spreading the topic! We certainly need to rethink taxes (increase or shift) to fund transit. Translink wants the feds and the province to kick in the funds, but I agree Metro Van should first look at increasing our incredibly low property taxes because it's a direct service of this region. There are arguments that low property taxes encourage high property prices, and a percentage based increase would be fairer. (Also, neither the feds or provinces have the money after years of tax cuts; the next federal government will kill any hope of fighting climate change), Sure the Metro Van tax increase would take courage because motorists have far too much influence, yet no one questions the Metro Van fee increases for water and sewage! Another source, that could help fund those roads and bridges that should remain Translink's responsibility, congestion charges. Vancouver roads are clogged and from the backups on suburban bridges, I can guess where the traffic comes from. TfL lists several road charges as a funding source, and congestion charges helped reduce traffic in London. We can't build more roads in Metro Van; there is no space, and what little space that's left is needed for light industry (for jobs), and housing (which we're short on). It's almost as if the original idea (before the gas tax) of a vehicle registration charge wasn't that bad an idea given it could include EVs and over-sized SUVs.
@@mbarker Absolutely, I do think that vehicle charges and tolls are a great path forward!
We have lived with this for years here in Toronto. Our reads are congested. Transit it built to fund developers and ensure thier profit. Transit fares continue to rise.
That's right! All these transit channels go on about how we need more tax money to fund them but they never talk about how poorly managed and corrupt these transit systems are
Do they have no money because The Transit Bandit stole it all?
@@purplekhaos LOL that’s so good
They have no money because they let people ride for free and upper management steals the rest
Raise property taxes, especially on single family detached homes and use it to fund Translink. It's really difficult to serve transit to areas that are majority single family homes. It makes no sense to have low density housing within 10 minutes of a Skytrain station (22nd Street, 29th Avenue, Nanaimo, all Langley extension stations and half of the Millennium line and Canada line stations) or along a RapidBus route.
I say this as someone who lives basically next to a future Expo line station. You can throw money at Translink but putting expensive high frequency Skytrain or RapidBus through low density areas is never going to be cost effective.
I do agree that we need more density around our stations!
Watched this happen to KCM in 2014, I really hope it doesn’t happen to TransLink. Even today KCM still hasn’t fully recovered from that so I can’t even imagine the long term damage, and TransLink’s situation is far worse.
@@buckleytransit Absolutely!
Thank you for making this video. Can't imagine what this city will become if the transit gets any worse. I can't vote in the feds or provs so I'm sharing this with everyone I know who can. Whoever's reading this, please do the same 🙏, and whoever you vote for, please make sure it's a vote for transit.
@@pitsolekhethe9406 Totally agreed! Voting for transit is so hugely important!
Lovely video and amazing points. Subscribed :) hope to see you get big in the future.
@@arsenicCatnip413 Thank you!!
One Solution I can think of that will garner a lot of hate although that is not my intention is to have
Rush hour fares all day. So right from start of service to end on weekdays. Now one problem with this solution is. Transit no longer monitors bus route traveling from zone to zone as they used to do (got nailed myself a couple of times back then 😉) One Idea quite sometime ago that was passed around was the distance based model ie : The further you go, the more you pay. I could never understand penalizing one with a two zone fare charge to go from Patterson to Joyce stn. so whatever happened to this model? Please no hate. Lifetime transit user.
Vancouver just needs to bite the bullet and raise taxes. It cant just keep expecting big-city services with a tax structure from 50 years ago. Property taxes are by far the best way to fund transit - its the fairest, least distorted, and most appropriate way to fund transit given the relationship between transit and property values. Vancouver cant keep having the lowest property tax rates in Canada forever. Just do it!
Until it results in higher rent further exacerbating the so-called housing crisis.
Just listening to this makes me wonder how much money is going to things that aren't running buses or other transit? Why should a 25% reduction in the budget lead to a minimum 50% cut in bus service, the elimination of road maintenance, pedestrian improvements and the curtailing of train services? I live in the SF Bay Area and I have followed the "discussion" around trying to implement a new sales tax to fund our transit agencies. Yes agencies, we have 27 different agencies, existing under at least 3 different legal structures scattered across an area comparable to New Jersey. The best idea the legislature can come up with is implementing a tax now, the consider getting on a pathway to having a commission study consolidating some of the agencies over the next how ever many years. Meanwhile, legally they could consolidate about 20 out of the 27 agencies into 1 with a 2/3 vote of the Legislature, which the Democrats have. The problem is that these plans aren't popular with the public. These plans don't promise the restoration to pre COVID service levels for the agencies that haven't done that yet, there is no guarantee that we are going to pay more in taxes and get a more efficient service for them, and the county governments are already squabbling over who is going to have the most influence in a hypothetical Bay Area RTD that they are derailing some of the ideas. At least Trans Link is one agency. In California, and I have no idea if this feeling is true in Canada, but a lot of us don't want to pay more in taxes and not get anything better out of it. At this point, the Legislature forcing an RTD on us and letting it deal with the mess is competing with just letting the exiting agencies go over the cliff and sorting it out later. As someone who might have to vote on this, I'm honestly fine with letting these stupid agencies go over the edge. I live in decently sized town and I have more frequent Amtrak service than I do local buses. I can literally get to Sacramento or LA easier than 2 towns over for a doctor's appointment.
