Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion II

[nname]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It's not really Translink's concern if your transit route is not exactly as-the-crow-flies. You pay for the amount you use the transit system, period. If it's really a concern for suburban users, Translink can always reduce the cost of certain detours. It's not as though the suburbanites don't already receive buckets of subsidies to keep their bus lines afloat.

It IS Translink's concern. The route were design in a way to capture the most ridership with the minimum increase in cost. So for instance, if a route A-B with a detour to C in the middle, then it effectively serve customer travelling A-B, A-C, and B-C. Customer using the service for A-B shouldn't be penalized other than a few minutes of their time if the bus go out of the way to serve C. Otherwise, Translink would need to split the routes... Either each route will now running hourly instead of every 30min (same cost but decrease in ridership potential), or they need 3 different routes instead of just one (at least 2x the cost for same ridership), or skip C completely (slight decrease of cost but carry half of the riders).

Either way, it'll be a loss of both TransLink and the riders, and it'll be death spiral for pretty much all suburban and even some urban routes. In the end, most suburban local service will not be sustainable, and all you can see are probably big park-and-ride lots for a few express routes that are direct connections between town centers. Is this the future transit system we want to see?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by nname

It IS Translink's concern. The route were design in a way to capture the most ridership with the minimum increase in cost.

Says who? Translink's mandate should be to serve the most ridership possible in the fairest way possible. Sometimes you have to crack eggs to make an omelette. Not everyone has to be positively affected by a change meant to improve the system as a whole.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nname

- snip -

You pay the distance for the first bus, then the distance for the second bus; should work out to as much as one bus covering the exact same route. And at $0.50-$1.00 per bus, the "extra" distance of a detour works out to a few more cents. Still cheaper than filling up a car, or paying a full $3.20 flat fare every time you just want to ride a few blocks down the street... which by the same logic, encourages you to live in Langley and ride to Waterfront just to get your money's worth /s.

Most of the first world manages to make distance fares work for their buses, so I dunno why we can't.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You pay the distance for the first bus, then the distance for the second bus; should work out to as much as one bus covering the exact same route. And at $0.50-$1.00 per bus, the "extra" distance of a detour works out to a few more cents. Still cheaper than filling up a car, or paying a full $3.20 flat fare every time you just want to ride a few blocks down the street... which by the same logic, encourages you to live in Langley and ride to Waterfront just to get your money's worth /s.

Most of the first world manages to make distance fares work for their buses, so I dunno why we can't.

In a way this is like saying that Vancouver's grid system is unfair to drivers because instead of driving directly to their destination, they have to drive north-south and then east-west, which might increase travel times and gas costs by up to √2x!

[CanSpice]

What problem are we trying to solve by switching buses from a flat fare to distance-based?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

What problem are we trying to solve by switching buses from a flat fare to distance-based?

Hopping on the 5 downtown to ride a few stops from Burrard to Jervis does not cost Translink and should not cost the user as much as taking the 210 from Lynn Valley to Burrard or the 25 from BCIT to UBC. How is that fair or cost effective?

After all, what problem are we trying to solve by making Skytrain distance-based? Or even having zones? Or, possibly at the root of everything, what problem is Translink trying to solve by charging fares at all?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

In a way this is like saying that Vancouver's grid system is unfair to drivers because instead of driving directly to their destination, they have to drive north-south and then east-west, which might increase travel times and gas costs by up to √2x!

That's why downtown and Kingsway are diagonal! /s

Originally Posted by CanSpice

What problem are we trying to solve by switching buses from a flat fare to distance-based?

Making transit more convenient for shorter trips. Might even increase revenue via more ridership depending on how they do it.

[nname]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Says who? Translink's mandate should be to serve the most ridership possible in the fairest way possible. Sometimes you have to crack eggs to make an omelette. Not everyone has to be positively affected by a change meant to improve the system as a whole.

Yes, TransLink's mandate is to serve the most ridership by increase coverage. And coverage is increase by routing bus route to where people live, and where people want to go... not by running from start to finish in the shortest distance possible.

