Shocker: Surrey gives $140M/yr to TransLink
Mr. Moneybags taking Surrey's taxes the other side of the Fraser
According to comments made to the Surrey Leader, Mayor Dianne Watts has revealed that Surrey sends roughly $144 million per year into TransLink’s coffers – that’s $44 million in property taxes and $100 million in gas taxes. The question is, do we see that money back in resulting transit services?
Based on preliminary calculations, the answer is a resounding no.
TransLink staff have mentioned that it costs roughly $8.5 million annually to operate a bus, running every 10 minutes, for 15 hours a day. These estimates were based on the planned King George B-Line that remains on the books indefinitely. On that basis, theoretically, Surrey is contributing enough money to pay for almost 17 B-Line routes.
As it stands, Surrey only has six bus routes that operate on frequencies higher than every 15 minutes. There are only 16 other routes that run in the City, all of which only run every half hour (I’m not counting rush hour only routes). So, we’re getting 22 bus routes, only six of which approximate service close to a B-Line. In other words, we’re getting royally screwed by TransLink.
On these numbers, I wanted to see if Surrey ran its own transit network, as has been discussed in City Hall chambers, how much coverage we could get with 16 B-Line routes. Here’s the result:
Yes, with what we are currently paying TransLink, we could nearly cover the entire Surrey in B-Line routes with a network that would capture close to the entire City’s population within a walking distance of 10 minutes. /mindblown
UPDATE: There have been comments regarding the aforementioned calculations. I most certainly admit that they are simply rough estimates using the data that is available – this is not a scientific analysis.
The SkyTrain Expo Line is at or above cost-recovery, meaning fares pay for its full operational expenses.
TransLink has also paid for the Golden Ears Bridge, a route that affects Surrey but does not originate in the City. Additionally, though the project cost upwards of $800 million, the tolls placed on the crossing are expected to pay for the bill. Thus it is excluded from the calculation as well. The Pattullo replacement is expected to follow a similar cost-recovery route.
TransLink contributes money to municipal roads through the Major Road Network fund. This fund has paid for a portion of the four-laning of Fraser Highway, which is still ongoing. According to the Engineering Department’s 10 Year Servicing Plan, it anticipates a contribution of $45 million from TransLink to pay for arterial road upgrades and expansions. Over ten years, that is a miniscule $4.5 million, which amounts to half the cost of a B-Line route as estimated above.
The B-Line route calculations were based on a static route length. Obviously, some are longer, while others are shorter, thus varying the amount of buses required to run at high frequencies and changing the total cost of operation. The calculations were based on the $8.5 million figure as a general average. Certainly, most of the routes I sketched out were of a long length, comparable to a King George B-Line.
One must not forget that these calculations exclude transit fares that Surrey contributes to the system. On average, the City maintains a 30% cost recovery on bus services, although rates are much higher on popular routes such as the 321 or 319.
-
Even with the bus service the way it is, it’s at least a 15 minute walk UPHILL to get to a bus. The service also only runs hourly, and not late enough to make it a viable alternative for enjoying an evening out. Imagine doing that with kids & strollers (that’s why I drive). I find it amazing that I can drive to 3 different Skytrain stations within 10 minutes but to travel that distance by foot & bus takes 3 times as much time. The system needs a major overhaul to put transit where the population is.
-
Just a question about your numbers… did you subtract the cost of SkyTrain and four stations? And the funding for Major Roads Network? If you’re talking value for dollars, it’s only fair to calculate all of the TransLink service.
-
I made the shocking discovery that:
The fares for skytrain are so high they are unaffordable. Plus the inflexibility of the system such as:
-monthly passes are not pro-rated and can only be bought on the 1st day of the month or the last day of the previous month
-crossing into another zone, even if driving just one stop with skytrain adds 2 $ to the fare (each way);
I feel screwed. Can only afford it at night when it is 2.50$ any zone. I’d love it if Surrey would develop their own light rail. -
It would be interesting, and probably more shocking to see how much the other metro communities contribute. Also to compare $$$ to transit coverage ratio.
-
What about the few Skytrain stations that Surrey has? I don’t think they run on nothing.
-
dont forget the revenue from fares surrey residents pay…if you add that the number is far greater that 144 mill. Surrey, Delta, White Rock and Langley need to team up and form their own bus service…translink is a joke.
-
While the mass transit in some areas of Surrey is abysmal, we also have to remember that Translink also takes care of the roads and one of the bridges crossing the Fraser into Surrey which they plan on replacing sometime in the next decade. There has been a whole lot of roadwork in many areas of Surrey. Lets just hope that they can find more funding to add a lot more mass transit and buses to the system. Personally I enjoyed the idea of having and LRT go down King George from Newton to Surrey Central then out to Guildford and possibly even across the new Port Mann Bridge and hooking up with the Skytrain and Evergreen Line on the other side then extending the Skytrain network out to Fleetwood.
-
they look after two bridges the Golden ears and pattullo
-
-
It is worth noting that Surrey’s road and transit system is part of a much larger, integrated network that in one form or another, spans the entire Metro Vancouver region. And that Surrey motorists, truckers and transit passengers make pretty darned good use of that network in many other municipalities every day.
This fact takes nothing away from the reality that services in Surrey, particularly transit, fall far short of the requirements for a large and growing city. We are behind, even with expansion over the past five years that has tilted relatively more to the South of Fraser.
But looking only at what is done within a municipality’s border will not give a clear or fair picture of the benefits people are getting for their tax dollars when it comes to TransLink.
