Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

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.

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.

Earlier you mentioned: "I remain concerned with creating a two-tier system of service where rich people can take the SkyTrain and poor people take parallel buses". A simple comparison would be travelling from Main St Station to New West Station - it takes 23 mins by Skytrain vs 95 mins by bus. Assuming the Skytrain isn't 3 times as expensive, I think we can guess which option many people will take.

For the most part suburban routes aren't direct like CoV routes. Plus the frequency pretty much guarantees waiting around if people have to transfer to another bus. Putting those two things together means suburban riders will want either distance based or (more likely) a 90 min transfer window - not both.

[Trainguy]

In Japan all trains and buses are distance based. You pay for your ride based on where you start and where you get off. The system has worked that way for decades and they have 4 times the population that Canada has. It would take time for people to get used to that kind of system but it is fair. The farther you travel, the more you pay.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

In Japan all trains and buses are distance based. You pay for your ride based on where you start and where you get off. The system has worked that way for decades and they have 4 times the population that Canada has. It would take time for people to get used to that kind of system but it is fair. The farther you travel, the more you pay.

And most of them, I believe, is point-to-point system and does not allow transfer. In other word, there are a lot of routes that run between most combination of destinations where people want to go, and there are usually a large amount of routes on the main streets.

Here is an example of such system in Sendai (a metro population of about 2 million)
https://www.kotsu.city.sendai.jp/bus/pdf/2904_sanezawa.pdf

Note this is one of the 8 operating bus company in the city, and there are more than 50 routes and branches. For our transfer-based system, I see only 8-10 routes needed for that service area...

My relatives is always surprised that there is mostly 1 route on each road here. The place where they live have 21 routes in the main street and they are in inner suburb. For central city, there are 50 - 100 per road. I don't think we got the population and ridership to support such system.

[aberdeen5698]

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 don't like the idea of saddling Translink with managing and vetting who is and isn't eligible for income-based fare discounts. There are other agencies that already do that, any transit-related subsidies should be funneled through them IMHO.

[Xrayal]

Originally Posted by officedweller

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

I've scanned through the Technical Backgrounder and found this info:

TransLink is exploring ways to eliminate the need to tap out (at least for most trips), and to mitigate the impacts for those customers who do choose to tap out on bus. Technology exists and is now being tested on other transit systems called ‘be-in-be-out’ that can sense when passengers leave the bus (currently via a Bluetooth connection to their card or smartphone), allowing participating users to exit without needing to tap out. This technology is expected to be more widely deployed in the next few years.

-emphasis on participating is mine

However I still think keeping the flat fair structure for the buses might be the better option.

[Tvisforme]

I've nothing to confirm this, but I would guess that the per-distance system is looking at "as the crow flies" rather than the "on the ground" measurement. This assumption is based on the wording in the presentation, which says "Vary fares based on the measured distance between journey origin and destination" (emphasis added).

[GeeCee]

Translink just opened up a merch store! The prices are kinda steep though. $90 for a system map shower curtain?

https://translinkstore.ca/

[WarrenC12]

Flat (cheap) bus fares and distance based trains are the best solution IMO. It avoids all of the complication involved in bus fares, and pushes dollars into trains. If we stay with automated technology, our train lines will be operationally profitable, something that just isn't possible with buses.

With respect to poor people, I would be in favour of existing programs (welfare, disability, etc.) having a free transit component. But the income tax credit/deduction system is full of issues and loopholes, not to mention the complication of "boutique" tax credits, which thankfully are being done away with. Most people who rely on transit for daily commutes/etc will just be buying monthly passes anyway.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

I've nothing to confirm this, but I would guess that the per-distance system is looking at "as the crow flies" rather than the "on the ground" measurement. This assumption is based on the wording in the presentation, which says "Vary fares based on the measured distance between journey origin and destination" (emphasis added).

I'd say it would actually be easier for TransLink to charge based on actual trip distance. They know what stop you get on at, they know what stop you get off at (assuming tap-out or this fancy auto-detect system), so they know how many stops you've travelled. Maybe they might do it based on how many stops you travel instead of a pure distance?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I'd say it would actually be easier for TransLink to charge based on actual trip distance. They know what stop you get on at, they know what stop you get off at (assuming tap-out or this fancy auto-detect system), so they know how many stops you've travelled. Maybe they might do it based on how many stops you travel instead of a pure distance?

