Agreed, it's a very interesting read; not especially time consuming.

For those of you who want a very brief summary of the audit, I took screen caps of Appendix A and B.



The report doesn't show tragically poor mismanagement:

Overtime hours decreased 29% overall between 2007-2011 (pg.47)

Executive team has decreased from 34 members in 2009 to 17 members currently, resulting in a 31% savings in compensation. (pg.44)

CMBC has maintained growth in the hourly cost of service at the rate of inflation.

Translink's real estate portfolio has a net book value of approximately $528 million but a much higher actual value. The management plan is becoming more sophisticated and strategic with a focus of maximizing revenue. Translink is rezoning surplus properties prior to sale to increase value. (pg.15)

Some interesting points:

Total operating expenditures were $1.36 Billion in 2011 (57% higher than 2007), however the report finds this spending reasonable in relation to service expansion.

Translink maintains a $500 million LOC, which it paid $400,000 to maintain in 2011 and $225,000 in 2012; it has never accessed these funds.

Translink manages an asset portfolio valued in excess of $10 billion.

Replacement of all 500 CMBC diesel buses with CNG would generate an annual savings of $12.7 million, BUT it would cost $70 million resulting in a 5-6 years payback period. (pg.26)

Definite inefficiencies:

HandyDart costs are 18% higher than the Canadian average. A restructuring of the service to include a greater utilization supplemental taxi services could save $1 million. (pg.27)

Since 2007 CMBC's fleet maintenance staffing level has increased by 30%, this is due to a significant hiring upswing to reflect increased service levels during the Olympics. Post-Olympics however, the staffing levels were never decreased to reflect the current needs. A 10% reduction in fleet maintenance would save $3.7 million. (pg.27)

Driver absenteeism costs $12.1 million per year; the average driver takes 14 sick days per year.

Better management of driver scheduling to increase split shifts could save up to $1 million per year.

8 of the 22 lowest performing routes are still operated using conventional buses, a conversion to community shuttles would save $500,000 per year without service reduction. (pg.22)

Reducing frequency of Skytrain service during non-peak hours could save $1.57 million. (pg.18)

So what the audit says a lot of is, "Translink and [insert group here] should work to find a better way to do [insert issue here]", while slapping numbers on potential changes.

One of the things that the report criticizes is Translink's method of putting busses on routes based on projected future ridership rather than current ridership. Given that translink really only adjusts busses once a year, this doesn't seem that weird to me. I mean, why would you want to add busses only when you're driving past people who want to get on the bus?

Another is Translink's fiscal conservancy. The report says that if Translink were a little less cautious, they could either save more money or "budget more accurately" (translink typically operates with a budget surplus annually because they are cautious with investments and whatnot). Personally, I think fiscal conservancy is a good thing. Unfortunately, people tend to think that it isn't...until shit goes south, at which point everyone gets angry that the organization wasn't more conservative.

Fiscally conservative and run surpluses? Wasteful. Embrace risk and get bitten? Wasteful.

Heads you lose, tails I win.

The real question is why a city the size of Vancouver doesn't have a subway system running 24/7.

The fact that it's a tourist city (read: drunk people) multiplies the urgency of that question ten fold.

Even New York doesn't run 24/7 on all their lines. Tell me why Vancouver should.

It's simple. Our population density and demand doesn't justify the cost.

Like Graeme adds, if NY doesn't do it and their density is HUGE compared to ours, we have no real reason to either.

And as for a tourist city? What about the likes of Paris? They don't have a 24 hour metro either.

'cause cab fares here :fuckthatshit:

Let's have Manhattan/Vegas rates here :troll:

Can't disagree with you there. If it cost me less than $30ish to get home from DT (which it does now) then I might be tempted to cab home more often. As it stands...no.

I'm fairly sure that people asked the same question when prompted with the possibility of a space program.

While it is not the space program, the lack of service elsewhere does not make service here any less important or worthwhile.

You're forgetting that cabs are expensive, if transit ran throughout the night, a lot of people would resort to taking transit over cabs, offsetting the costs associated with running them all night due to the increased volume of riders.

Now, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I do see a lot of people taking cabs after 1AM.

:facepalm: at space analogy.

First of all, for the general population (yes, there are people who are not between 18 and 38), getting drunk people home safely after midnight isn't a high priority. If you want to get shitfaced with your friends, get a designated driver. Or use that program where they take you home in your own car.

Do you have any idea of the astronomical costs associated with running the entire skytrain system an extra hour? Two? So everyone should pay for the benefit of the small amount of people who can't go home "conveniently", even though they chose to put themselves in that position? :fuckthatshit:

I'm not forgetting that at all if you'll look a single post up. But two things
A) The skytrain is not a fucking space program. It is not an ambitious multibillion (trillion?) dollar program designed to do something that has never been done before in the name of great scientific advances. It's a way to get from A to B. There are several alternatives, and if worst REALLY came to worst, I could walk home from downtown. Sure, it'd be about 16 kilometres...but that's the fucking seawall. People walk that for fun. And yes, I realize that not everybody lives "as close" to DT as I do...but if you're going drinking, make a fucking plan. It's not like all our options aren't out in front of us.

