Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine
|
No, not really any point at all. He is just trying to show that Skytrain in Vancouver doesn't work because he thinks that if it doesn't work, then Translink will automatically build LRT in the Valley. He is only concerned about one thing, the interurban, everything else is of no concern, and it shows in his thoughtless bashing of transit in other parts of the city.
He makes a very basic assumption in his critique that everything should be divided evenly. Like in his example, taking a bus -> Skytrain -> bus should result in 1/3 of the fare going to Skytrain. That is overly simplistic. It does not take into account the actual cost incurred by the trip or the cost of the individual pieces.
I could for example ride a bus for 2 minutes, then ride Skytrain for 30 minutes, then ride a bus again for another 2 minutes. In that case it is obvious that Skytrain was more than just 1/3 of my trip, but the majority. I could also take a bus for 45 minutes, then take Skytrain for 2 stations, then take another bus. In that case Skytrain might be less than 1/3 of my trip. However, it is still possible that the Skytrain trip, when factored in with capital costs, maintenance, and amortization, that the Skytrain part was still the most expensive.
It could further be argued that if it wasn't for the quick connection between different bus routes by Skytrain, that a majority of the people on transit wouldn't bother. For example, the 80% of people who get to Skytrain by bus, might not take that bus at all if it didn't take them to Skytrain. Therefore Skytrain is a key component in driving ridership numbers. So as a simple way of averaging trip costs and paying for a system that drives ridership levels up, you give all the fare to Skytrain.
The system is going to have to be subsidized somewhere, or else we could let it be a 100% privately run enterprise complete with competition. In my opinion, and in Translinks, the availability of Skytrain for passengers is a key driving force to get many to ride transit, so why not allocate the tickets to Skytrain and subsidize the buses?
Doing it the other way is much harder. If you subsidize Skytrain, and make it so buses need to recover cost at the fare box, we'll soon find there are a lot of bus routes that are unable to return close to cost. What do we do then, cut them and anger the ridership? Or subsidize them in addition to Skytrain? I think we would lose a lot more buses if we adopted a model where bus routes need to be successful in order to keep operating.
zweisystem needs to be careful. Even an LRT interurban is going to need buses to bring people from their homes to the line and from the line to their destination (or transfer to Skytrain). So even LRT won't be immune from having to split fares with other modes.
He always compares Skytrain to other LIM systems, and to C-Train. Both the Skytrain and the C-Train are exceptions to the rule, not the rule. Skytrain is very successful in it's own right, and C-Train is over twice as successful than the next most used LRT system in North America.
Skytrain, and the new Canada Line are working in Vancouver. The more we build the better it gets, the more convenient it is to get to, the faster it is to get places, and more attractive to ride. More Skytrain = more passengers. At the same time, there is no reason LRT wouldn't work in the Valley. It's just that Skytrain and LRT both use many of the same funding and operating principles. Bashing a (light) metro in a metropolitan area doesn't help prove the case for light rail in the suburbs.
zweisystem should try making the case to build, not make the case to not build. If it is as cheap as he claims, then there is no reason to build Skytrain over LRT in the valley. But that's the Valley, Skytrain has be a success in Vancouver.
Threaded Mode