Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

You use the analogy of cars as an argument against the variation in fares. However, look at the ever-popular which has many different options and surge pricing.

I think varying fares can work well as long as you have a good transit app or Google Maps integration so that cost is very clear as well as a breakdown if people want more detail.

You missed a word - Uber? I used cars as an example because we know that drivers seldom take the price of gas into account, and because we can see that when they do consider pricing, their behaviour changes. That is what transit has to compete with, so it's a relevant comparison.

The choice between transit and the car is not like the choice between Uber and a taxi. Uber is an altogether different case because it has immediately obvious benefits. If transit was obviously superior to the alternatives (for example, if you had to plunk $6 into a slot every time you got into your car, or if transit got you there 50% faster), then variable pricing wouldn't matter because the other benefits would be compelling. Transit has a number of disadvantages to overcome, so it can't afford additional barriers.

Another example: online micropayments were anticipated for decades, but they never quite turned out as hoped. It turns out that asking people to pay even a nominal fee is a high burden. The difference between free and extremely cheap turns out to be huge. It's not the money that makes the difference; it's the psychology of what happens when we have to make a choice to pay. Consider the astronomically higher popularity of free apps compared to very inexpensive superior alternatives. It's not the trivial amount of money that prevents sales; it's the psychological task of deciding whether it's worth it.

The first really successful micropayment system, iTunes, is instructive. Apple set the price for a song download at 99 cents despite fierce opposition from the music labels, who wanted variable pricing. Apple held firm. They believed that $1 was an important psychological barrier to overcome. It was only after iTunes was an established success that they permitted some variation in price.

As for using apps, that is a significant barrier. I don't use mobile apps on my phone. Many of the people I know don't much use them either. The assumption that everyone will have and use a smart phone is very much like the assumption half a century ago that everyone would have a car. Maybe most people will, but not everyone, and not always. It's great to take advantage of it, but a requirement for it should not be built into the system.

[memememe76]

NYC doesn't do distance based. Seattle does. I like NYC's transit system. I loathe Seattle's. I am not for distance based. Really, are there any suburban dwellers in favour of distance based?

[WarrenC12]

I like distance-based fares, but whatever comes in should be at least as straightforward as what we have today.

As an example, London has 6 zones (or more?) and it's distance based depending on how many zones you travel, then a flat 1 pound to ride a bus. That's fairly simple.

We are also missing 3-day and 7-day unlimited passes, better for tourists.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Geof

You missed a word - Uber? I used cars as an example because we know that drivers seldom take the price of gas into account, and because we can see that when they do consider pricing, their behaviour changes. That is what transit has to compete with, so it's a relevant comparison.

The choice between transit and the car is not like the choice between Uber and a taxi. Uber is an altogether different case because it has immediately obvious benefits. If transit was obviously superior to the alternatives (for example, if you had to plunk $6 into a slot every time you got into your car, or if transit got you there 50% faster), then variable pricing wouldn't matter because the other benefits would be compelling. Transit has a number of disadvantages to overcome, so it can't afford additional barriers.

Another example: online micropayments were anticipated for decades, but they never quite turned out as hoped. It turns out that asking people to pay even a nominal fee is a high burden. The difference between free and extremely cheap turns out to be huge. It's not the money that makes the difference; it's the psychology of what happens when we have to make a choice to pay. Consider the astronomically higher popularity of free apps compared to very inexpensive superior alternatives. It's not the trivial amount of money that prevents sales; it's the psychological task of deciding whether it's worth it.

The first really successful micropayment system, iTunes, is instructive. Apple set the price for a song download at 99 cents despite fierce opposition from the music labels, who wanted variable pricing. Apple held firm. They believed that $1 was an important psychological barrier to overcome. It was only after iTunes was an established success that they permitted some variation in price.

As for using apps, that is a significant barrier. I don't use mobile apps on my phone. Many of the people I know don't much use them either. The assumption that everyone will have and use a smart phone is very much like the assumption half a century ago that everyone would have a car. Maybe most people will, but not everyone, and not always. It's great to take advantage of it, but a requirement for it should not be built into the system.

Yeah I forgot Uber in my original post. How clumsy of me.

Not everybody is going to use Google Maps or has a smart phone, but I don't think that should get in the way of making pricing flexible. You can general rules of thumb that people will remember like "it's $0.25 more during peak hours" or "the Skytrain costs about $0.20 per station". I definitely agree there is a balance between granularity and simplicity needs to be found.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by memememe76

NYC doesn't do distance based. Seattle does. I like NYC's transit system. I loathe Seattle's. I am not for distance based. Really, are there any suburban dwellers in favour of distance based?