Translink serves 430,000 users on an average weekday.
Translink spends $2,400,000,000 in its operating budget.
Translink spends about $5,600 per user, per year.
That is not correct as that is only the daily ridership of SkyTrain. They also have a mandate to maintain bus, seabus, cycling, handydart, roads and bridges. APTA 1st quarter report says TransLink serves 1,178,000 riders daily through transit. Many more are served through the MRN (major road network) totaling 675 km of roads and 5 bridges.
So if we take that number of 1,178,000 riders per day with an average of $5.00 fare per rider, that comes out to $164,920,000 per month of revenue. That's over $1.9 billion per year. If we take into account the millions of dollars of tax money they take from us, with $2.4 billion in expenses every year, they should be in massive profit.
Upper management is either corrupt, incompetent or both
Such an amazing video! I lived on the north shore for a few years while attending university, and then working downtown, and with the maps alone I can see the routes that I took everyday being removed completely.
I have since moved back close to my hometown on the island, and I genuinely miss Vancouver transit. It's impossible to get around where I'm at unless I want to walk on the side of the highway for an hour and a half. I would hate to see that same fate happen to my other friends who are out on the outskits of metro vancouver, where transit can already be so unreliable
@@MochaMage Completely agreed! Thanks for sharing!
Get a car
I used to ride every day and think this video is excellent and well researched and put forward. I made a choice to buy a car for convenience. I can sit comfortably, a/c or heat and most importantly, a lot more control over my safety as well as schedule. I don't sit in traffic nearly as much as I thought I would and I can go and do a lot more and I only fill up once a month which costs 80 dollars. We will figure this out as a community, one way or another.
Great video! It is important that we are talking more about this! One point I would like to bring up is that I would have loved to see more emphasis on just how bad of a death spiral reduced transit service will cause. You talk a little bit about car dependency but don't go very in depth on just what that means. What drivers fail to realize is the extent to which driving creates massive externalities in all other sectors. Not only will more cars on the road increase congestion, but it will increase costs elsewhere and significantly! More cars on the roads means road maintenance needs to increase. It also means an increase in pollution (even from electric vehicles, which still produce tire particulate). Increased pollution has knock on effects that will also create additional financial burdens. And that is to say nothing of the increase in health care costs due to both pollution and injuries directly resulting from more car dependency.
The extent to which car dependency creates widespread burdens for society as a whole is more than enough reason to justify a heavy emphasis on public transit, and that we should expect those who choose to drive to pay the full cost of that choice through congestion taxes and tolls. And on that note, It is imperative that driving remain a choice and not become non-optional, as that will really lock us into the death spiral and create massive burdens for those who are already the worst off.
@@AbsolutePixelMaster 100% agreed, excellent points! Maybe a follow-up video is in order…
@@thetransitbandit I look forward to watching it! Ha ha :D
The bottom line, which I neglected to mention, is that attempting to save money by underfunding transit will in the end result in greater financial burdens than funding it. We would lose more than we would save and frankly that is asinine
I would rather have my tax money going to repairing roads than continuing to fund Translink. That whole organization is a giant money laundering operation.
The more money we pay, the worse the service gets. Not to mention that many of the Downtown bus routes are unsafe due to the amount of crackheads riding on the bus for FREE.
Translink does not have a lack of funding, they have a lack of uncorrupt and competent management.
@@MrDwightsimon
1. Funding roads over transit will result in a bigger financial loss overall. You are literally chasing your own tail in this scenario. It creates a scenario were the costs of repairing roads, (among many other costs) will continue to rise as a direct result of induced demand. For every dollar you divert from other modes of transportation, the cost of the roads goes up by two. This is a direct factor of roads and private car ownership and the sprawl that goes with them, being the least efficient modal form financially.
2. There are too many assumptions with this claim to break down here. Your comprehension of cause and effect is severely lacking and I don't feel like writing an essay right now.
3. Even if true (we are dealing with assumptions again), when compared to the the level of systemic issues at play in our society's tremendous bias towards car dependency, pointing the finger at transit is like blaming your jacket for costing too much after literally buying a yacht.
@AbsolutePixelMaster Yeah #1 is true but you didn't put the part about Translink being a MONOPOLY with MILLIONS of customers and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer funding. But yet they still find a way to be $600 million in the hole every year.
Translink should be self sufficient and have no excuse to be unprofitable.
Anyone with one percent of common sense and a calculator could have seen this coming. The problem with transit activism is that proponents are living in an alternate reality where any pushback about costs or developing a sustainable system is met with the same arguments about benefits to society and car free lifestyles.
Under this thinking, every dollar spent is good because it generates 5 somewhere..., so more spending is always better and the realities of feasibility are lost in chasing a fantasy utopia where everyone gets around everywhere any time without a car and without a fare.
Yet the fact is, that dollar has to come from somewhere and if you want a system as costly as TransLink you need to be prepared to pay for it.
Maybe it is time to put down watching Star Trek. Money may not be important to Starfleet but we're still waiting for that vulkan ship and warp drive before we get rid of money and build things because of the benefits to society 😅
the "rural" areas have infrequent bus service (Langley)
@@donwest5387 Yes, although compared to other suburban and rural areas across the US and Canada, they do tend to have better frequency, coverage and span overall. Many American suburbs have no bus service at all.
