The 19-kilometre Canada Line will open with great political fanfare on Monday (August 17).
The public will be allowed to ride for free from 1 p.m. to 9 p.m. on the line, which runs from Waterfront Station to Richmond Centre and to the airport.
Updates
But that's when the free ride will end. TransLink has already acknowledged that it might take until 2013 before the Canada Line generates 100,000 riders per day.
And that could be bad news for taxpayers and transit riders.
InTransit B.C. Limited Partnership, which is the private operator, has signed a 35-year deal with TransLink. And TransLink has guaranteed to subsidize Canada Line ridership shortfalls of less than 100,000 per day.
If TransLink, as a publicly funded body, wants to maintain public trust, it should report this subsidy on a quarterly basis.
TransLink is seeking an additional $450 million per year to enhance the transportation system. If it gets its wish, there will be new vehicle-registration charges as well as tolls on Metro Vancouver bridges, including those connecting Vancouver to the North Shore.
TransLink had better hope that the peak-oil theorists are wrong. Because if they're correct, it will hit the transportation authority in three ways:
* Airport traffic will diminish, reducing ridership on the Canada Line.
* Rising fuel prices will cause people to curtail driving, which will reduce the amount of fuel taxes (12 cents a litre) rolling into TransLink's coffers.
* Fewer people will be driving over tolled bridges including the Golden Ears Bridge. In the latter case, TransLink will have to offset this by providing greater subsidies to the private operator, just like it will do with the Canada Line if airport traffic diminishes.
The Canada Line is a primary reason why TransLink is in a financial pinch. I can recall two municipal politicians--Vision Vancouver Coun. Raymond Louie and former North Vancouver City mayor Barbara Sharp--voting in favour of the line in 2004 after a motion passed calling for a $1.35-billion cap on public financing.
The $1.35-billion figure is obvious fiction after the operating subsidies are included in the equation.
Louie and Sharp caved in the face of pressure from the Vancouver Board of Trade, the Vancouver Sun editorial board, the Vancouver Airport Authority, and the provincial and federal governments, which all wanted the line built.
If drivers, homeowners, and transit riders all end up paying a great deal more in the coming years, they can lay part of the blame on Louie and Sharp.
But they weren't the only TransLink directors responsible. Senator Larry Campbell, former Surrey mayor Doug McCallum, Surrey councillor Marvin Hunt, former Langley City mayor Marlene Grinnell, Richmond mayor Malcom Brodie, and former Coquitlam mayor Jon Kingsbury all voted in favour of the Canada Line.
It's worth noting that Larry Campbell's friend, SFU criminologist Neil Boyd, cast the deciding vote at the regional board in favour of a $4-billion plan that helped finance TransLink's contribution. At the time, Boyd represented Bowen Island on the regional board.
If the Bowen Island council had left the then-mayor Lisa Barrett on the board, the transportation plan likely would never have been passed because Barrett was a staunch opponent of building the Canada Line as a P3 project. Barrett also didn't believe the early forecasts that 100,000 people would be riding the Canada Line in 2009.
Because of a seemingly insignificant decision--replacing a regional board director in a tiny island municipality that had one vote at Metro Vancouver--the public might end up paying much higher transportation costs in the future.
Comment (33)
Comments
A quick search on the internet shows that the 98 B-Line has approximately 18,000 boardings daily or 9,000 passengers daily:
http://www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/documents/mills.pdf
The annual revenue from the 98 B-Line might be $20 million if you really push it and do some creative accounting, and maybe 10% of this $2,000 million is left over after paying for the light bulbs at the stations, security costs and other operating costs for the RAV Line. For the $2,000 million cost of the RAV Line, the payback works out to be 1,000 years. By that time, the next tsunami will have put it under the Pacific Ocean along with Richmond.
What kind of retards at TransLink would sign a 35-year deal to guarantee to subsidize the RAV Line ridership for 100,000 per day when it is replacing the 98 B-Line with only 18,000 boardings per day? Geez, let’s just give these TransLink financial wizards another $450 million/yr for the next 10 years; they have it all figured out and we can’t possibly go wrong.
Vancouver Sun :
"It is car usage that is subsidized by one and all, to the tune of $6.6 billion dollars annually in B.C, or 42 per cent of the total cost (on average) to operate a vehicle. This statistic has been thoroughly documented, by both the Victoria Transport Policy Institute and the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways"
In the article "Traffic directions for the Burrard Bridge"
If you ask the ones running TransLink whether a ridership of 100,000 daily means 100,000 passengers (200,000 transit trips daily) or 100,000 transit trips daily, few at TransLink could tell you. TransLink has no clue what it is doing. If we are lucky, the new Transportation Minister will fire them all at TransLink so that we can go back to each municipality operating transit locally to reduce transit fares and improve transit service with TransLink operating the regional SkyTrain service which it was originally established to create.
http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/canada-line-subsidy-will-be-... for details
Just browsing some malcontents and anti SkyTrain types and if anyone wants to know the 'dark side' of transit try:
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/a-letter-to-the-editor-...
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/the-skytrain-lobby-pixi...
Could it be they the malcontents and SkyTrain naysayers could be correct? Na, no Gordo promised the Eye that everything about RAV was honest and above board and Gordo never lies, does he????
Yes Gordo we see through you! I just wish the general population did as well.
Achtung! Nicht RAV!
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/%e2%80%9cif-you-tell-a-...
For your information, the Vancouver Sun is controlled by TransLink or at least greatly influenced by TransLink and tends to write stories to make readers sympathize with TransLink. The Georgia Straight does not censor comments and gives readers a fair chance to express their views. The same cannot be said about the Vancouver Sun which is more concerned about its advertising money from TransLink than printing the truth.