That raises an interesting point; for me, anyway, and I hope for others, too.
Living in Paris - metro agglomeration 12m - if you count the "Île-de-France" department as the given public transit area, it's very large, with people in Paris itself,
then the "inner ring," and the"outer ring" which comprises many commuters.
*
Until recently, the Paris transit area, as in many if not most large cities, was divided into zones, a central zone, going out in rings comprising a total of 5 zones.
*
And, yes, fares got steeper as you crossed more zone lines, as is natural. However, the French government decided that this was punitive to commuters living on the outskirts.
So ... yes, now there is a flat one-zone tariff applied across the entire Île de France. And it's cheap. Subway ("métro") fares within the city are cheap and zone-free (unlike London!!)
*
And a monthly farecard gives you unlimited travel throughout the entire department for the same price, which is only 3 €uros higher than it was for the cheapest 2-zone farecard.
*
I doubt that, due to financial concerns, and the generally pecuniary attitude of the Canadian mindset, this would be possible in Vancouver, but it certainly provides food for thought.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by memememe76

NYC doesn't do distance based. Seattle does. I like NYC's transit system. I loathe Seattle's. I am not for distance based. Really, are there any suburban dwellers in favour of distance based?

Does Burnaby count?

My complaint is that it costs too much to make a one- or two-stop trip, so I simply will not take the train from Brentwood to Gilmore, or the bus from Lougheed to Hastings. A flat fare would presumably set the price for every trip close to a two-zone trip today.

I certainly don't think the relationship between distance and price should be linear. Better to have a system where longer trips have a smaller marginal cost for each additional km. Say $1 just to take transit, an average-length trip costing the same as the current average price, and no trip costing more than a three-zone fare. (Though how would that interact with the 90 minute transfer window? Treat it all as though it were one boarding I suppose.)

Of course variable pricing has its downside, as I've argued... I imagine (hope) that it may be possible to construct a fare system that seems "fair," at which point riders wouldn't think much about it. If I'm wrong about that then I agree that there's a very good case for simply making it flat.

Maybe another way to approach it is to make fares flat, but discount frequent use. Though that discourages infrequent use... which is better? Probably we care more about frequent users anyway. Maybe a flat fare for all modes, times, and distances, costing $3.50 / trip for the first 10 trips, $3 for the next 10, and $2.50 after that. Would those numbers be roughly right?

Edit: I was thinking in round trips. Make that $3.50 / trip for the first 20 (so 10 round trips), $3 for the next 20, and $2.50 after that. That puts 20 days of commuting at $130, very close to a 2-zone pass ($124). Which makes me think it's just a bit high, considering that additional trips are not free. Drop the amounts by 25 cents and you get $120 a month; drop it by 50 cents and you get $110. The jump from a one-zone pass price ($91) would be hard on some people though.

[Vantage]

Originally Posted by memememe76

NYC doesn't do distance based. Seattle does. I like NYC's transit system. I loathe Seattle's. I am not for distance based. Really, are there any suburban dwellers in favour of distance based?

I live in Coquitlam and would support a mix of distance based fares and mode specific fares. Distance based applying to Skytrain only, with a flat rate for busses. I'd happily pay more for a faster and more comfortable journey on Skytrain. If I didn't want to pay the higher fare then I'd just take a bus.

I think a switch to distance based fares would be beneficial to many residents in Metro Vancouver.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Geof

Does Burnaby count?

My complaint is that it costs too much to make a one- or two-stop trip, so I simply will not take the train from Brentwood to Gilmore, or the bus from Lougheed to Hastings. A flat fare would presumably set the price for every trip close to a two-zone trip today.

I certainly don't think the relationship between distance and price should be linear. Better to have a system where longer trips have a smaller marginal cost for each additional km. Say $1 just to take transit, an average-length trip costing the same as the current average price, and no trip costing more than a three-zone fare. (Though how would that interact with the 90 minute transfer window? Treat it all as though it were one boarding I suppose.)

Of course variable pricing has its downside, as I've argued... I imagine (hope) that it may be possible to construct a fare system that seems "fair," at which point riders wouldn't think much about it. If I'm wrong about that then I agree that there's a very good case for simply making it flat.

Maybe another way to approach it is to make fares flat, but discount frequent use. Though that discourages infrequent use... which is better? Probably we care more about frequent users anyway. Maybe a flat fare for all modes, times, and distances, costing $3.50 / trip for the first 10 trips, $3 for the next 10, and $2.50 after that. Would those numbers be roughly right?