I think it would be interesting to see a retail destination tax, especially downtown. With these taxes, we could have more frequent routes to these destinations causing them to get more foot traffic and sales to help offset the cost of the tax. Imagine places like Metrotown bring taxed higher, maybe in exchange for more frequent routes, while still subsidizing other non commercial routes.
It would also be interesting to see a non retail only destination tax. Especially high density urban areas with high transit traffic like downtown. Those high density areas could provide a huge amount of tax revenue compared to the property tax of residential areas. This would also likely be far more politically accepted since the largest voter base, non commercial property owners, would be largely unaffected by it.
These destination taxes could be calculated by ridership numbers. For example, if one person starts their trip in a residential area, the tax burden of the area would be practically nonexistent, while high traffic downtown areas would have the highest burden. Also, even if a residential area has high ridership like near apartments, the tax burden would be shared amongst the residents, lowering the individual impact. That might encourage people to avoid using transit to lower their own tax, but it's like the prisoner's dilemma; if everyone uses transit, the small group of people that avoid transit will still be paying tax 'caused' by transit riders.
With this system, property owners that benefit the most from transit can also be the ones paying for it.
One thing that could make this hard to calculate would be transfers, but if Translink can track the location that users tap their card, they could probably get very accurate insights.
I can definitely see the logic behind this, although to me it seems like a volatile source of income, and one that could change easily without much notice, causing future funding rollercoasters.
Few points: WHY does translink have to maintain certain roads? Why isn't it the municipality paying for them like all the other roads they have built? Why is translink in charge of bike lanes? That should be the municipality as well. I understand that places like Edmonton have horrendous public transit, but if they had to maintain certain roads too, there would be NO transit there. The problem with the fuel tax, in general, is the goal of transit is to decrease the need for cars therefore, a successful transit system would decrease the need for fuel (it is not just the electric cars fault) and would also cause a death spiral in funding and correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe the fuel tax is implemented throughout the valley either, like Mission who uses the west coast express. Why is everyone is talking about Metro vancouver needs to cough up more money... this is a multi municipality problem that extends all the way to Mission. I wonder if the leaders in all those communities are taking this seriously or treating it as a metro problem that will not affect them ?
@@ashacura812 As for roads and bike lanes, agreed, it is pretty strange to saddle TransLink with that responsibility. For the fuel tax, I agree as well, successful transit can take away its own funding with a fuel tax setup. And finally, I do agree that it’s so important for local governments to step in here. I do know that the city of Delta has put in decent effort to educate people and take action as much as possible, but of course everyone needs to put in as much effort as possible for this.
One thing I don't see many talk about in terms of taxing electric private vehicles is weight-based taxes. Electric vehicles are large and heavier anyway, so this will target all big trucks, SUVs, and electric vehicles.
@@morethantransitt That’s a smart idea, I like it!
Weight based taxing is a great idea.
Excellent video. More dysfunctional planning. As the Massey tunnel is upgraded by 2030 with bike and dedicated bus lanes the bus services are threatening to be reduced. Ridiculous. The services need to be expended not reduced. BTW public transport should be free or nearly free, paid by tax dollars.
The ultimate sigma move some US cities did in the pandemic was to make public transport free. Falling ticket sales? Why bother selling tickets. Clean solution.
@@bobi7152 Definitely, and fare-free transit systems have enjoyed a lot more success because of it, at least from what I’ve seen!
What's really blowing my mind right now:
Public awareness of the car problem, and solid transit as the solution, has ballooned exponentially in just a few years, yet our cities, provinces and fed all seem to be going in this inverse, anti-transit direction.
Although some of our political parties, who are highly concerned with maintaining their image {and nice hair} rather than actually leading us with innovative progressive policies and actions, sure do a good job of constructing this illusion that they're "pro transit" or "pro urbanist". Yet, one only has to look around at the timeframe of their reign and see that we're not just falling behind, but we seem to be literally undoing prior won progress.
Unfortunately, the spin masters are good at taking small progressive changes, in tourist friendly places especially, and blowing them up larger than life, to give even us critical progressives the false idea that we're "catching up" with the rest of the world... What they're not showing us, on purpose, is that while that bike lane was installed for the cameras to focus on, dozens to hundreds more acres of the city was being developed as car-serving sprawl, or that previously publicized bike lanes or walking infrastructure were being abandoned, pulled out or downgraded, quietly.
Then, there are the small places that aren't tourist friendly or provincial/fed capitals. Ottawa, Edmonton and Vancouver are always at the center of the discussions, and seem to be the only places that UA-camrs take any interest in (besides Amsterdam and American cities), but for people like my wheelchair bound Mom and myself, stuck in a small city without transit or any accessibility infrastructure, what's happening in Ottawa is making no material difference. But good luck getting anyone to talk about Lloydminster; a place that just spent another million dollars on a consultation, to justify not having transit in this "city".
We really need bigger change than we're seeing right now, and we really need to go after the Big Auto lobby and advertising. And we need to spend some time focusing on smaller places that desperately need a light shed on them.
100% agreed, yes! This is such an important perspective, especially with regard to paying attention to smaller, more often forgotten cities that still need strong transit and car-free mobility infrastructure! And of course the auto lobby, it's a big fight but we need to be fighting it more!
@@thetransitbandit I've been trying to popularize the idea that we need to hit big auto where it really hurts: advertising.
