2164 replies to this topic

[LeoVictoria]

And therein lies the problem. There are too many free lunches across all levels of government these days.

 

The French have something to say about that, apparently.

 

So then don't complain about infrastructure if you wouldn't want to pay for it anyway.

Edited by LeoVictoria, 11 December 2018 - 09:33 AM.

[Mike K.]

Lol.

 

So government waste is A-OK, but acknowledging that we have a serious problem with infrastructure in this country is verboten? What parallel universe did I wake up in today?

[LeoVictoria]

Lol.

So government waste is A-OK, but acknowledging that we have a serious problem with infrastructure in this country is verboten? What parallel universe did I wake up in today?

Government waste like spending on transit? And you think you can significantly increase infrastructure spending how exactly if not by raising revenue through taxation?

[Mike K.]

You’d have a point if tax revenues were declining and government was having a tough time making ends meet to keep the potholes filled.

We’ve gotten to a point now where we’re spending a dollar for half a kilometre of services while ten years ago half a dollar gave us a kilometre. No, that’s not an actual stat, but a point on what’s going on. Take a look at BC Transit’s inputs and outputs and compare them to even a decade ago. It’s shocking.

[rjag]

Government waste like spending on transit? And you think you can significantly increase infrastructure spending how exactly if not by raising revenue through taxation?

 

Theres always the possibility that the current dollars collected are not put to the best use. One could argue that a review/audit of the current spending could identify areas of weakness that could be reallocated to other areas.

 

Its like the increases in BC Transit budget does not necessarily mean all of the increases go to new service hours or new equipment. In fact most of the budget lift goes to maintain the wage increases and other increased premiums associated with a large unionized workforce. A classic example of this is in municipal workforces. Thats why we see crumbling roads and reductions in services even though our property taxes keep going up more than CPI, its all the wage increases and associated downloading like the new health tax

 

I know, in your world what I write of is anathema but thats what any person or business has to do that doesnt have the luxury of a captive customer A.K.A. the taxpayer

Edited by rjag, 12 December 2018 - 08:57 AM.

[Mike K.]

To put things in perspective the most recent Victoria Regional Transit System budget was $129.8 million for 2017/2018. In 2010/2011 it was $99.6 million, a rise of 30% over eight years and 3x the rate of inflation.

 

Meanwhile fares have risen from $65 for an adult pass in 2006 to $85 today, an increase of 31% over 12 years. Property taxes have skyrocketed from $53.50 in 2006 to approximately $150 per household today, or a 300% increase.

 

Considering all of the additional inputs we have seen nowhere near a 30% increase in service throughout the last eight years in-keeping with the rapidly rising budget. For every dollar the taxpayer spends on transit the amount of service is eroding to the point where we need significantly higher sums of capital just to maintain existing service levels.

[LeoVictoria]

To put things in perspective the most recent Victoria Regional Transit System budget was $129.8 million for 2017/2018. In 2010/2011 it was $99.6 million, a rise of 30% over eight years and 3x the rate of inflation.

 

Meanwhile fares have risen from $65 for an adult pass in 2006 to $85 today, an increase of 31% over 12 years. Property taxes have skyrocketed from $53.50 in 2006 to approximately $150 per household today, or a 300% increase.

 

Considering all of the additional inputs we have seen nowhere near a 30% increase in service throughout the last eight years in-keeping with the rapidly rising budget. For every dollar the taxpayer spends on transit the amount of service is eroding to the point where we need significantly higher sums of capital just to maintain existing service levels.

 

Now we're getting closer to the real numbers. 

So $99.6M in 2010 is $113.8M in today's dollars.  So we're talking about $16M or 16% in increased budget for transit over that 8 year period.  

 

So, is there 16% more bus service in 2018 compared to 2010?    I don't know.  Vortoozo mentioned increasing service hours, but I can't find that data.   Less than 2% increase per year doesn't sound out of the realm of possibilities.

[Mike K.]

If we're comparing 2010/2011 to 2017/2018 your calculation needs to either compare 2010 to 2017 or 2011 to 2018, not 2010 with 2018 (you're adding a year).