Edit: I was thinking in round trips. Make that $3.50 / trip for the first 20 (so 10 round trips), $3 for the next 20, and $2.50 after that. That puts 20 days of commuting at $130, very close to a 2-zone pass ($124). Which makes me think it's just a bit high, considering that additional trips are not free. Drop the amounts by 25 cents and you get $120 a month; drop it by 50 cents and you get $110. The jump from a one-zone pass price ($91) would be hard on some people though.

I like the idea of having discounted fares for frequent riders. I live in Richmond, work in Vancouver, and take transit more or less everyday. Autoload is set up on my card to $40 when it gets below $5. I take the train 10 times a week on average and the bus at least 5 times a week (if I miss the bus, it's a 30 minute walk from the station to my house). It would be a huge advantage seeing as I make $11.50/hour and getting a 2-zone monthly pass would be too complex for me because I sometimes visit my friends in Ladner.

[cganuelas1995]

I really wish Compass would show how much I spend on transit per month for budgeting purposes and to find out if it would be more economical to get a monthly pass.

[nname]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I really wish Compass would show how much I spend on transit per month for budgeting purposes and to find out if it would be more economical to get a monthly pass.

Just need to do some math:
Balance at end of month - Balance at beginning of month + Sum of all sale transactions

For your case, really depend on how many trips are two zones. Either a 1-zone or 2-zone monthly pass would be the cheapest option if you make at least 43 trips a month.

For me, a month typically have 21x two-zones trips to work, 21x one-zone trip back home (in evening), up to 6x one-zone trips on weekdays (not part of the commute), and up to 24x one-zone trips on weekends. I figure the cheapest way is to buy a one-zone pass and pay add-fare 21 times (+$26.25) than to buy a two-zone pass (+$33.00)

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by nname

Just need to do some math:
Balance at end of month - Balance at beginning of month + Sum of all sale transactions

For your case, really depend on how many trips are two zones. Either a 1-zone or 2-zone monthly pass would be the cheapest option if you make at least 43 trips a month.

For me, a month typically have 21x two-zones trips to work, 21x one-zone trip back home (in evening), up to 6x one-zone trips on weekdays (not part of the commute), and up to 24x one-zone trips on weekends. I figure the cheapest way is to buy a one-zone pass and pay add-fare 21 times (+$26.25) than to buy a two-zone pass (+$33.00)

Yeah, well the math is a real pain in the ass with those negative transactions.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Vantage

I live in Coquitlam and would support a mix of distance based fares and mode specific fares. Distance based applying to Skytrain only, with a flat rate for busses. I'd happily pay more for a faster and more comfortable journey on Skytrain. If I didn't want to pay the higher fare then I'd just take a bus.

I think a switch to distance based fares would be beneficial to many residents in Metro Vancouver.

Distance based fares actually work out better in the long run because people don't feel ripped off when they go between two neighbouring zones frequently.

To put it in context, someone who shops or works at Metropolis at Metrotown but lives at Joyce station is paying two zones to take a 3 minute skytrain ride (that takes 10 minutes by car), while someone who coming all the way from downtown (instead of say Nanaimo which is 2.7km) to Joyce only pays one zone, despite being 8.3km (and a 20 minute drive, or 13 minute train ride.) In both cases the train is faster than driving, but the shorter distance is charged more.

The same also applied to the bus system when it was still in the zone system. So from a fairness point of view, people who live near zone boundaries are discouraged from going into the neighboring boundary as part of a work commute unless they want to pay for a monthly transit pass.

A similar issue exists between New West/Surrey, and Richmond/Vancouver and North Vancouver/Vancouver, the only part of the transit system that is distance based is the WCE, owing to the fact that it has 5 zones and a return-ticket system, of which zone 4 is everything after the Pitt River, and zone 5 is Mission which isn't even in the Metro Vancouver transit area(and can't transfer to it, because CFV doesn't have Compass readers.) People currently between the Pitt River and Mission are still in zone 3 as far as the transit system is concerned.

[gillty]

K.I.S.S. This is not terribly difficult, I would provide a hybrid of the fare systems used everywhere in Japan.

Bus : One-way flat rate tap on/tap off. Discounts for transfers within xx minutes ↪︎ Transfer discount addresses the often high cost of transfers in Japan between multinodal which often are different operators. This is the advantage of a unified system such as Vancouver's.

B-Line: One-way flat rate but higher price.

Train and Seabus?: Distance based fares within zones
↪︎ Requires unique signage at each station displaying x cost to x station and we know that TransLink historically sucks at signage.


Source: OsakaStation.com

Westcoast Express : As-is.