Either we need a public action group, to fundraise and make professional commercials and then put them right next to auto commercials on TV, the internet or wherever they advertise... I even have a few clever ideas for commercials.
Or, we need policy to crack down on the highly manipulative way they advertise. Force them to show shots of traffic jams and accidents, add climate change and death statistic warnings/disclaimers (like cigarettes are required), and not use such emotional language, music or imagery. Although, that should apply to all advertising, for everything, but I digress.
Fun fact: I worked on Supergirl and The Flash in Vancouver, before the pandemic got me stuck back in... Ugggh... Alberta... And In the film industry, auto commercials are well known around Van, for huge budgets and high pay. Turns out, a lot, if not most, car commercials are shot there.
Translink is actually terrible. Maybe only in the city of Vancouver or Burnaby. If you live in the suburbs it's awful. Say hello to having once and hour buses that only show up once they feel like it.
@@erge-px8up Unfortunately, that is very much the standard for suburban transit service in the US and Canada. And in most metro areas, there are huge gaps in coverage in the suburbs, meaning many don’t get any service at all. TransLink, on the other hand, has excellent coverage of the suburbs, and just about everyone is served. As for the hourly service, most TransLink suburban service is every 30 minutes or better, hourly service is really only in the lowest ridership areas.
Well done video, and thanks for informing us how serious this is. I didn't think there was a problem and thought they settled the Union strike a few months ago. I thought they got a lot of federal funding for the Langley Sky train expansion.
@@cybernit3 All federal funding for TransLink is entirely for capital projects, such as constructing SkyTrain extensions and bus loops as well as buying new buses and trains. So while there’s enough capital money to buy these things, they’re running very short on operational money to buy fuel, pay workers, and so on.
This is not a good look for funding. WE NEED TO FUND TRANSIT, EVERYWHERE IN THE US AND CANADA!
Thank uou so much for making this video. I wasnt aware and i use transit everyday for achool.
Great video! subscribed.
@@rattslayer Thank you! Great to have you onboard
What caused such a fiscal cliff? Normally a shortfall of funding should be relatively predictable and spread out if it's things like decline of ridership. Was there a change in government recently who decided to cut off the agency?
@@sgbuses Part of it is relief funding beginning to expire, which was given to the agency to help with covid and other financial troubles
@@thetransitbandit Thank you!
Who has faith in the current Federal government to help out?
@@josayeee Maybe not a ton, but with pressure I do believe it’s possible
Maybe if they didn't pay their top executives such high salaries. 18 plus executives all making $200k per year with the CEO topping off at over $500k per year. Maybe roll back the salaries a bit and stop the annual bonuses, then maybe they are able to work closer to within budget.
Compared to the private sector, those wages are low lol.
Really great video. Does the 1.9B infrastructure bill passed last month help this at all or is it already accounted for?
Unfortunately, infrastructure comes from a capital budget, while operating funds are in their own budget, and the issue here is with operating funds. So while it is great to have funding for new infrastructure, that doesn't pay for the cost of actually running the service. Glad you enjoyed the video!
Maybe if the free loaders would pay then it'd be a different issue!
@@5100yes Fare evasion rates in Metro Vancouver are lower than just about anywhere else in the world.
The politics in this country has become obsessed with axing taxes and defunding government programs. I suspect things will get worse before they get better.
I hope not, but I definitely see why you say that!
This is part of “starve the beast” (look it up on Wikipedia) tactics. They want you to loose faith in the system so they can justify more privatization and defunding. Politicians and “think tanks” always talk about operating costs but never the economic benefit of transit.
Wish they bring something express to the downtown area rather than WCE.
Dude, night buses are only in Vancouver area, not in other parts of Lower Mainland. How can they have no money when they raise the transit fare every time? Is there mismanagement or corruption of money going on?
I hope they upgrade the transits to electric (buses, and ferries) and make more of those trolley/cable buses (the ones attached to cables above, idk their official name).
As I stated in the video, the fare increases are below the rate of inflation, and ridership has yet to be fully recovered from Covid.
We're fxked
I was an avid transit user for 3 decades. Unfortunately its no longer comfortable to use with children in many places as the vehicles have been taken over by those in need of housing, addiction services and mental health support. There are also exceedingly few washrooms.
If washrooms were added to a few hubs that would make a huge difference and I would be willing to buy a monthly pass or pay a nominal fee on compass to access them.
Translink has been here before, and this warning of a fiscal cliff is the same tactic they used to plea for more public money. As pointed out in the video, there are many opportunities to improve revenue and reduce expenses. However, this system is in the midst of a massive investment to build a huge addition to the skytrain network all the way out to Langley. A $600M deficit should be somewhat expected following Covid and such a large investment. But that investment will most definitely solve their revenue woes and reduce strain on their suburban bus network. A major redistribution of their bus network will need to be done in order to serve the influx of passengers the new skytrain line will add. The increased ridership should push them well over $3B in annual revenue. What they need to solve is their miss management of those funds.
STM in Montreal Canada has the best transit in North America and it isnt falling off either.
@@ronaldmcdonald6067 To each their own haha!
@@ronaldmcdonald6067 I have heard great things about STM!
