Today 24 Hours Vancouver did a follow-up article, again on page 3. Using the same quote, they apparently attempted to fix the error:
The addition of [is] in the second article doesn't correct the error. If they had added the [is] and deleted the other is, then it would make sense. What's curious is that 24 Hours Vancouver is quoting a TransLink spokesperson's open letter to the media. So why did the writer needed to add [is] and the [to]?