Monthly Passes: Distinct distance intervals passes such as 8 stations between enter/exit station, 12 stations, etc... Include the bus just as it is now under the lowest cost pass.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Distance based fares actually work out better in the long run because people don't feel ripped off when they go between two neighbouring zones frequently.

To put it in context, someone who shops or works at Metropolis at Metrotown but lives at Joyce station is paying two zones to take a 3 minute skytrain ride (that takes 10 minutes by car), while someone who coming all the way from downtown (instead of say Nanaimo which is 2.7km) to Joyce only pays one zone, despite being 8.3km (and a 20 minute drive, or 13 minute train ride.) In both cases the train is faster than driving, but the shorter distance is charged more.

The same also applied to the bus system when it was still in the zone system. So from a fairness point of view, people who live near zone boundaries are discouraged from going into the neighboring boundary as part of a work commute unless they want to pay for a monthly transit pass.

A similar issue exists between New West/Surrey, and Richmond/Vancouver and North Vancouver/Vancouver, the only part of the transit system that is distance based is the WCE, owing to the fact that it has 5 zones and a return-ticket system, of which zone 4 is everything after the Pitt River, and zone 5 is Mission which isn't even in the Metro Vancouver transit area(and can't transfer to it, because CFV doesn't have Compass readers.) People currently between the Pitt River and Mission are still in zone 3 as far as the transit system is concerned.

On most days, I travel 24 stops in total by bus (16 on the 404, 8 on the 84) and travel 18 stations on the Canada Line. I think it's really strange how taking a bus to the next stop and going from end to end on the longest bus route (if anyone knows what the longest bus route TransLink has to offer is, please let us know) costs the same and that I pay the same as the guy going from Bridgeport to Marine Drive station when I go from Brighouse to Olympic Village.

Distance-based fares are stupidly easy to understand. The further you go, the more you pay. If you need that simplified, I'm surprised that you are able to operate a computer.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by gillty

K.I.S.S. This is not terribly difficult, I would provide a hybrid of the fare systems used everywhere in Japan.

Bus : One-way flat rate tap on/tap off. Discounts for transfers within xx minutes ↪︎ Transfer discount addresses the often high cost of transfers in Japan between multinodal which often are different operators. This is the advantage of a unified system such as Vancouver's.

B-Line: One-way flat rate but higher price.

Train and Seabus?: Distance based fares within zones
↪︎ Requires unique signage at each station displaying x cost to x station and we know that TransLink historically sucks at signage.


Source: OsakaStation.com

Westcoast Express : As-is.

Monthly Passes: Distinct distance intervals passes such as 8 stations between enter/exit station, 12 stations, etc... Include the bus just as it is now under the lowest cost pass.

Having any B-Line as a premium service could likely result in users making plans to avoid it, such as leaving earlier and synchronizing transfers.

As for the transfers, the time should be extended during the early morning/late night hours when buses are less frequent.

[cganuelas1995]

Here's a link to the thread I made for the fare review

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=7699107#post7699107

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Distance based fares actually work out better in the long run because people don't feel ripped off when they go between two neighbouring zones frequently.

This is my thinking too: people hate to be ripped off, and that sense of injustice is more powerful than minor economic incentives. This is to be avoided if we want people to take transit thoughtlessly.

I am happier being treated fairly, even if it means paying more, than being treated unfairly, even if it's cheaper. For example, I hate giving parking meters money for time I don't use, even when its small change: but I have no problem at all paying for time that I do. I love the check-in-check-out parking system in Victoria for this reason, and I hardly worry at all about how much it costs.

My thinking (uninformed by any real data or research) is that if people feel that fares are fair, they won't worry so much about the amount. But if there are edge cases, like short trips across zone boundaries, they will go out of their way to pay less. (Maybe this sense of fairness explains bridge toll avoidance too.) That's why my hope is that a fair distance-based system would be the most invisible to travellers, for whom fares would then be like tap-and-go gas in the tank.

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by Geof

I am happier being treated fairly, even if it means paying more, than being treated unfairly, even if it's cheaper. For example, I hate giving parking meters money for time I don't use, even when its small change: but I have no problem at all paying for time that I do.

I feel precisely the same way.

[nname]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

(if anyone knows what the longest bus route TransLink has to offer is, please let us know)

Top 3 as of Dec 2016:

45km 504 Bridgeport Station/White Rock South
44km 701 Coquitlam Central Station/Mission City Station
44km 502 Bridgeport Station/Ocean Park

[GlassCity]

The problem with distance-based fares is that it's very hard to predict what you'll pay. If you have a monthly pass or automatic top-up on your Compass Card it's not an issue, but not everyone has that luxury.