If you think Vancouver transit is the best you've just wasted a thought. The buses can't even leave the point of departure on time. With a dozen empty buses sitting there, I was told that they can't use them to cover for the bus that was very late. This was at the point of departure. I don't drive, and lived in Vancouver for 6 years and never thought the transit there was average at best. Granted, I left there 15 years ago, but in my experience, it left something to be desired.
In my opinion, it's the best compared to other agencies. I'd much rather have a delayed bus running every 10 minutes than an on-time one running every 30. But maybe that's just me!
@@thetransitbandit this happened multiple times, not just once or twice. Everyone understands traffic potentially delaying buses, so I stress this was from the point of departure. It's an insult to the transit user, who goes to the point of departure, to be met with an extremely late bus and half a dozen empty buses and drivers seemingly laughing at the situation and doing nothing to rectify it.
Was there anything about what a fare increase beyond the current limit could do?
@@whyme943 Fare increases would have two major issues: firstly, equity, and placing a bigger financial burden on riders, especially those who have no other choice than to ride transit. And second, supply and demand would cause fewer people to ride, and for people to ride less often if fares were increased a significant amount.
@@whyme943 The funding gap is $600 million, TransLink’s current fare revenue is slightly more than $600 million, so accounting for the loss in passengers they would need to more than triple fares, which would be completely unacceptable for riders.
@@thetransitbandit Higher fares might increase ridership of some demographics. They have already expressed interest. Ride sharing is proof of this.
@@eugenetswong True, although that then brings up significant inequities with being able to afford transit, so it's not something that I would be a fan of.
Having spent time in NYC and vicinity, their transit and train (amtrak and others) system is leagues better than Vancouver. The Broadway extension is an example of WTF. Ending at Arbutus? It will cost far more to finish it to UBC in the future. Zero forethought.
That is unfortunate, but is a factor of the suburban Mayor's Council and the lack of adequate funding from provincial and federal governments. NYC has excellent transit, but it has lagged behind the times, and doesn't serve a lot of super important trips. It is also very slow to expand, and is behind on critical maintenance projects. Not to say that NYC isn't admirable, and I absolutely love visiting and riding the subway, but I do think that Vancouver has a system that serves the region better and serves all possible trips more efficiently and effectively.
@@thetransitbandit you're kidding right? your bias is showing. not even close to nyc.
I think of TransLink like the MTA when it comes to the wide range of transit and public infrastructure they both manage. I also think the same when it comes to mismanagement of government funds due to a system of political interference when it comes to transit. Both MTA & TransLink have had terrible political governance that has resulted in a deficit and both are cash strapped. Yet both are expected by the political entities to continue expanding and give a reasonable service. We need to get things straight and realize we need to fund public transit like we do with road infrastructure. If TransLink gets lots of money to build roads, maintain the FTN road network as well as some metro Vancouver bridges we need to give them the same funding for transit as well.
@@JuliasCesar Agreed!
So you're suggesting to pay more taxes to fix the problem. This is so typical for our incapable liberal government. Put the responsibility on taxpayers. Disgusting.
I feel like you should watch the entire video before calling it disgusting? Also, I'm not sure how else you plan on the government getting money to pay for a publicly funded transit service without taxes?
@@thetransitbandit I didn't want to sound mean, I'm sorry if my comment came out this way. I watched the whole video and actually liked it, you did a great job with it. My "disgusting" comment was addressed to our government, specifically regarding taxes, because this seems like the only thing they do - put more burden on taxpayers and not address efficiency (or lack thereof) of their money spending. I pay 53% of my income in taxes, I'm sure they should splurge some on public transport instead of adding yet another tax.
Great video and we really need to discuss this more. I'm really not looking forward to this becoming a reality, just getting to work now is not reliable as once was due to the cuts mentioned already. It's already tough enough that we must fund the ridiculous housing prices (which is another problem in itself that needs to be addressed immediately) but imagine cutting a good chunk of the population's transportation to work...... I can already see how much more unsustainable most businesses will become as people scramble to try and save money.
@@MikuHatsune159 Absolutely, it would be a massive disaster for the region!
incredible video!
@@JatwaI thank you!
Charging drivers, who already pay a lot just to drive and to now fund translink, is a massively stupid idea. This is not equitable as drivers on the road are not one class. They are already paying more for the gas tax, yet you want drivers to pay more?
Its weird to go to this solution as opposed to ones where to government generates more revenue or increases funding. Drivers and citizens are already paying the government, stop this keep taxing the people crap
In Metro Vancouver, driving is very much a choice for about 90% of drivers. Transit is a very strong alternative for the vast majority of trips, and so I definitely think it's fair that drivers pay their fair share. Driving has massive externalities, both socially and economically, that are subsidized by the government as-is. If we are striving for equity, we need to tax these externalities and use that income to fund transit, walking and biking to be even stronger alternatives.
@thetransitbandit what metric is telling you it's a choice for 90% of driving is a choice? Do you live in Vancouver? There are countless jobs where people must drive to. One clear and obvious example would be contruction, other times the time to travel based where you live because housing is so expensive is not reasonable to take a transit. Aka the countless people who live in Langley or white rock that must commute to Vancouver proper. That isn't 10% of the population nor is it far to assume people here are able to choose where they want to work at luxury.
Besides all of this it's very strange you say metro vancouver when driving policies are based around icbc and not cities. What is more, people who live in work in metro Vancouver make less than people in west and north Vancouver on average. Yet you are focused on taxing a class that is already pressed by inflation?
