From Alan Robinson:

.

I’m dumbfounded as to how Translink has gained a bad reputation.

1) They are about the only transit agency I can think of in North America that sees riders as customers.
2) They’ve overseen dramatic growth in ridership and service since the late ’90’s
3) They run a tight ship (obvious if anyone’s actually read how the provincial audits. Their wording were heavily biased against Translink yet found next to nothing in actual waste or efficiencies.)
4) They activily find efficiencies (Canada Line P3 contract, low-cost community shuttle buses, “on the way” routes)
5) They’re incredably transparent (extensive public consultation, long term plans, Buzzer, blog, Twitter, etc…)

For constrast, take Chicago. We have three transit agencies that barely talk to each other, the ‘L’ has maintenance slow zone over about 1/3rd of it’s trackage, Metra can’t run it’s trains reliably during the winter, or at all mid-day. Busses are bunched reliably every day leaving half-hour or worse gaps in service on major routes. Farebox recovery is less than 50% and mode share is far worse than in Vancouver.

Let’s take Toronto. They also can’t manage to keep buses and streetcars running on time, haven’t yet committed to solving extreme congesting on their subway or surface transit, and are wasting a billion dollars on a politically motivated sub-par subway extension to the burbs.

New York can’t even build a subway station for less than $4 billion, let alone be able to run cross-town buses that you could out-walk.

Seattle definition of frequent service is a bus every 20 minutes, although they’re also struggling with the state over the ability to implement a local tax.

Why are people trashing one of the best transportation agencies in North America?