Even in urban area, there are not many route that is best served by straight line. If a SkyTrain station is slightly out of the way, then the bus is making a detour to go there. If a hospital is located mid-block, or a shopping center is located on the next street, then the bus will reroute there to pick up and drop off passengers. So if someone don't want to go to either of those places, are you suggesting that they will need to pay extra for the detour... or TransLink should drop all the detours and every bus run in a straight line, and people will have to walk from the train/hospital/shopping mall from the closest stop?

In suburban area, the most effective way to serve neighborhood (and thus increase coverage) is actually loop around the street, trying to cover most people in within 400m walking distance, then dump everyone in a transit exchange for trips leaving the area, even if it involves backtracking for some. So for this type of service, should you pay according to how far you are in the loop, or it would be more fair if it's just flat fare for everyone?

I haven't been to many transit system that are pure distance-based for buses, though most are distance based for trains. The majority of them are either zone-based, or flat-fare. For the few distance based ones, they operate more of a point-to-point service, much different from what we have here. So basically from the example above, they would have many routes that go to the train stations, many that goes to the hospital, many that go to shopping center, and many that just go from somewhere to somewhere else without touching any of those places. If you happen to be living alone one of the route, then you pay by how far away you are from the station/hospital/mall and how far you need to travel. That's fair. If you're not, then too bad.. you pay 2 bus fares and it's your job to determine which routes to take.

But we don't have the population, transit mode share, etc for service like this. So we'll have to settle with 1 route that's trying to do everything, or maybe 2 with each trying to do half of the job, and a transfer point in the middle. So it make more sense to me for a flat fare bus system.

[nname]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Hopping on the 5 downtown to ride a few stops from Burrard to Jervis does not cost Translink and should not cost the user as much as taking the 210 from Lynn Valley to Burrard or the 25 from BCIT to UBC. How is that fair or cost effective?

Then we are talking about different thing.

You are talking about taking a bus for a few stops shouldn't cost the same as someone talking it from beginning to end.

I'm talking about we shouldn't pay more if your 25 from BCIT to UBC somehow make a detour around Marpole or Downtown, as compared to going straight along King Edward.

Then maybe a more fair way is to charge by small zones, with no additional charge on crossing the first boundary.

Oh wait... we had this system before....

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nname

- snip -

Ridership and coverage are actually opposite ends of the spectrum; maximum coverage planning like loops is the surest way to decrease ridership, because if the bus takes too long, everybody opts to drive instead.

By contrast, maximum ridership planning favours a few select routes with straight lines and minimal stops that people don't mind walking to because they're so convenient; that's part of why the pre-lockdown 99 was the most popular bus route in upper North America.

Naturally, you don't want to have one or the other, but limited resources often forces TransLink to choose. The answer is usually more resources so that you have multiple fast routes instead of multiple OR fast.

Originally Posted by nname

Even in urban area, there are not many route that is best served by straight line. If a SkyTrain station is slightly out of the way, then the bus is making a detour to go there. If a hospital is located mid-block, or a shopping center is located on the next street, then the bus will reroute there to pick up and drop off passengers. So if someone don't want to go to either of those places, are you suggesting that they will need to pay extra for the detour... or TransLink should drop all the detours and every bus run in a straight line, and people will have to walk from the train/hospital/shopping mall from the closest stop?

Which is why you transfer to another bus that does take you there - it's often more efficient that way.

Originally Posted by nname

I'm talking about we shouldn't pay more if your 25 from BCIT to UBC somehow make a detour around Marpole or Downtown, as compared to going straight along King Edward.

Again, that "extra" fare will still be cheaper than 2024's 1-zone at $3.20... which, if traffic is particularly bad, you'll have to pay twice once your 90 minutes are up. But no such extravagantly-long detours exist anywhere in the metro, so distance-based doesn't cost you that much extra for a windy loop.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, that "extra" fare will still be cheaper than 2024's 1-zone at $3.20... which, if traffic is particularly bad, you'll have to pay twice once your 90 minutes are up.

Actually, currently it's 90min before the last tap in, then you have another 120min to finish your trip on the current bus/train before you need to pay a new fare.