B) Expensive cab fares are a completely different problem from 24/7 transit. You think that making skytrain run 24/7 will make cabs cheaper? Or that there's really a shadowy secret Taxi Lobby keeping Translink from operating 24/7? No. The simple fact is that taxi drivers are charging the provincial maximum, and would rather take fares at that price rather than lower their prices.

Honestly, I think taxi services would face a great boon if they operated in the opposite of transit--cut fares during Translink peak time and raise them during off times. They'd most likely get more customers....but like I said. Taxi fares are a completely different beast than the skytrain. While it's good to look at "completely systemic transit infrastructure", we're talking Translink. And Translink doesn't control taxi fares.

-edit-
Also, just wanted to add. After the skytrain is done, there are plenty of Night busses that run parallel to the skytrain lines, or that run to the main stations: N9 Coquitlam station(3:09), N10 Richmond(4:09), N19 Surrey Central(3:30), N24 Upper Lonsdale(3:25). And the numbers in brackets are when they leave DT. Most transit resumes at 5AM or so (6ish on a Sunday), so really we're looking at about 2-3 hours of downtime tops.

I don't view a proposal for 24/7 Skytrain service being feasible.

What I suggest may be feasible is running a single train from downtown thirty minutes after last call Friday and Saturday night, or possibly Friday, Saturday, and after Canucks games. That gives bar goers enough time to drink until they would ideally like to leave and walk to a train without rushing, and possibly enough time for some bar staff to reach the train. I think my proposal would have at least a possibility of being financially feasible. Although, I also don't think the current night bus system is terrible; I used it when drinking till 3am was still my cup of tea, no issues.

Irritated me a bit.

People can take whatever stance they want, I don't even drink, I just feel that an intoxicated man/woman would rather spend $2.50 for a ride on the skytrain than a $30 cab fare, the other option right now is driving.

Do I want to pay for it running that long? Not really.

Do I want to pay for someone else's poor planning? Not really.

But if it's a way of preventing people from choosing cars over transit, it's a price I'm willing to pay. I believe in prevention, and the skytrain stopping at 1am makes me feel that extra bit uneasy.

^That train ride would most likely be very loud, full of puke and blood on the ground, and generally very unpleasant lol

And people focusing on the lack of skytrain service exclusively simply fail to realize the variety of options when it comes to getting home.

Nightbus
Taxi
DD
Walk the fuck home
Leave early

Yes, I agree, having drunk drivers on the road sucks. But Skytrain is not the be-all end-all of transportation. Just listen to all the RSers that bitch "The skytrain isn't anywhere near me why do I have to pay." and so on and so forth.



Also, while I was down in Seattle last week, I noticed that on their meters, they let you park until 10AM the next day friday/saturday night. Why? So you can get smashed, get home, then come back the next mornign when you're not drunk to pick up your car. Now THAT is smart.

Okay, honestly this stupid arugment needs to stop here. I almost wonder if some posters here work for Translink.

Many of the NY Subway system trains run 24/7 or run late hours:

MTA/New York City Transit Subway Line Information

There is no reason why Translink cannot modifty the skytrain times to run later on Friday and Saturday evenings, and I don't even ride the damn thing.

I actually forgot that. Shows how much time I actually spend on the Subway when I'm over there... :lol

To be fair, though, the only reason why it works in New York is because they have so many lines and routes that they can shut down the majority of the rail lines to perform maintenance and not have it impact their night service as it's diverted to other tracks. Unfortunately that wont work here because we really only have one track service 99% of the areas.

Indeed, many thanks Mike. While I was touristing in New York (admittedly for less than two weeks), I noted that even on Fridays and Saturdays many of the subway stations near where I was or was staying were closing around 1 or 2. But like Lomac says...bit different.

And this is the folly of constantly comparing our transportation system here to other cities: few other cities are similar to Vancouver's geography. Seattle may be the closest to our layout of water bodies and mountains, but their LRT setup is almost non-existent compared to SkyTrain, and the Sounder Train just runs routes between major centers, similar to the Westcoast Express.

I've seen people point to Calgary's surface light rail system, for example - problem with that is, compared to here, Calgary is FLAT - light rail works a lot better. There are a couple relatively narrow rivers to cross, but nothing like bridging the Fraser, Burrard Inlet, etc.

This thread is comparing our system to New York's, but as noted, their routes have a lot of redundancy that allow sections to be closed for maintenance while keeping the system running.

Anybody remember when buses use to have those tear-away tickets?

Admittedly, I was way too young to know anything back then, but Translink wasn't in this big of a mess back then.