Stephen, this annual $20 million is based on the two-zone fare for all 18,000 boardings for 365 days, which is highly conservative as many of the 98 B-Line users likely use monthly passes and the $20 million annual revenue is probably closer to $10 million in annual revenue for 9,000 transit users (2 boardings ~ 1 transit user). The people making the connection from buses to the RAV Line will be transfers and won’t add any more revenue to the RAV Line.
Initially, it’s easy to predict the revenue from the RAV Line, from the 98 B-Line revenue, if you read in between the lines, but the ones who approved the RAV Line didn’t read in between the lines. Over time, as you suggest, the land surrounding the RAV Line will fill up with high density housing and transit use will increase. Even with increased transit use, it is hard to see how paying off $1.35 billion over 35 years or $40 million/yr just for the principal without taking into account any operating expenses is going to happen.
You are the economist, any thoughts? Is the RAV Line going to pay for itself without that $450 million/yr which TransLink wants to supposedly improve service?
TransLink was told this a decade ago, but they know better don't they.
Now with the Great Premier at the helm of regional transit planning, it's all rubber on asphalt - Gateway forever!
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/debunking-the-skytrain-...
I'm not sure anyone can afford any of this. It all looks like one big con job. Whos getting value for money, Intransit and the other investors. Thanks Mr Smith.
We understand that part of the reasoning for cancelling the bus routes is to ensure high ridership numbers on the Canada line, but somehow we suspect that this has more to do with avoiding any penalty fees Translink (i.e. we taxpayers) would have to pay to the private-for-profit Canada line operator for failing to meet our contractually guaranteed ridership quotas.
Here's a suggestion fro "Back to driving" and " Busrider": Take your bicycle on the Canada line, then cycle the remaining distance. According to the advertising and news media, the Canada Line welcomes cycles at all times, in both directions, with no rush-hour restrictions. Saves gas, saves time.
Get your facts straight my friend. Gas taxes do not come close to covering the cost of infrastructure they rely upon. Just google 'do gas taxes cover road costs'. The only issue is the fact isn't well know, it doesn't mean its wrong (wouldn't that be more of a 'conspiracy' ?). You are also not factoring in the insane health care costs vehicles cause, they are by far the number one accidental cause of death and disability. Every time you see a bicyclist or someone taking transit please take them time to wave to them, they are subsidizing your requirement to drive by 40 percent. Drive if you like, don't pretend you aren't doing it on the back of all taxpayers.
Of course no one really knows how many people use SkyTrain, even TransLink admits that ridership figures are guesstimates!
The trick is not to run enough trains (about 25% of the rolling stock is out of service at any given time) to give the impression of overcrowding. It's an old dodge and it seems to work on Metro Vancouver's rather inept lot of Mayors and Councilors.
Ever notice that TransLink's bureaucrats turn a pale shade of green when an independent audit is mentioned for the metro. Seems they are afraid of the truth.
Notice no one else builds with SkyTrain?
Notice how high our TransLink property tax is?
Notice that there are more cars on the road than ever?
The Sun, which predicted 100,000 riders on RAV yesterday, said today almost 80,000 rode for free, which probably means 70,000 in real terms.
The Eye saw this on another blog but finds it interesting.
"I find that this ”˜magic’ 100,000 passenger number, “then the Canada Line breaks even”, is very simplistic.
Is that 100,000 passengers paying full fare? What about all those Langara students with their discounted U-Passes using RAV, how does that affect revenue? Will TransLink apportion fares between bus and RAV or will the bus system be ignored while bus revenue is skimmed into RAV’s coffers?
Apportioning fares is extremely important if the majority of RAV’s ridership will first have to take a bus to the metro.
Without a “Oyster Card” system or something like it, how can TransLink apportion fares? Do they care? What about concession fares and the YVR surcharge, how will that factor in revenue collection? Will the Day-Pass need a YVR supplement?
For many, these questions may seem too technical, but with the P-3 charade, there is going to be some interesting and questionable accounting taking place and if TransLink gets the tax revenue it wants, the real financial viability of the metro will be buried for a generation."
More and more this 100,000 passenger number and everything is rosy after, is nothing more than ”˜Pixie-dust’ planning meant to confuse the media and just about everyone else.
Since 2/3 of the revenue Translink takes in comes from the 90% of those in the region who own cars, the rest from fares, then just who is doing the subsidizing.
In addition, its not transit fares that pay for the roads, its fuel taxes, provincial sales and income taxes. And where do these taxes come from? They are not Tranlinks, they are the taxes coming from the vast majority of regional residents who don't have even a basic transit service let alone a toy subway costing well over $2 billion.
Not to sound like I am pro cars but I am so tired of those who can't look for themselves and see that only 5% of Translink's budget is spent on roads and bridges. And where is the rest going to? Is it benefiting all regional residents or just those living in the core of the region which make up only 35% of the region's population?
If you were to blame a few things for Translink's continual financial problems it would be the building of two urban rail lines, the Millenium and RAV Line, as well as the Golden Ears Bridge. It's spend and tax ways have just got to end.
Next time I think Translink should sell bonds to pay for their big ticket items. The bonds would be rated on a real business plan and would pay out based on performance or cost recovery. Just how many of you RAV boosters would fork over your own money to pay for something that is going to benefit only 1% of the commuters in the region and have dismall revenue and boarding returns?
And to force transit users from south of the Fraser to help pay for this mess is just another example of poor planning and a way to anger the vast majority who have to subsidize the transit system with no added benefits.
In one day (Friday Sept 11) 92,000 trips were made on the Canada Line system: that would fill BC Place, GM Place, AND the Pacific Coliseum.
Do yourself a favour and ask the people on the train what they think - ask them why they're leaving their cars behind - Translink has hit a home run with Canada Line - riders love it. Check for yourself and ask 'em.