Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

Which road toll? The ones which we just agreed probably aren't happening in the near future?

[scottN]

For better or for worse, the provincial government doesn't include capital spending in the budget, so we can expect continued investment in politically popular megaprojects that are hidden in the budget while translink continues to finance the operating costs largely through fares. As long as the operating costs are low (i.e skytrain burnaby mountain gondola, etc), this seems like not too bad of a deal. If on the other hand the province wanted to buy translink 10,000 new handydart vans then there might be a problem.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Which road toll? The ones which we just agreed probably aren't happening in the near future?

Yes, those ones.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

The government of the day promised that the Coquihalla tolls would pay for the highway and then be removed. They paid for the highway, and were removed. A notable, yet sadly unusual example of provincial responsibility, IMHO.

IMHO the real pity is how the politicians caved on the Port Mann and Golden Ears tolls.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

Sure, but using tolls to pay for infrastructure is a winnable political argument. That's why it's a shame about the Port Mann - people accepted the tolls as the price to pay for the infrastructure. Now that they've been removed, though, it will be well nigh impossible to reinstate them.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The government of the day promised that the Coquihalla tolls would pay for the highway and then be removed. They paid for the highway, and were removed. A notable, yet sadly unusual example of provincial responsibility, IMHO.

IMHO the real pity is how the politicians caved on the Port Mann and Golden Ears tolls.

Sure, but using tolls to pay for infrastructure is a winnable political argument. That's why it's a shame about the Port Mann - people accepted the tolls as the price to pay for the infrastructure. Now that they've been removed, though, it will be well nigh impossible to reinstate them.

Which all goes back to it is all political.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Yes, those ones.

Assuming those become a thing 20-30 years from now, best to spend the revenue on more trains and buses and increased service so the current prices are better value for money.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

Should Public Transit Be Free?

Freakonomics Radio published this interesting episode about free transit back in August. Stephen Dubner spoke to the mayor of Boston (who wants some transit to be free) and the former president and CEO of Kansas City's transit authority (which has already made transit free). They both made compelling points in favour of free transit.

But some other interviewees spoke about how transit has a finite source of money. Yes, transit could always be allocated more funding if the government cut expenditures from elsewhere in its budget or generated more income through new or increased taxes, but at some point you will reach the ceiling of the spending capacity.

So assuming that funding is finite, you should spend that funding on the things which will generate the most return. Some options include lower or free fares, capital expenditures such as Skytrain extensions, operational improvements such as increased frequency, or improved customer experience such as adding cleaning staff to stations or improving transit apps.

When it comes to evaluating the return, I don't believe a publicly funded transit authority should only look at farebox revenues. Public entities should be subsidized if the service they provide is beneficial to all of society, which transit is. So the transit authority should also consider customer satisfaction, safety incidents, breakdowns, regional coverage, accessibility, etc. So perhaps cutting fares would be more valuable than a Skytrain extension to Whiterock because cutting fares would improve accessibility for low income passengers, while Whiterock's ridership would never justify a mass transit option. But there are a lot of other improvements and investments that should take preeminence before cutting fares such as:

• Skytrain extensions to UBC and the North Shore and along King George and Hastings / Willingdon
• Upgrading all existing Rapid Bus routes to true BRT and adding new Rapid Bus routes
• Replacing aging Skytrain rolling stock and busses
• Increasing bus frequencies on several well-used routes
• Increasing the wages of underpaid drivers

And while you, swimmer, may cry "Why not do all of them?" because you get off on transit fever dreams, Translink has limited funds and the already piss-poor farebox recovery does help to provide a higher level of service than Vancouver could otherwise afford. I also realize that capital and operational funds come from different buckets, but I can promise you that if Translink wiped $400 million (transit-related revenues in FY21) off the table and the provincial government had to cover that loss, funding for capital projects would be tighter.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Should Public Transit Be Free?

Freakonomics Radio published this interesting episode about free transit back in August. Stephen Dubner spoke to the mayor of Boston (who wants some transit to be free) and the former president and CEO of Kansas City's transit authority (which has already made transit free). They both made compelling points in favour of free transit.

But some other interviewees spoke about how transit has a finite source of money. Yes, transit could always be allocated more funding if the government cut expenditures from elsewhere in its budget or generated more income through new or increased taxes, but at some point you will reach the ceiling of the spending capacity.

So assuming that funding is finite, you should spend that funding on the things which will generate the most return. Some options include lower or free fares, capital expenditures such as Skytrain extensions, operational improvements such as increased frequency, or improved customer experience such as adding cleaning staff to stations or improving transit apps.

When it comes to evaluating the return, I don't believe a publicly funded transit authority should only look at farebox revenues. Public entities should be subsidized if the service they provide is beneficial to all of society, which transit is. So the transit authority should also consider customer satisfaction, safety incidents, breakdowns, regional coverage, accessibility, etc. So perhaps cutting fares would be more valuable than a Skytrain extension to Whiterock because cutting fares would improve accessibility for low income passengers, while Whiterock's ridership would never justify a mass transit option. But there are a lot of other improvements and investments that should take preeminence before cutting fares such as:

• Skytrain extensions to UBC and the North Shore and along King George and Hastings / Willingdon
• Upgrading all existing Rapid Bus routes to true BRT and adding new Rapid Bus routes
• Replacing aging Skytrain rolling stock and busses
• Increasing bus frequencies on several well-used routes
• Increasing the wages of underpaid drivers

And while you, swimmer, may cry "Why not do all of them?" because you get off on transit fever dreams, Translink has limited funds and the already piss-poor farebox recovery does help to provide a higher level of service than Vancouver could otherwise afford. I also realize that capital and operational funds come from different buckets, but I can promise you that if Translink wiped $400 million (transit-related revenues in FY21) off the table and the provincial government had to cover that loss, funding for capital projects would be tighter.

