Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[ilikeredheads]

Tbh, I am not really fan of having a station at Capstan Way. The distance between it and Aberdeen is pretty close.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

Tbh, I am not really fan of having a station at Capstan Way. The distance between it and Aberdeen is pretty close.

Using the intersection as a center point of the station, it would be about 650m - closer than New West to Columbia and Metrotown to Patterson (about 750 to 800m).

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Using the intersection as a center point of the station, it would be about 650m - closer than New West to Columbia and Metrotown to Patterson (about 750 to 800m).

well it is North of the intersection, putting it at about 700m-720m from Aberdeen and 800m-850m to Bridgeport.

but with all those new units going in i can see why a station there is a good idea. there is something like what, 16,000 units or something crazy like that.

[Trainguy]

TransLink decides on distance pricing for SkyTrain, undecided for buses

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) – There’s a good chance what you pay for a bus or Skytrain ride in Metro Vancouver will soon be charged on distance instead of zones.

After a year and a half of research and $1.5 million spent, TransLink has decided that distance pricing is the way to go for SkyTrain. This rules out a flat rate across the whole transit system which, according to TransLink, would have increased rates by about 20 per cent on average.

The company is now gathering public feedback on two pricing options for buses — one where fares remain at a flat rate and another where bus trips are charged based on distance.

You have until December 8 to weigh in online.


Pay as far as you go is the right way to go. Tap in tap out.

[GlassCity]

^Was just about to post on that. They've released a few videos outlining the choices they want feedback on. These are a) whether both rapid transit and buses should be distance-based, or just rapid transit with buses at a flat rate, b) whether time-based passes (like monthly passes) should remain or if they should be replaced with a maximum cap, and c) if low-income people should have lower fares. Here are the videos:

• Video Link

• Video Link

• Video Link

• Video Link

More information and the survey is here: https://www.translink.ca/Plans-and-Projects/Transit-Fare-Review.aspx

[nname]

I don't see how pay by distance on bus would work, unless they use straight line distance instead of actual distance traveled. And for each transfer, they would use the new start-end point, and only charge/refund the difference.

In the suburb, you may be on a shuttle for a 10km in a grand tour of different neighborhoods including a transfer somewhere out of the way, while ended up only traveled less than 3km from the starting point. Should you pay extra cost just because TransLink failed to provide a direct service?

And cash fare for distance-based is easy on SkyTrain - just choose the destination station and pay the amount shown on screen.... But how do you pay on bus without a compass card?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by nname

I don't see how pay by distance on bus would work, unless they use straight line distance instead of actual distance traveled. And for each transfer, they would use the new start-end point, and only charge/refund the difference.

In the suburb, you may be on a shuttle for a 10km in a grand tour of different neighborhoods including a transfer somewhere out of the way, while ended up only traveled less than 3km from the starting point. Should you pay extra cost just because TransLink failed to provide a direct service?

And cash fare for distance-based is easy on SkyTrain - just choose the destination station and pay the amount shown on screen.... But how do you pay on bus without a compass card?

Those are all really good points. Flat bus rate it is! I remain concerned with creating a two-tier system of service where rich people can take the SkyTrain and poor people take parallel buses, but as long as prices are in line enough to make all the modes comparable it shouldn't be an issue. It's much more of an issue now with the zones.

[aberdeen5698]

I think a distance-based fare system makes sense for all modes, and instead of daily and monthly passes there should simply be daily and monthly caps. Having to buy a pass every month is a hassle, and having to keep two compass cards so that I have a day pass available if (but only if) I need it is equally so.

There's no reason that even bus trips can't be distance based, and they should be based on straight-line distance between the tap-in and tap-out points to avoid bonuses or penalties based on routing. Translink's compass system has all the information to do that, there's no serious technical issues why it couldn't be done that way.

An interesting question is whether or not the system should charge different per-km rates for Skytrain vs buses. I could certainly see that to be the case for the Seabus, because it's expensive to operate and the distance is so much less than any other route.

I think it's also worth having a surcharge for rush hour trips, to encourage people who don't need to make such trips (shoppers, people going to medical appointments, sightseers) from adding to rush hour congestion.

[nname]

Now here's an example to illustrate my point. If someone is brave enough for a transit adventure from the edge of Metro Vancouver to Planet Ice skating rings in the middle of nowhere...