 

That yields $111 million (2010-2017) or $110.6 (2011-2018), not $113.8M.

 

Regardless, the point is transit costs are rising at 3x the rate of inflation, I mention that above, while the level of services is appreciating nowhere near that amount.

[LeoVictoria]

Theres always the possibility that the current dollars collected are not put to the best use. One could argue that a review/audit of the current spending could identify areas of weakness that could be reallocated to other areas.

 

Its like the increases in BC Transit budget does not necessarily mean all of the increases go to new service hours or new equipment. In fact most of the budget lift goes to maintain the wage increases and other increased premiums associated with a large unionized workforce. A classic example of this is in municipal workforces. Thats why we see crumbling roads and reductions in services even though our property taxes keep going up more than CPI, its all the wage increases and associated downloading like the new health tax

 

I know, in your world what I write of is anathema but thats what any person or business has to do that doesnt have the luxury of a captive customer A.K.A. the taxpayer

 

Not sure why you think no one is paying attention.  Here is the most recent audit/review of BC transit:  https://www2.gov.bc....nsit-review.pdf

Perhaps you have some specific recommendations that the audit missed?

 

Wages are expected to increase faster than CPI inflation.   If they don't the economists get quite worried.  This is true across the public and private sectors.  Of course if you have specific data for BC transit that says they have been getting outsized wage increases not reflective of market dynamics then that would be an issue.  

 

I'm definitely on board with finding efficiencies, and making sure wages paid in the public sector are commensurate to the market.   

But if you want better infrastructure you have to pay for it.   Either by borrowing from the future (big debt) or by raising revenue (taxes).   You can go on a budget cutting bender and reduce services (that's fine) or you can go on a spending spree and increase services or capital investment but you can't do both.

[LeoVictoria]

We're not comparing 2010, we're comparing 2010/2011 to 2017/2018, so your calculation needs to either compare 2010 to 2017 or 2011 to 2018, not 2010 with 2018.

 

That yields $111 million not $114M.

 

Regardless, the point is transit costs are rising at 3x the rate of inflation, I mention that above, while the level of services is appreciating nowhere near that amount.

 

No, the point is you have one side of the equation (increase in budget) and know absolutely nothing about the other side (change in service).  Instead of going out to find the necessary information, you have come to an unsupportable conclusion.  

 

If you could show that increase in BC Transit service is say only 10% while budget increased 18% then you'd have a point and you could investigate what explains the 8% difference.  

 

I am actually not arguing that budget is increasing faster than service levels.  Wages are expected to outpace inflation so in a labour heavy industry that alone would drive some increase over time.   The point is without knowing the facts you don't know the discrepancy.  And comparing budgets 8 years apart without taking into account inflation and change in service doesn't get you an accurate picture.

Edited by LeoVictoria, 12 December 2018 - 09:49 AM.

[rjag]

I didnt say cut the budgets but to look for efficiencies. Further, the transit union is notorious for demanding more wages in lieu of other benefits as it increases their % of the cut. I know this as fact. I have several friends in higher positions inside Transit. An example was the 110+ Handidart drivers that voted 98% in favor of a pension plan and no pay raise for 3 years and gave that to the union to negotiate. The Union ignored them and negotiated a 1.5% lift per year for 3 years....even tho' the drivers gave them their mandate. Turns out that the Union doesnt get a cut from any pension benefit but does from a wage lift.

I have other examples like this.

I have no issue with big bus drivers being paid $25 plus benefits/hr, its a stressful job. But the overhead, the maintenance etc is all in house, there are lots of areas to explore, and it should be continual. But lets be honest with taxpayers when they want a lift, and explain what % of the lift is going for new hours and what % is going to maintain the status quo.

 

When you have a monopoly with a captive customer base then there is no incentive to be lean. I wonder how much innovation came from monopolies compared to private companies providing a similar service  

[Mike K.]

No, the point is you have one side of the equation.

I have more data but it’s not data I can source online. And we all know how you feel about that

In 2015/2016 the entire system provided 930,000 hours of service on both regular routes and handydart but the split is not identified. What I can’t quantify via active links is how many hours it provided in earlier years as many links are dead and figures that I have found fail to identify if they include handydart or not.