This goes back to a simple question: Why are roads free and transit is not?
The answer is: It is political.

The fact that some places can get rid of fares and it not become anarchy and chaos shows that it really is political.

[chowhou]

FWIW travel by road is not free.

A Translink fare pays for infrastructure maintenance, rolling stock capital expenditure, rolling stock maintenance, and other running costs. As far as I can tell, infrastructure capital investment generally seems to come out of the provincial and federal government general revenue rather than fares.

Road travel completely offloads the capital cost and maintenance of rolling stock (cars) onto the user, and a good amount of infrastructure maintenance gets paid at the pump (gas tax). Again, infrastructure capital investment seems to come out of the provincial and federal government general revenue.

Probably not as different as you'd like to believe. The big difference is public transit is really good at moving people within cities (great for city life and city economic growth!) but really bad at moving goods and services, while roads are really good at moving goods and services (great for provincial connectivity and provincial economic growth!) but honestly really bad at moving people.

We need both.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

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

One item to fully consider on regional fares:

- All under 12 years old ride for "free"*

- All bus and HandyDART trips regardless of zones crossed, time of day, or day of the week are a 1-Zone fare.

- SkyTrain and SeaBus require a 1-, 2-, or 3-Zone fare, depending on the time of day and number of zone boundaries you cross during your trip.

- All journeys across the system starting after 6:30 p.m. weekdays and all travel on weekends (Saturday, Sunday, and holidays) are a 1-Zone fare.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

One item to fully consider on regional fares:

- All under 12 years old ride for "free"*

- All bus and HandyDART trips regardless of zones crossed, time of day, or day of the week are a 1-Zone fare.

- SkyTrain and SeaBus require a 1-, 2-, or 3-Zone fare, depending on the time of day and number of zone boundaries you cross during your trip.

- All journeys across the system starting after 6:30 p.m. weekdays and all travel on weekends (Saturday, Sunday, and holidays) are a 1-Zone fare.

Any one of those would be a great start.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Any one of those would be a great start.

GenWhy is explaining they all exist already.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Any one of those would be a great start.

It's pretty obvious this poster is either trolling or is completely ignorant about anything in Metro Vancouver...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by mcj

It's pretty obvious this poster is either trolling or is completely ignorant about anything in Metro Vancouver...

Ya got me!
I am not trolling. I have used transit in Metro Vancouver, but not extensively.

[GenWhy?]

So if you're in Zone 3 (Surrey for example), and you're only taking the bus (to anywhere in Metro Van), you'd be paying the Zone 1 monthly pass of $103.

As well, if you're in Surrey working within Surrey and take the SkyTrain, you still only pay $103 - however, if you live in Surrey and work in New Westminster taking the train you'll need to pay $137 for a monthly pass (I think this is still less than Toronto's).

It's only if you work, for example, in Surrey or Coquitlam and work in Vancouver and travel by train that you'd have to pay the full $185 for Zone 3.

Anyone please correct me if this is incorrect.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ya got me!
I am not trolling. I have used transit in Metro Vancouver, but not extensively.

Hard to believe there isn't an element of trolling arguing about unrealistic fare elimination in the "Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation" thread.

There is a transit fantasies forum where you can suspend reality and talk about any ideas you want though:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146531

It's been rather quiet in there lately as it seems its content has leaked elsewhere, I encourage you to liven the place up a bit!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

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

The BC government did announce they would study a new commuter train extension or expansion into the Fraser Valley, and hence this discussion is valid, as opposed to what Changing_City otherwise claimed that it's nothing but fantasy made up by Dailyhive. If what Migrant Coco claimed is indeed true, that all these supposed studies will lead to nothing because a commuter train system is just plain stupid, then the NDP shouldn't have announced that in the first place or even spend money on it, which is tantamount to making false promises to vie for votes and support before and post election, as well as the misuse of public funds.

[Migrant_Coconut]

More like throwing a very niche special interest group (i.e. Vander Zalm, Condon and a handful of internet trolls) a bone so they'll go away. It's no different from Christy Clark's Libs burning through tax money to study a bridge to Langdale.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

So if you're in Zone 3 (Surrey for example), and you're only taking the bus (to anywhere in Metro Van), you'd be paying the Zone 1 monthly pass of $103.

As well, if you're in Surrey working within Surrey and take the SkyTrain, you still only pay $103 - however, if you live in Surrey and work in New Westminster taking the train you'll need to pay $137 for a monthly pass (I think this is still less than Toronto's).

It's only if you work, for example, in Surrey or Coquitlam and work in Vancouver and travel by train that you'd have to pay the full $185 for Zone 3.

Anyone please correct me if this is incorrect.

Sounds about right. For most people it's just as easy to pay regular fares (doubly so, now that you don't need coins).

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

The BC government did announce they would study a new commuter train extension or expansion into the Fraser Valley, and hence this discussion is valid, as opposed to what Changing_City otherwise claimed that it's nothing but fantasy made up by Dailyhive. If what Migrant Coco claimed is indeed true, that all these supposed studies will lead to nothing because a commuter train system is just plain stupid, then the NDP shouldn't have announced that in the first place or even spend money on it, which is tantamount to making false promises to vie for votes and support before and post election, as well as the misuse of public funds.

Are we speaking of 2 separate transportation studies? I could be mistaken if there is another one alongside the one I linked.

EDIT: Unless we're also speaking of 2 separate studies by different governing bodies. There's just too many cooks sometimes.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Are we speaking of 2 separate transportation studies? I could be mistaken if there is another one alongside the one I linked.

EDIT: Unless we're also speaking of 2 separate studies by different governing bodies. There's just too many cooks sometimes.

I think it is just one huge study being done by the BC government.