Still think it's an absurd idea when you can simply get the government to increase funding. People in Vancouver are already drowning in taxes, not to mention the consistently high gas prices, cost of food, cost for basic car maintenance, and materials all increasing since covid.
Kind of sounds like to me you don't live in BC.
@@thetransitbandit perhaps a wealth tax is a better compromise
@@Nites2k I lived in Vancouver for 12 years, up until 2021, and continue to visit every month or two, I am well aware of the region's geography and commuting patterns. My reasoning for saying that most driving is a choice is based on the coverage, frequency and span of the current TransLink network, which even serves many places in cities like Langley with more than usable service for the majority of jobs. Yes, there are some jobs, like construction and farm work, that may require a car, but these are a significant minority of jobs, and cars, in the region at the moment. While I would be in support of a wealth tax as well, I believe that the cost of driving a car should be much more in line with the real-world cost of that car on society.
They will find the money because the ridership will force them to. Réductions in transit are unacceptable and a backward step. Public transit is the future.
Maybe the provincial government will step in. Maybe taxes will go up. Maybe fares will increase.
Nice video
@@Cookie0fPower Thank you!
Hope it has not much to go with carbon tax increasing fuel prices in the region
Vancouver transit is ok at best, go to Montreal and you start having a decent one.
Hk approach? I dont want to live in even tinier condos… hk one of the lowest birth rates due to city design. The more you keep people in smaller space less baby and higher inequality of land value depending on whether you are close to skytrain station or not.
You need to increase property tax to lower property values and people who dont have property can get into the market. Also there are too many green space in cities, need to turn those into concrete jungle to resolve housing issue.
Housing is number one issue, as long as house becomes cheap, people can afford cars due to higher disposable income which will enhance quality jobs that can be spreader out.
Taxing ev cars per usage isn't going to work. It would be just as volatile as gas taxes and the more people switch to transit then less funding 😂
You need to stop relying on funding from cars if you're building a system to eliminate cars. A stable source of funding is one that doesn't errode itself when people use your service. That's probably the worse type of funding there is.
Paying your fare share per use is the only way. Fares should cover the system cost and be locked to regional inflation. The private sector should also be allowed to profit just like in Japan and it's many private railways via retail and fares.
Federal funding is the worse idea of all. All it takes is one party to get in control and funding can b slashed overnight.
If transit is going to be stable, users need to pay their fair share and true cost. Any system that is subsidized cannot be stable. It simply is a mathematical reality.
Why are they then extending Millenium line all the way to UBC? That's crazy expensive and Broadway is all open already.. There has to be some subsidy going on anyway.
It is not cheap for an everyday transit as it is, compared to gas. Hoping everything goes towards electric, would shift things around well.
@@fUtal1mistake The Millennium Line extension is a capital project, for which there is funding. The issue here is operational money, ie paying to run the service once you’ve built it. The Broadway/UBC subway would also help with this situation by eliminating the 99 B-Line, which takes enormous resources to run
Comparing the Vancouver/Lower Mainland Metro Transit Systems to those in the Golden Horseshoe is frankly laughable. The GO Train & Bus system alone dwarf in size and effectiveness any regional transit in all of BC. Is the SkyTrain comparable to the TTC, not really as it is a completely different style of transit system that has to deal with many magnitudes less of daily passengers and it lacks real downtown access. I live in both cities and have for the past 30+ years so I'm talking from personal experience on this matter. Until there is frequent rail service between Vancouver & Abbotsford & Squamish there is no question which transit system is more effective at its basic tasks.
PS; Also the graph you used for the Trips Per Person claim uses Canadian Stats from 2021 & 2022, years where Toronto was shut down far more dramatically than Vancouver, using the 2019 example is a far more accurate depiction of the actual Per Capita ridership in which Toronto is actually #2 and Vancouver falls behind Montreal.
When your only response to the problem is MORE taxes in one of the highest-taxed cities on the planet, you failed the assignment. You sound young and fairly uneducated on the bigger picture problems facing Canada and how they relate to the country's transit issues, so I challenge you to find a real solution without raising the taxes on Canadians... And saying the word "progressive" doesn't mean you know what your talking about when it comes to Taxation Policy, Taxation is ALWAYS theft. Do Better and seek out other opinions that challenge your own assumptions.
@@adellis24 As someone who doesn't vote conservative, my age doesn't make me naive. We can have a difference of opinion without me being someone who apparently doesn't know what they're talking about. There are benefits to taxation, and there is no other way to fund a public service without taxes of some kind. I'm proposing taxes that ensure that those with the most money pay the most for these services, ensuring those who need the services are more likely to afford them. That's all I mean by progressive taxation. As for Toronto, having a large network of suburban transit doesn't necessarily make the system as a whole better. GO is great for getting to downtown, but for other things it becomes challenging, and many lines have no off-peak or weekend service. As for the subway, it's adequate, but doesn't cover nearly as much of the area as SkyTrain does, nor does it run as frequently or reliably. At the end of the day, you're definitely entitled to your own opinions, I just presented my thoughts as to why I think TransLink does a better job.
The NDP government has been eerily silent on this issue. I know you're not supposed to campaign outside of the writ period, but they could at least give some hints which would be cause for optimism. I assume if the Conservatives win provincially, it will be a nightmare scenario.
