Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Then why start the process in the first place: too much money to burn?

The transportation study isn't just a study on the old inter-urban line

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by mcj

Large systems also have the advantage that they're quite useful, so long as they're cheaper than alternatives, people will use them. The calculation more has to do with diminishing returns from attracting new riders with cheaper passes (most current non-riders aren't not riding because of the cost, it's other factors) versus lost revenue from established riders who will pay the slightly higher pass price.

Hence my point still stands. Imagine that they were to lower the monthly fare to $100 a month.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Hence my point still stands. Imagine that they were to lower the monthly fare to $100 a month.

Then Translink would lose $2.55 a month from the 1-zone pass holders. If you mean for the 2-zone pass it's $37.10 in lost revenue, and for a 3-zone pass holders then they'd lose $85.20 a month in revenue. VancouverOfTheFuture made it clear they aren't switching to use transit just because of its cost.

The TTC pass is $156, so both 1 and 2-zone monthly passes in Metro Vancouver are cheaper.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Then Translink would lose $2.55 a month from the 1-zone pass holders. If you mean for the 2-zone pass it's $37.10 in lost revenue, and for a 3-zone pass holders then they'd lose $85.20 a month in revenue. VancouverOfTheFuture made it clear they aren't switching to use transit just because of its cost.

The TTC pass is $156, so both 1 and 2-zone monthly passes in Metro Vancouver are cheaper.

Instead of looking at the lost in existing revenue, what would happen as a result of the lower fare? Would more people use the service? Would different routes be more busier than others? Would Translink see the need to do more?

[Migrant_Coconut]

If there were enough new customers to offset the revenue loss, chances are they'd've already lowered the rates - it's in any organization's best interests to find the most optimal price for a product.

Also, we're talking about a monthly pass for the entire network, so they'd just be taking the same trips as they do now.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Hence my point still stands. Imagine that they were to lower the monthly fare to $100 a month.

Well that imaginary scenario would result in less funding for service levels which would decrease ridership and therefore would result in less funding and the cycle repeats, not an ideal scenario. Hence my point still stands that those who do not currently use transit aren't doing so to save a couple bucks.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Instead of looking at the lost in existing revenue, what would happen as a result of the lower fare? Would more people use the service? Would different routes be more busier than others? Would Translink see the need to do more?

None of your naive hypothesizing has anything to do with heavy rail or commuter rail, so I'm not bothering to reply to whatever you come back with. Why would TransLink risk losing a lot of money, and discover that no, the same number of people are travelling as before - or at least not enough more are added to break even? Then, as has been noted, they have to cut services.

This is not some teen in their parent's basement playing Sim Transit - it's a very carefully run operation that aims to maximize ridership and provide as good as service as possible within a finite financial budget. Put the fares too high, and they lose ridership. Put the fares lower than they need to, and they lose revenue.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Changing City

This is not some teen in their parent's basement playing Sim Transit - it's a very carefully run operation that aims to maximize ridership and provide as good as service as possible within a finite financial budget. Put the fares too high, and they lose ridership. Put the fares lower than they need to, and they lose revenue.

I feel personally called out here . I kid.

Increasing the average number of riders overall on the WCE could provide a basis to lower monthly passes. But let's not get ahead of ourselves with inflation; that ain't ever going to happen.

I do wish, however, that the communities with WCE stations (specifically POCO and further East) would get developers to master-plan the area surrounding the station in order to take advantage of an opportunity to increase density where possible.

Paying $100 per month for a transit pass, these days taking into consideration the rising costs of owning an personal vehicle, could be a great incentive for people looking to move to the Lower Mainland/Fraser Valley in search of lower-ish housing prices and access to regular transit. Just food for thought though.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Well, Maple Ridge does have plans to densify... along the busways.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If there were enough new customers to offset the revenue loss, chances are they'd've already lowered the rates - it's in any organization's best interests to find the most optimal price for a product.

Also, we're talking about a monthly pass for the entire network, so they'd just be taking the same trips as they do now.

If the drop in fares did not cause a bump in ridership, you'd be right.

Originally Posted by mcj

Well that imaginary scenario would result in less funding for service levels which would decrease ridership and therefore would result in less funding and the cycle repeats, not an ideal scenario. Hence my point still stands that those who do not currently use transit aren't doing so to save a couple bucks.

Every single road is open to everyone to use it and they are busy. Why not toll every road? If that sounds ludicrous, then you understand. EVs do not pay road taxes on their electricity, so the argument of road taxes paying for roads will be diminished as more people switch to EVs.

We will never get 100% to use transit. That does not mean that we should not work to achieve the highest number. Some people, it is cost. Others it is convenience. Others it is image. Some of those we can fix. Others we can't. We can lower the cost of the fare. We can increase the frequency. At these gas prices, if the fare was lower and the frequency was better, ridership could increase.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If the drop in fares did not cause a bump in ridership, you'd be right.

You've missed the point again: evidence would suggest that the current monthly pass rate is already the optimal balance between revenue and new passengers, otherwise TransLink/BC Transit/etc would move the price up or down.

We could make transit free and get an even bigger bump in ridership, but obviously the deficit would be too large to be worth it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You've missed the point again: evidently, the current monthly pass price is already the optimal balance between revenue and new passengers, otherwise TransLink/BC Transit/etc would move the price up or down.

We could make the passes free and get an even bigger bump in ridership, but obviously the deficit would be too large to be worth it.

Then maybe we should start tolling all roads. After all, they make no revenue.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Heh, both City and Metro planners are way ahead of you.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Heh, both City and Metro planners are way ahead of you.

Way ahead would mean they are in place.
Mind you, this would be a good start.

It is a pity they got rid of the tolls on the Coq.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Meaning you're not even close to being the first one to consider it. The NDP also ditched the bridge tolls in order to win Surrey, so don't expect any progress in that direction for a while.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Meaning you're not even close to being the first one to consider it. The NDP also ditched the bridge tolls in order to win Surrey, so don't expect any progress in that direction for a while.

Road/Bridge tolls and transit fares are not financial, but political. Anyone that wants to argue that is blind.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Road/Bridge tolls... are not financial, but political. Anyone that wants to argue that is blind.

Correct, and since most of the Province is very opinionated drivers, we're not going to be tolling them any time soon.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

... transit fares are not financial, but political. Anyone that wants to argue that is blind.

Yet they always keep going up every year or two.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Correct, and since most of the Province is very opinionated drivers, we're not going to be tolling them any time soon.

Oh I know.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yet they always keep going up every year or two.

Yes, because it is politically viable.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Also because it's politically unviable for the Province to subsidize transit any further... so monthly pass prices are staying where they are right now.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Also because it's politically unviable for the Province to subsidize transit any further... so monthly pass prices are staying where they are right now.

What if they took that road toll to downtown and used to to fund transit. Prices could come down.