Just like everything else in this city, they did not plan for the future. This city's infrastructure and everything associated is filled to the brim, and we are now starting to see the results.

PACKED buses that can't take on any passengers during busy times. One of the worst congested roads in North America. Tax on a gas tax with some more gas tax, to pay along with your gas tax. 5 bloody bridges, in a city that can very well use 20.

Even the construction that's going on now, not just the Highway 1, but all the ongoing projects and lane widenings, should have been done 10 years ago. The work that's being done now will be sufficient for now, 5-10-20 years later? same story again.

It's so fucking simple. Create a long-term plan, and set realistic budgets. Collect the needed revenue in a reasonable manner, that isn't going to upset the entire province (re: HST). Use said money appropriately, and while doing so, plant a POSITIVE image in the voter's minds, so that we don't feel like the government is robbing from us and everything they do is wrong.

If politicians, and in turn, the population, got their heads out of their asses and worked collectively, we wouldn't have these messes. This also should have been done 10 years ago.

And in a related rant, to those who keep saying "this doesn't relate to me, I don't care", fuck you. You live in this city, and even though you may be too ignorant to realize it, everything is related. You're just as bad as the ones who don't vote because "it isn't going to matter."

/rant

I don't think its transportation planners that lacked foresight, like you said its the politicians with their heads up their asses.

Translink did not exist until 1998, around the time the tear tickets were replaced, when Translink was created by the province it took on much more responsibility than the organization it replaced (BC Transit).

Skytrain for the most part (Millennium and Expo) was designed for the future, see the length of the platform versus the length of trains (ignoring the poor design of station flow), the location of the stations, etc... Metrotown was nothing back then, Joyce was nothing, Brentwood, Renfrew Business park, Lougheed.

Now thats ignoring the serious lack of development around 29th, Nanaimo, Edmonds, Rupert, and many stations surrounded by single family homes, but in general nothing to do with Translink.

The concept of the Canada Line was the planned in the 80s, but killed with successive provincial governments.

The concept of the Evergreen and UBC Line were planned extensions of the existing Millennium Line, but again killed by successive provincial governments.

P3 development of Canada Line to minimum specs, politicians must love being able to say the Canada Line has exceeded ridership.

Its the same old shit with the Province's Highway 1 upgrades, other than the Port Mann and the Cape Horn interchange, the systems is being designed mickey-mouse. Look at the elimination of the Grandview Highway interchange from the plans, or the inadequate length of on-ramps.

Just read this, scumbag Translink

Im gonna tell you, that driving the new higway to the bridge, that i dont think they solved a single problem for our 3 billion. The new highway has 2 lanes and an hov lane leading up to tne bridge, west bound. Bottleneck. Oh, there are plenty of lanes everywhere else, but with a designed bottleneck. So, we will be back at this again.

The public scream, reduce the transit subsidy paid by drivers!

Translink responds, instituting pay parking at all it's park-and-ride facilities, making those using a service foot the bill.

The public scream, it's unfair that you're making people pay to use a service!

It seems an impasse has been reached.

The only way a criticism might be fair is if Translink did not agree to respect the Delta bylaw.

Two points:

One, it's not finished. You don't know how the lane structures will change by then. In fact, wasn't it you bitching in the bridge thread that there would only be seven or eight lanes total on the new bridge and why didn't they make it more? (There WILL be TEN, BTW).

Two: the bridge itself was always the bottleneck... well, not a bottleneck so much as a speed bump: I sat at the top oh Johnson Hill one evening, waiting for a photo, and watched it happen: red tail lights moving smoothly, if a bit slowly, westbound, until ONE pussy clown hit the bottom of the dip - you know, where you go onto the bridge, then you get the bottom of a dip AND a curve all in one, and people panic - jammed on his brakes... and literally a WAVE of bright red flowed up the hill as everyone behind braked as well... and it never recovered. I was there for almost a half hour after that, and it just remained a dead crawl for the rest of that time. It just took that ONE GUY.

So... IF you end up with three lanes feeding into a five-lane bridge, that's still a big improvement, because while it may be a slight bottleneck, at least you'll soon be able to empty that bottleneck a lot smoother.

Edit: in fact, the artist rendering indicates AT LEAST three lanes + HOV on the approach:

http://www.pmh1project.com/Project%2...OV%20Ramps.JPG

Edit2: in fact, here you go: there WILL be full five lanes leading onto the bridge: http://www.pmh1project.com/Design%20...2020120207.pdf

My thinking exactly. I mean, I'm all for free park-and-rides to encourage more transit use... but this statement just sounds silly: "we would like to get more for our money, not less for our money." Wait, you're just talking about NOT letting Translink collect any more money in your town... so you want more for less?

It's a chicken-and-egg scenario - you're glad to pay more, IF you have better service, but to GET better service, you have to pay more...