Well, my point is... I only want to go from BCIT to UBC. I only pay $3.20 if I take the direct (25 UBC), but why I'll have to pay $4.70 if I take (25 UBC via Downtown) when TransLink decide they want to take a few extra passengers from downtown? Why would the extra cost of "TransLink trying to get a few extra revenue" being passed down to the passengers?

Of course this is just a fictional detour route I use so people know what I mean... but something like this exist a lot, especially in the suburban area. So again, what would be the most fair way to handle this situation?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ridership and coverage are actually opposite ends of the spectrum; maximum coverage planning like loops is the surest way to decrease ridership, because if the bus takes too long, everybody opts to drive instead.

That's only work for urban area. If your "straight line" happens to be farm land.. good luck of getting any ridership if you run a bus straight through it. For suburban area, pretty much the once chance of even getting service at all is a route that loop around and trying to do everything that ever needed in the area.

Again, I feel like we are talking different things... You're talking about routes like 9, 99, 25, that are relatively straight. I'm talking about routes more like 188, 342, 363, 388... or combined routes like 173/174, 184/185, 246/249, etc. Or an extreme example... 254.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Or, possibly at the root of everything, what problem is Translink trying to solve by charging fares at all?

For real, like, drivers don't even enforce fares when someone evades the fares, why not just have transit free and fully subsidized by taxes?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

... why not just have transit free and fully subsidized by taxes?

Good luck pushing that one through Victoria. All you'll do is kill transit expansion for the rest of eternity.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nname

Well, my point is... I only want to go from BCIT to UBC. I only pay $3.20 if I take the direct (25 UBC), but why I'll have to pay $4.70 if I take (25 UBC via Downtown) when TransLink decide they want to take a few extra passengers from downtown? Why would the extra cost of "TransLink trying to get a few extra revenue" being passed down to the passengers?

Good thing you'll only pay ~$3.70 because distance-based isn't that pricey, nor the detours that long.

The long-term solution is to get more people using transit in the 'burbs so that TransLink invests more on service there (or vice versa by increasing their budget). You've got it backwards: they're not giving you loops to maximize passengers, they're doing it to minimize the number of buses because so few people in the neighbourhood ride that route. More ridership -> multiple direct routes + transfers -> even more ridership.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

For real, like, drivers don't even enforce fares when someone evades the fares, why not just have transit free and fully subsidized by taxes?

There's no such thing as a free lunch, someone is paying for your transit somewhere. I'm not convinced we need to have everything in society paid for by taxpayers. When you're getting everything for free from the government, at what point do you make being a taxpayer worse than being unemployed?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nname

Again, I feel like we are talking different things... You're talking about routes like 9, 99, 25, that are relatively straight. I'm talking about routes more like 188, 342, 363, 388... or combined routes like 173/174, 184/185, 246/249, etc. Or an extreme example... 254.

People in the ALR or Upper Levels are highly unlikely to even ride transit at all; I'm not saying they should be discounted, but 90+ percent of present and future riders do take the 9/99/25 and would benefit from distance-based fares.

Edit: WRT the 188, that one's really more like two separate routes from David down to the highway; optimally, you'd transfer from the SkyTrain to the R3, then ride the 188 up Coast Meridian; once the SkyTrain makes it to Port Coq, you don't even need the R3, and the 173/174 can be further simplified into one regular route from Coq to Port Coq and several infrequent feeders up the mountain.
The 184/5 could be simplified into a more frequent 160 and a single route up to Eagle Ridge.
The 246/9 could be simplified into a RapidBus from the Norgate SkyTrain station (once completed in 2040-ish) up to the Upper Levels.
The 342 can evolve into a straight shot from Newton to Langley.
The 363 is already pretty straight.
The 388, ditto - the only constraint is the bridges.

Like I said, additional demand/funding/local rapid transit would likely see those routes optimized. They aren't due to a scarcity of buses/drivers and low ridership.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

People in the ALR or Upper Levels are highly unlikely to even ride transit at all; I'm not saying they should be discounted, but 90+ percent of present and future riders do take the 9/99/25 and would benefit from distance-based fares.