[Mike K.]

Here we go, here are some numbers to chew on.

 

Although not specific to Victoria, this is BC Transit's system-wide data for 2003/2004 through 2007/2008.

 

Salaries/benefits: $36.8M -> $45.9M | 24.7%

Operating costs: $69.7M -> $99.1M | 42.2%

Service hours: 1.555M -> 1.833M | 17.9%

Passengers: 37.5M -> 44.7M | 19.2%

 

When funding transit the #1 component that comes to mind for the taxpayer is the level of service. But we can clearly see the level of service is the lowest among those figures. Today just the Victoria system along costs $130 million.

[vortoozo]

Here we go, here are some numbers to chew on.

 

Although not specific to Victoria, this is BC Transit's system-wide data for 2003/2004 through 2007/2008.

 

Salaries/benefits: $36.8M -> $45.9M | 24.7%

Operating costs: $69.7M -> $99.1M | 42.2%

Service hours: 1.555M -> 1.833M | 17.9%

Passengers: 37.5M -> 44.7M | 19.2%

 

When funding transit the #1 component that comes to mind for the taxpayer is the level of service. But we can clearly see the level of service is the lowest among those figures. Today just the Victoria system along costs $130 million.

 

I'm sure that operating cost increase has nothing to do with the price of fuel

[shoeflack]

Here are some numbers specific to Victoria.

 

 

So between 2007/08 and 2014/15, total service hours increased 19.9% and passengers increased 10.4%.

[tjv]

Not making excuses, but fuel costs have skyrocketed as well.  I think diesel went from 85 cents to around 1.30 in that timeline as well

[rjag]

Transit hedges like B.C. ferries and bulk buys on the futures market. They don’t pay anywhere as much as you or I do, but it’s still a big number that’s how they can hedge

[tjv]

Not disagreeing, but when the price goes up by ~50% its still a lot.  I am sure they get a discount, I get one by buying at the cardlock

[LeoVictoria]

Great!  See now we are getting close to the reality of the picture.   

So, budget is up 19% over 7 years using Mike's numbers on Victoria budget. 

We don't have the ridership and service hours data past 2015, but let's take the change in service over the 7 years of data that shoeflack posted and hope that 2007-2014 period is similar in growth to 2010-2017

Growth in service hours: 21%

Growth in passenger volume:  10%

That is excluding handydart, I don't know if the budget that Mike posted includes that. 

 

So if we look at service hours, it seems like we may have gotten a good deal.  21% increase in service hours over 7 years with 19% increase in budget (caveat of dissimilar year ranges).  

If we look at passenger volume, we didn't get a good deal.  10% increase in volume for 19% more spending.   

What could be the reason?   Could be many things.  Maybe we've reached diminishing returns.  An increase in service doesn't seem to attract more passengers.   Maybe service should be scaled back on the least used routes?   Or maybe it's awareness?  A marketing campaign to increase awareness that service has improved and people should consider taking the bus?   Who knows I am not a transit expert and I'm sure they have already looked into the reasons why the increase in service hours didn't bring in a proportionate increase in ridership.  

 

Now I'm sure there is waste at BC Transit and it should be identified.  But I don't see any obvious sign that it is rampant from the growth in budgets.  It appears that the growth in budget led to a proportional number of more service hours.   

 

Now it very well might be that there is no point in increasing service hours anymore if it's not boosting ridership, and we shouldn't keep increasing transit budgets without evidence that they can actually be effective at increasing ridership.

[Mike K.]

Sorry Leo, but cutting through your good news assessment above what we actually saw was a 1.0% rise in service hours (918k vs 927k) with a budget increase of 17.2% between 2010/11 and 2014/15. In other words, literally no improvement in service whatsoever.

 

How did we get to 17.2%? Easy. The system's budget increased by $30M between 2010 and 2017, we know that. Averaging the uplift we get an increase of $4.3M per annum, or $17.2M in additional funding by 2014/2015. Regardless of inflation, the fact that the system's hours increased by a single percentage point versus an budget increase of 17 percentage points clearly shows how out of control the costs are getting relative to service increases.