Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker
Because transit use generates positive externalities, mostly to auto users.
Let's look at between 4 pm and 5pm on the expo line crossing the Fraser.
20 trains each way. Perfect mix of mark I, II and II.2s. About 10,200 people per direction per hour. Let's posit 75% utilization outbound and 40% utilization inbound. About 11,791 people.
Sure we could build a bridge for that many people, just another 8 lanes crossing the Fraser. But much of the congestion isn't on the bridges themselves, it is the local streets. Can we effectively add the local capacity? Not really. So instead, we would have more congestion. Adding extra demand to a congested street causes capacity to drop, not grow, and you descend into full failure.
That congestion costs time and money, and we're not willing to price it with bridge tolls or other road pricing.
So instead we provide an alternative, transit, that enables people to make decisions in their best interest, which benefits both them, and the people who decide to continue to drive. Everyone wins.
|
If Translink was allowed to increase fares in response to operating costs, do you really think all the current transit users would suddenly buy cars and start driving to work every day?
If transit operating costs were fully covered by fares, the average one-zone user would pay around $273 a month in transit fares compared to around $110 currently.
I pay $250 a month in car insurance + $120 a month in parking + around $20 a month to charge my car (a comparable gas car would spend around $100 a month in gas commuting), and that's not including the cost of car ownership (purchase + maintenance).
We can subsidize transit somewhat, but even unsubsidized, transit is still the cheaper option.
Threaded Mode