Current fare cost: 1 zone - $2.20

Blue line - charge by actual distance traveled: 38.7km, or max fare $4.30

Green line - straight line distance between each tap: 15.5km, or about $3.50 - $4.00

Red line - actual distance to the destination: 10.2km, or about $2.70 - $2.95

(This fare are all given by the example in the discussion guide. I know you can save a few cents by not going all the way to Haney Place for transfer, but you'll have to wait in the elements and will end up taking the same bus anyways.)

[cganuelas1995]

There should definitely be a program for fares to be based off a persons income via tax information. This would benefit part-time workers, especially students with part-time jobs.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by nname

Now here's an example to illustrate my point. If someone is brave enough for a transit adventure from the edge of Metro Vancouver to Planet Ice skating rings in the middle of nowhere...



Current fare cost: 1 zone - $2.20

Blue line - charge by actual distance traveled: 38.7km, or max fare $4.30

Green line - straight line distance between each tap: 15.5km, or about $3.50 - $4.00

Red line - actual distance to the destination: 10.2km, or about $2.70 - $2.95

(This fare are all given by the example in the discussion guide. I know you can save a few cents by not going all the way to Haney Place for transfer, but you'll have to wait in the elements and will end up taking the same bus anyways.)

An "as the crow flies" fare would be impossible. The closest you get is 13KM by car.

It would be completely fair to charge a "point to point" fare as long as the transit system could calculate that, however in all likeliness, the system would track the tap-in/tap-out event (or tap-in on return trip) as a return trip to determine how many stops were traveled, and thus the km's.

A "per km" flat fare also disproportionately punishes Surrey and Langley, mostly for reasons self-inflicted by Surrey.

[Metro-One]

Hmm, this is a tough one. Maybe distant based for all is best?

Also like the idea of low income pricing, but that should be done as a rebate when filling taxes?

Finally, if you want a really depressing read, look at the comments being posted on the link Translink has provided for this on social media. It once again reaffirms my belief that either most people are complete idiots who never think or research before they speak, or that such people are simply the loudest.

[cganuelas1995]

http://buzzer.translink.ca/2017/11/draft...the-southwest-area-transport-plan-is-in/

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Those are all really good points. Flat bus rate it is! I remain concerned with creating a two-tier system of service where rich people can take the SkyTrain and poor people take parallel buses, but as long as prices are in line enough to make all the modes comparable it shouldn't be an issue. It's much more of an issue now with the zones.

There was talk of that when they first moved buses to one zone because of Compass - and look how much of a non-issue it's been.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I think it's also worth having a surcharge for rush hour trips, to encourage people who don't need to make such trips (shoppers, people going to medical appointments, sightseers) from adding to rush hour congestion.

They used to do that - rush hour fares were in effect from start of service to 9:30am and then from 3:00 to 6:30pm. Outside of that fares for everything were one zone. There were a lot of people who used to ride outside of rush hour because it was cheaper.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also like the idea of low income pricing, but that should be done as a rebate when filling taxes?

I made that comment when I just filled it in

[officedweller]

Dumb question, since I don't use transit often.

With the current Compass card system, do transit users still have a 90 minute window within which to "link" trips?
How would that work with fare by distance, as you wouldn't want to pay a base fare ($2.20?) each time you jump off the train or bus to run an errand.

[Bobert]

Distance based bus travel would mean the re-introduction of tapping out. I wonder how well that will go over.

[nname]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Dumb question, since I don't use transit often.

With the current Compass card system, do transit users still have a 90 minute window within which to "link" trips?
How would that work with fare by distance, as you wouldn't want to pay a base fare ($2.20?) each time you jump off the train or bus to run an errand.

Still have 90min transfer window.

I suppose you pay $2.20 for the initial 5km ride, then get off to run an errand and get back to ride 2km more, the total trip will be 7km, and you only need to pay the add-fare for the 2 extra km on the second part as long as the 90min transfer window haven't expired.

[officedweller]

Cool, thanks, that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Bobert

Distance based bus travel would mean the re-introduction of tapping out. I wonder how well that will go over.

According to the TransLink discussion guide:

Tap out on bus not required, made possible by new technology that can detect when a trip on the bus has ended.

https://translink.checkbox.ca/Transit-Fare-Review-Phase-3.aspx

[nname]

Originally Posted by Kisai

An "as the crow flies" fare would be impossible. The closest you get is 13KM by car.