Edit: WRT the 188, that one's really more like two separate routes from David down to the highway; optimally, you'd transfer from the SkyTrain to the R3, then ride the 188 up Coast Meridian; once the SkyTrain makes it to Port Coq, you don't even need the R3, and the 173/174 can be further simplified into one regular route from Coq to Port Coq and several infrequent feeders up the mountain.
The 184/5 could be simplified into a more frequent 160 and a single route up to Eagle Ridge.
The 246/9 could be simplified into a RapidBus from the Norgate SkyTrain station (once completed in 2040-ish) up to the Upper Levels.
The 342 can evolve into a straight shot from Newton to Langley.
The 363 is already pretty straight.
The 388, ditto - the only constraint is the bridges.

Like I said, additional demand/funding/local rapid transit would likely see those routes optimized. They aren't due to a scarcity of buses/drivers and low ridership.

Well, if TransLink have infinite amount of money, then of course they can do everything you proposed. But the reality is that they don't, and they need to server as many people and generate as many ridership with what they have.

Now the issue with your proposal.. People in PoCo mostly want to go to two places - Coquitlam Central to connect to SkyTrain, and Port Coquitlam Centre for shopping, recreation center, library, municipal business, WCE, etc. So you notice both ends of the route brings people to where they want to go, with some milk runs in between.

Now the problem with your proposal with the area I know more about:
188 - You dropped PoCo Centre.. so half of the ridership lost. The extra transfer to R3 also kills ridership since both routes aren't frequent enough for "grid service", plus Coast Meridian isn't even a stop for R3. In fact, it's the only stop that R3 skipped around the area. So you also reduce R3 ridership potential by making it slower.
173/4 - Same thing, you're forcing transfer between infrequent routes. Plus you remove cross-town service in north PoCo which some people may use.
184/5 - The route barely survive as-is. With maybe 10 people going up each sides of the route on a shuttle every 30min, not sure if turning into 160 will magically fill up a 40ft bus.

By the way, the north Coquitlam/PoCo system used to be more resemble to what you says... more direct, more routes, connect to 160 and head straight to downtown, etc. But many of the routes run every TWO hours and barely anyone riding it. TransLink knows the issue and this is the compromise they came up with, and now it's actually usable for at least some people even if they loop loop loop around. Maybe one day when TransLink can run buses every 15min with 2 riders on it, there's nothing much can be done with area like this.

This is getting off-topic now... but again, I don't think there's any good solution that will satisfy everyone. If they have strict distance-based bus fare to benefit short trips, then people living in area with basic transit service will suffer until most of those routes become non sustainable.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nname

- snip -

That’s kind of what I’m saying: with expansion, things get better for those routes; without it, status quo is king.

And that lines up with what we’re seeing: a bunch of routes pooling together on the main corridor and forming the Frequent Network, but then petering off separately as they head north into the exurbs.
Now that Coquitlam has the Evergreen and not just the 160, that old model might be viable again for many of those routes (assuming there’s enough buses for that 15-minute service); if I lived on Eagle Ridge, I wouldn’t mind losing the 184 if the 185 and 160 came twice as often.

Back to the point, distance-based fares are at least another 2-3 elections away; either, as above, service on the mountains will increase to the point where both our arguments become irrelevant, or it won’t, and they’ll switch anyway because like you said, it’s only twenty-ish people an hour on those routes. I don't think an extra $0.30 a trip - there is no possible timeline where it's $1.50 more - will stop anybody from taking transit any more than the last few fare hikes have... but $0.30 less might convince somebody closer to a SkyTrain to make the switch.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Back to the point, distance-based fares are at least another 2-3 elections away

Let us hope so, projects usually enter limbo during elections

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Hopping on the 5 downtown to ride a few stops from Burrard to Jervis does not cost Translink and should not cost the user as much as taking the 210 from Lynn Valley to Burrard or the 25 from BCIT to UBC. How is that fair or cost effective?

Should we make hopping on the 5 for a few blocks an attractive option? How about walk it?