It would be a slap in the face for people who live in the suburbs that have bus routes that look like a transit planner had to bring their toddler to work and their kid got bored so the planner decided to keep them entertained by giving them a roadmap of an area and some crayons.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't like the idea of saddling Translink with managing and vetting who is and isn't eligible for income-based fare discounts. There are other agencies that already do that, any transit-related subsidies should be funneled through them IMHO.

Other than income tax (do they still do it for monthly passes?) who / how else would it be done?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

With respect to poor people, I would be in favour of existing programs (welfare, disability, etc.) having a free transit component. But the income tax credit/deduction system is full of issues and loopholes, not to mention the complication of "boutique" tax credits, which thankfully are being done away with. Most people who rely on transit for daily commutes/etc will just be buying monthly passes anyway.

Fair Pharmacare uses line 236 of your tax return to determine your deductible. If you ask me, it works good enough. Start with that and see how it goes.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

that's in Tokyo Metro. As mentioned already, we won't have them in our systems until the Mark 1s are phased out, even though platform screen doors are a good safety feature. There's a reason why they are being installed in many transit systems in the world.

Couldn't we just put all the mark 1s on the Millennium line as they are phased out and put the 2s and 3s on the Expo line with the gates?

Seeing stations like Commercial in the rushes really makes me think we need these, at least at the busier stations.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Other than income tax (do they still do it for monthly passes?) who / how else would it be done?

Cganuelas's suggestion seems reasonable to me:

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Fair Pharmacare uses line 236 of your tax return to determine your deductible. If you ask me, it works good enough. Start with that and see how it goes.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Couldn't we just put all the mark 1s on the Millennium line as they are phased out and put the 2s and 3s on the Expo line with the gates?

Seeing stations like Commercial in the rushes really makes me think we need these, at least at the busier stations.

Even the Mark IIs and IIIs have slightly different door spacing IIRC

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by dpogue

Even the Mark IIs and IIIs have slightly different door spacing IIRC

I think this is trying to solve the wrong problem.

If we install PED/PSD whatever you want to call them, you can get models that either open wider or you can make the train stop a little more precisely so that the 3-door alignment always matches, and then you just make sure you only A-C-C-B configuration. Because the MK II's are run primarily in A-B,A-B configuration, their doors can not line up because where the two cars in the middle meet is wider than the articulated section in the MK III where the two C cars meet.

Translink could simply buy MK III C cars for the MK II's (presumably) and make 4-car trains out of all the A-B pairs. That solves the problem though that doesn't necessarily mean they will align perfectly.

A more versatile option of course is to simply have something closer to bollards built into station edge, and they just drop into the platform wherever the doors open.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

...Translink could simply buy MK III C cars for the MK II's... A more versatile option of course is to simply have something closer to bollards built into station edge, and they just drop into the platform wherever the doors open.

Sure, because those solutions are so cheap that they won't take any money away from more important transit needs...

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sure, because those solutions are so cheap that they won't take any money away from more important transit needs...

This is just theory, but the retractable 12" diameter ones people install in driveways cost $2500 each, without including the cost of labor.

Assuming you simply want to prevent people, wheel chairs and mobility scooters from falling into the track, you need to space them wide enough that an adults hand can pass through (so that anyone who sticks their hand through it doesn't get it stuck on the other side) but not wide enough that a child can squeeze through. So maybe 3-4" apart. You need enough to cover two sides of an 80m platform. So 160m = 6300", divide that by 16" and you need 394 of them. So $985,000 per station, not including the labor and other work needed to the station. That is also assuming you wanted all of them to be retractable, in case door or train lengths change.

So all the stations except those with three platforms and the Canada Line would fit the above.

Now if you add the Surrey LRT, the cost for that exceeds the cost of the stops.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

So $985,000 per station, not including the labor and other work needed to the station. That is also assuming you wanted all of them to be retractable, in case door or train lengths change.

You realize of course that the "labour and other work" is where most of the money will be spent...

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by Kisai

So $985,000 per station, not including the labor and other work needed to the station.

That "other work" would also have to include all the necessary system integrations with the train routing system to know when a train is in the station, as well as some sort of mechanism for a train driver to manually lower them if a train has to be operated manually, plus integration with the station monitoring system to send alerts to control if they fail to operate as intended, plus a way to lower them for maintenance or emergency access to the guideway.