Our transit system sucks. It's overcrowded and frequencies are worse than before. The idea of trying to equalize the suburbs with Vancouver was completely insane. It takes a lot more money to provide good service to a place with low population density, bad urban planning, and low ridership.
Best Transit system in NA? If you live in Vancouver yes anywhere outside zone 1 it falls apart.
Buses run at molasses speed south of fraser. It took me longer to get to Scott road station than to get to Vancouver.
Trust me, I lived in Surrey on Scott road for 5 years exclusively used transit for work and school.
It says more about state of NA public transit than how "good" Vancouver's transit system is. Out of the few NA cities I've been to or lived in, Vancouver does have one of the best transit system. Though it's still not even close to what major Asian cities have
Comparing transit in Surrey to transit in, say, downtown Seattle, then sure, it's not great. But as far as suburban transit goes, it's still some of the best out there, at least in these countries. There are definitely things that need to be improved, but comparatively it's one of the best.
Try living in Langley it's even worse. Buses come every 45 minutes - 2+ hours if you are lucky on some routes.
Getting home from vancouver at night is nearly impossible on transit alone after a club show.
Pretty sure they'll find the money.
I hope so, but it does indicate a bigger issue with the way we fund transit everywhere. We shouldn't have to be pushed to the brink of disaster so frequently in order to maintain our systems, especially at a time when we desperately need to be expanding them.
@@thetransitbandit Agreed. Kinda concerned what the Election does. Both for Transit and Housing, but...
Much of the malaise can be laid at the feet of the decision to burn down billions of dollars to build the Broadway Skytrain extension, which, when complete (years late and over budget), will take riders to the nowhere intersection of Arbutus and West Broadway. Yeah, it would be great to someday replace the fleet of 99Bs that ferry UBC students from points east with Skytrain, but this ain't that, and evidently it will be decades if ever before we can kick free enough discretionary funding to do it. Meanwhile, back to gridlock and personal cars citywide and we don't even get bike lanes on West Broadway. Voters had the opportunity to head this off with a sales tax bump, but the 2015 referendum failed decisively.
We have the statistics for 2024 from monthly reports by Statistics Canada and TransLink.
The only thing that will solve this fiscal cliff is proper congestion charging and better bus infrastructure to increase efficiency. Vancouver has no more room for cars, to the point that buses are constantly slow and delayed. Meanwhile, traffic has made parts of Vancouver absolutely miserable, there's not nearly enough bike infrastructure, and most of the city is a sea of decaying Vancouver Specials that frequent buses are forced to serve instead of multi-unit apartments. Usually I'm blowing the horn on the need for proper regional rail to drive transit ridership and reduce congestion, but there are huge swaths of the lower mainland that are so sparsely populated that they don't justify more than one bus an hour. Meanwhile, the busiest corridors operate beyond capacity. High frequency buses should serve density so that more fare can be recovered.
Well thought out. Thanks!
What happens when you build a system that is more about ambition than reality or practicality. They got carried away
10:44 96 cents for a litre…
In Montreal it's 176 cents for a liter... wtf
@@mrbreakfastmcmuffin It was a free stock image, oops LOL
The night bus is a joke anyways so seeing it go does not change that much, I am saying this as a person with a graveyard shift. The rest I mostly agree, Translink is essential for the region.
However in terms of tax increases, congestion pricing is not too useful in Vancouver as most congestion in the region usually located outside of the transit coverage, and the places that has transit coverage usually has less congestion. Most of the congestion in Vancouver is mostly due to the fact there are not much alternative going around, such as the North Shore. Bridge tax will work, especially the oak, Arthur lang, Portello, and hw1 as these bridges have sufficient alternative transit modes. The other bridge and tunnels will only work if a bus lane is in place, which is next to impossible on the rate on how roads are built throughout the region. Additionally transit congestion pricing/time based pricing should also be considered as we are facing a shortage of fund to improve facilities, and crowded routes needs to be slightly alleviated.
Its not important until it hits one million people affected.
You're just dumb
I live in Vancouver, and no, Toronto's system is way better no comparison.
@@JB-yb4wn And I grew up in Vancouver. It’s all subjective, but based on the metrics I consider important I’d prefer Vancouver’s 🤷♂️
@@thetransitbandit
Your opinion is worthless unless you can prove that Vancouver's is the best transit system. I live in West Van, you need a car to get anywhere outside of Ambleside and Dundarave because the buses don't run very often towards Horseshoe Bay, and they sure don't run anywhere near as often in the Properties and West Hill. Toronto's system goes all over the city and extends past Guelph, Oshawa, etc. Vancouver's is no where near as comprehensive.
@@JB-yb4wn I went to school in the British properties for a while, I am aware of the shortfalls of suburban transit. However, in just about any other city, a place like British Properties or any of the places between Dundarave and Horseshoe bay would most likely have no service at all, they're extremely low-density, high-income places that need transit the least. And considering that they all get half-hourly or better peak frequency and hourly or better midday and weekend service, it could be much, much worse. I guarantee there are comparable places in Toronto or anywhere else.