-
@Ken Exactly. Response on my blog
-
This article is misleading and unscientific. Others have pointed out that it doesn’t factor in the cost running the Surrey SkyTrain stations, the millions spent on road network, or the benefits accrued from being connected to an integrated network. What about the bridges which serve South of Fraser residents disproportionately. The article also doesn’t account for TransLink’s debt incurred to extend SkyTrain to Surrey. Also factor in the debt from purchasing shiny buses that run empty on Surrey streets. If Surrey abandons TransLink can they also take the hundreds of millions of dollars of debt with them that was spent to give the level of service they have? Please take the millions of dollars of debt repayments TransLink incurred to extend transit into the suburbs. Politics is the only reason why a lot of those routes are in place. If Surrey leaves TransLink can we charge Surrey residents full price for travelling north of Fraser? Currently, fare revenue only pays for about a third of transit operations. Are you prepared to pay 3x more than you already do to enter Vancouver by transit?
Vancouver properties are worth more money and homeowners in central areas pay more in property taxes and more to TransLink. The central city pays more than its share of property taxes. Yes Surrey residents likely pay more in gas taxes, but complain to your City for building sprawl and for forcing you to buy lots of gas, don’t complain to TransLink for not subsidizing transit enough in your area when the city is not built to encourage transit ridership.
Transit should first be awarded to routes that return the highest levels of revenue and can attract riders. Cities that build density and can fill regular buses should be rewarded with better service. Surrey gets billions in highway funds that the central city never sees, let’s factor that into the calculations. Surrey deserves transit investment that will shape growth in the future, but don’t blame TransLink for trying not to bankrupt itself. Build a city that will work with transit, don’t rely on the transit to build your city.-
I would argue that Surrey has done exactly that. The usual complaint is that Surrey is encouraging far-flung suburbs that demand car use and make transit planning difficult and expensive, but the fact is that most of Surrey’s (surprisingly high-density) suburban construction has happened along planned transit corridors: Clayton on Fraser Highway, South Surrey on King George. And, unsurprisingly, the buses serving these corridors are over capacity, leaving many taking their cars instead. The problem is not that Surrey has failed to plan for transit, the problem is that Translink has failed to meet demand. And with Watts opposing the supplemental plan that would bring relief to those corridors, she is a part of the problem as well.
-
-
Dealbroker sort of broached the subject, but it deserves to be said more clearly:
Surrey residents can use translink services outside of Surrey. It is not as if they are barred from buses or skytrains that leave Surrey. This is probably a “no-duh” point, but it seems to be completely ignored in your post.
You take the skytrain to Metropolis? The Canada Line Airport? The Bus to UBC? You commute downtown? That is what the $144 million is paying for. That’s the point of a regionally planned network.
-
I fully support increasing service on bus routes that have high demand, and King George Blvd and Fraser Hwy might be good examples, but I don’t agree that the majority of development is happening along these corridors. Fraser Heights, Cloverdale and Grandview are exploding. I agree that Surrey has increased the density of its suburban sprawl but it’s still suburban, that’s the problem. Townhouses in the fields of Clayton and South Surrey are only marginally better than detached houses. Actually both are probably worse than just leaving it a field. I’d guess that 75-90% of new residential growth in Surrey is farther than a 5-10 minute walk from a grocery store. Something is wrong with the growth patterns. It’s not just about how many people can be crammed into a block.
Surrey needs to mix land uses, price parking according to market demand and stop putting jobs and commercial land out in the middle of nowhere. We need employment closer to where people live but instead we make huge swaths of commercial and residential areas that are cut off from one another by highways and arterials that are anti-pedestrian and difficult to serve with transit. Following business as usual, the areas that do permit mixed use developments wont get redeveloped en masse until the City restricts growth in the other areas, something the city has not done yet. The alternative is to wait until or until there is no land left – a much sadder and destructive alternative.
People are taking their cars because their homes, jobs and entertainment are scattered all over instead of inside their own neighbourhood. Add onto that the parking that the city forces every employer, store and developer to build. Excessive parking regulations give the impression parking is free when really we all just pay more taxes and higher prices at the cash registers. Transit can’t compete in this environment.
-
Anyone still confused as to the history that has brought on the conflict today between the regional Mayors and Translink should read:
http://civicscene.ca/its-time-for-metro-vancouver-mayors-to-set-their-sights-on-gordon-campbell
The truth of why we’re here now is:
1. Translink went to the Mayors, asked for options
2. Mayors came back and said we’ll comit to funding for the project if the Province and Translink come back to the table with all options NOT JUST property funding
3. Province and Translink agreed
4. Province and Translink came back to the Mayors with only options using property funding
5. Mayors said “Wait what happened to all the other options?”
6. Province and Translink said “HEY GUYS! You agreed to give us money so give us money FIRST then we’ll give you other options… for other things later.”
7. Mayors now at the stage of voting no because the Province and Translink basically lied -
I’d like to point out hes just adding property and gas taxes. Thats not even taking into account the amount of money we need to spend on the 3 zone pass/monthly pass when people want to travel all the way to Vancouver. Then on top of it its also just Surrey hes talking and not SOF as a whole which all have to share those 4 stations.
I’m not gonna deny translink isnt putting money into other things but when it comes to what they should mainly focus on and thats metro system not roads and bridges. It extremely lacking. There basicly forcing us into are cars cause people dont want to pay the rip off that is a 3 zone pass.
Now on top of it we are spending a over a 100,000,000 on a turnstall system that will save maybe a 5,000,000 a year. Whos to say that skytrain is even gonna be around before we pay that crap off. Heck other systems out there people have already found loops around it so they get past with out still paying. That money would be better spent on putting forth the skytrain and metro system expansion.
Comments