TransLink’s third-quarter report: our deficit has gone down
TransLink’s third-quarter report: our deficit has gone down
In case you’re interested, we’ve released our third-quarter results for 2009, which shows our deficit has gone down this year.
We forecast a deficit of $74 million by the end of September, owing to higher operating costs driven by service expansion in the past 5 years. But the actual deficit turned out to be $34 million.
So this means we’re on track to have a 2009 total deficit of $78 million, rather than the $103 million deficit predicted at the start of the year. (This deficit will be covered by our reserves.)
Btw, the deficit was cut due to cost containment and lower fuel prices, despite a drop in our revenues. And along with the $130 million funding supplement approved by the Mayors’ Council, this means that the current service on our road and transit network will remain financially sustainable.
Check out the press release on the third-quarter results, and see the full Q3 report here.
You can also find all 2009 quarterly reports in the Board of Directors’ Meetings and Reports section of the main website.
[…] The Buzzer blog buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2009/12/translink%E2%80%99s-third-quarter-report-our-deficit-has-gone-down – view page – cached The Buzzer blog is the web companion to the Buzzer newsletter, the free publication found on all Metro Vancouver transit vehicles since 1916. We consider the blog to be a frank, fun, and ongoing… Read moreThe Buzzer blog is the web companion to the Buzzer newsletter, the free publication found on all Metro Vancouver transit vehicles since 1916. We consider the blog to be a frank, fun, and ongoing conversation about TransLink and its work, and invite you to join in with your own comments and stories. View page […]
I’m wondering if the ridership figure includes Canada Line? Seems to me that the ridership of 163,194,972 for CMBC + 905,739 for CS + 6,365,523 for West Van + 54,662,190 for E- and M-Lines + 1,968,342 for WCE equals exactly the total system boarding of 227,096,766. Maybe this explains why the decrease in ridership.
To me the whole model of transit is broken. If Surrey adds an industrial park and buses are expected to be a part of that park, why does Surrey not have to come up with the money for that route and additional expense? Basically I think every municipality should be responsible for their costs of transit. And no, not going back to ‘the old way’ – keep Translink and blah, blah, but figure out the costs per taxing area and Translink bills the municipality for their use. Translink is no longer begging and any additions are costs borne by the muni. I won’t get into detail here because I bet no body reads this far anyway…
Geoff: Well, transit has always been a regional system here in Vancouver, so municipalities have never really been charged by the use in their individual cities (here’s a past post on the regional system). But your argument is certainly a valid one: we know that good transit and transportation can only be built when it is linked to smart land-use planning.
snowystar: Hmmm, I don’t know! I’ll pass your note along to the folks who put together the Q3 report and see what they say.