@@thetransitbandit
FFS just look at the transit map of Toronto and I dare you to say that Vancouver's comes anywhere close to that. I was born in Vancouver and its many a time when I was a kid I had to walk up Taylor Way because I missed the last bus up the hill at 5:45, next one coming at 11Pm.
amazing video, translink's funding is failing like crazy now
Not the only crisis in this country. Sure probably unrelated to all the other crises.
But. I swear. Can’t go for more than one month without another bad news in this place.
I take transit. Transit in this city for all the suburban cities that isn’t Vancouver has been expensive with all the price hikes. People tout that Vancouver has the lowest fares. But if you live in Surrey or Langley. You live in the city with the highest train fares. Which is messed up considering people from these cities are of lower income.
Now plus price on vehicles and gas being expensive. Harder to find a job. Increase crime rate and higher housing prices.
Only to see the cost of living here being paid in full by cut backs on essential services.
Doesn’t bode well for a country once toted as the “best country in the Americas”
The two pie charts @10:13 are such manipulative graphic and a lie by omission. The reality is that transit revenue is somewhere ~20% of the total, the rest is subsidies. I generally support public transit and good urbanism, but that all can only be achieved by being objective and having the intestinal fortitude to look at the realities of who is paying for what here, and whom is the public transit prioritizing in serving. People will vote for populists who will starve out/bleed out, then privatize things like transit and healthcare if the needs and interests of the majority of the taxpayers won't get prioritized, and most importantly --- the impact of having a good transit system gets driven home and explained with abundant clarity to Joe Taxpayer. HINT: hot air about equity groups and environment won't sway the voters. Explaining how the Skytrain will actually be more reliable (or, gasp -- just as comfortable and convenient!) for someone who takes their car from Surrey to Burnaby would be the winning approach. Not tip-toeing around bus routes and making sure that one person is able to get to their graveyard shift at 2am from Chiliwack to Vancouver. Sorry if this comes off toxic, but the planners, analysts and policy makers are sometimes SOOO FAR UP THE IVORY TOWER that they don't see the ugly realities of municipal and provincial politics.
@@freezerlunik I don’t believe you’ve read those pie charts if that’s what you think quite frankly, one discusses transit revenue and the other discusses tax revenue. Together they make up the entirety of TransLink funding. Additionally, the bus routes are what make the SkyTrain successful. Feeding passengers into a rapid transit system is a huge model for success, and making useful service is usually the best way to convince riders to use transit. In addition, while I’m all for convincing those with cars to convert to transit, we do need to prioritize those who rely on it first and foremost. I also object to your ivory tower statement. As a transit planner, I’ve also ridden about 90% of the bus routes in the TransLink system, as well as around 95% of the bus routes in and around the Puget Sound. I take great pride in observing what people do, how they use transit and how they don’t, and I consider it to be the most important part of the job.
Maybe the effin’ CEO shouldn’t be paid bonuses in the several millions of dollars ⁉️
15:25 Definitely #TransLink needs to be more like systems in developed Asian countries. Though #TransLink should also open up their #CompassCard systems to third party applications (payments, private transport, access control, etc.) like such systems in such countries (#Japan, #Korea, #Taiwan, etc.).
I would never say that Vancouver has “objectively excellent transit”. If anything it’s objectively sub par for a metro area of this size and density. Yes it’s one of the best in NA but that’s a very low bar.
I moved here from Europe 3 years ago and compared to what I’m used to this is pathetic. 3 Sky train lines that cover only a small portion of the area with long distances between stations. When they extend Sky train to UBC and Langley that would be better but still not good enough. Busses that suck themselves and get stuck in traffic. I often have to wait for a bus for 15 min or more. That’s not acceptable. West coast express is a joke it has a few trains early in the morning to Vancouver and a few early in the evening in the opposite direction . That’s a glorified commuter train and not a functioning transit link.
But I guess it could always get worse.😅
Vancouver has a terrible transit system. Skytrain has small-town service on weekends and holidays. 20 minutes between trains is unacceptable given how crowded these trains are. Buses are unreliable and often don't show up.
@@Sc00terNut-zq3gs Either you don’t ride SkyTrain much or you enjoy spreading misinformation… the expo and Canada lines run every 3 minutes on weekends, while the millennium line runs every 6.
@@thetransitbandit I stopped riding transit for the reasons I mentioned. Not misinformation at all. Just talk to anyone that does ride transit. You're clearly spreading misinformatio, pal. Perhaps you should ride the trains and buses. You'll learn a thing or two.
@@Sc00terNut-zq3gs ... wrong channel to assume I don't ride transit LOL
@Sc00terNut-zq3gs As a transit rider myself and thetransitbandit is actually right.. The trains are very frequent, and if not then it's usually due to unforeseen circumstances such as train malfunctions especially with the Gen1 trains or even weather such as when Vancuver was hit with -10°C weather with snow falling.
I ride Skytrain almost every weekend. Besides a few times there were some system hiccups or accidents, I never had to wait 20 minutes for Skytain...
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Canada no good.
Live in Montreal for a little bit and you’ll see that Vancouver doesn’t have the best transit system.
@@Pscribbled It’s just my take 🤷♂️ I have visited Montreal and did love their transit system!
I’ve lived in both. Montreal has better train service to the suburbs and the REM, when finished, is promising, but if you live in or near downtown Vancouver, or even Richmond and Burnaby, Skytrain is better. Montreal has too many cars, too many freeways cutting through the city and eyesores like Decarie.