It would be completely fair to charge a "point to point" fare as long as the transit system could calculate that, however in all likeliness, the system would track the tap-in/tap-out event (or tap-in on return trip) as a return trip to determine how many stops were traveled, and thus the km's.

A "per km" flat fare also disproportionately punishes Surrey and Langley, mostly for reasons self-inflicted by Surrey.

My main concern for distance-based fare is that it will completely kill off the attractiveness of transit service in more rural area with less services. It is more suited for city with more population and more ridership that supports point-to-point or grid-based service, as oppose to the transfer-based system that's used in most places outside of CoV. If a transfer will increase fare, nobody will take transit if the bus doesn't take them to their destination in a single ride (as if that transfer did not put-off most of the potential riders) and eventually it will not be feasible to run most of the feeder routes as no one want to pay that much and the service will eventually die off. Beside my example above, there are a few other examples I can think of:

- Speed vs. distance - A 30min ride in City of Vancouver may only crawl 5km, while a 30min ride in the suburb may get you 20km - it's the same 30min ride, but you need to pay $2.20 for one and $4.30 for the other?

- Distance to destination - If you live in the inner city, you may be able to do all your errands within a 5km radius, while in suburb it may be 10km as everything is further apart. Therefore, transit is more expensive in the suburb than in the city for the same trip purpose, even though TransLink said they want to build ridership there?

- Multiple destinations along similar path - using the old 159-169-177 as an example - people from Coquitlam (A) wants to go to SilverCity (1) on Lougheed, and also want to go to the casino (2) in United Blvd; people from Port Coquitlam (B) also wants to go to the same place -- how many routes they must provide?
Initially there were 3 - the 169 (A-1), the 159 (B-1), and the 177 (A-2). People who wants B-2 can take a transfer between 159 and 177.
They then see this as service duplication, and adjust to 169 (A-1), 159 (B-2), and cancel the 177, telling people who wants B-1 and A-2 to transfer at Braid or PoCo/Coquitlam.
Then people complains so they make the 159 (A-B-2) to reduce that transfer for A-2.

How would they do it for distance based fare? Now no one wants to take 159 for A-2 as it means they will pay $1.50 more, no one wants to transfer at Braid as it would almost a max fare for such a little trip within the same city. For people in PoCo it is also an extra charge for going through Coquitlam. Should they reinstate the 3rd or even add the 4th route to avoid overcharging people? That could be doable if they make both the 159 and 169 shuttle - eventually you don't even need a conventional bus anymore! Or just focus on the two most popular route and tell the other 30% of the rider to get lost, or add a transfer point between the 159 and 169 and tell 100% of the people to pay a bit extra for the added trip length? And then you add in that Riverview detour -- it's only $0.25 extra for those poor 169 riders, right? Or should they split the 169 again into 2 routes? Maybe there should also be a "159 express" that goes straight down Shaughnessey to skip Citadel Heights. And then split both routes again so one branch goes to (1) and the other goes to (2). Now we're talking about 8 routes instead of 2.

This is exactly how they would do in a non-transfer based system. But then they may have a few hundred riders per day for each type of service, and we have probably no more than 50.

That can be solved if they ignore the transfer point and charge base on the "as the crow flies" fare. But what if someone finish their errand and get back home within 90min - now the distance is 0 km regardless of how far you actually go?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Sheba

There was talk of that when they first moved buses to one zone because of Compass - and look how much of a non-issue it's been.

I still think the status quo is an issue! So I commented sayiing that if buses are to be flat rate, they should be fairly close to what rapid transit would cost for a typical bus trip.

Originally Posted by Kisai

An "as the crow flies" fare would be impossible. The closest you get is 13KM by car.

It would be completely fair to charge a "point to point" fare as long as the transit system could calculate that, however in all likeliness, the system would track the tap-in/tap-out event (or tap-in on return trip) as a return trip to determine how many stops were traveled, and thus the km's.

A "per km" flat fare also disproportionately punishes Surrey and Langley, mostly for reasons self-inflicted by Surrey.

I noted this in my comment too. If they can make distance-based bus service not be hurt by circuitous suburban routes, then do distance. If they can't, flat rate is the way to go.