Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Transit usage can have a strong elastic component though and we might not want transit overconsumed when it isn't necessary or productive, just like how we might not want water overconsumed when it isn't necessary or productive.

How do you use transit in a way that isn't necessary or unproductive? Would going to the movie theatre via transit be considered not necessary or productive?

[Migrant_Coconut]

I think it's an argument for reducing peak-hour ridership in favour of off-peak?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

How do you use transit in a way that isn't necessary or unproductive? Would going to the movie theatre via transit be considered not necessary or productive?

Things like taking transit because you feel like it for a ride, or for a place to sit for a while, or to harass people on the bus/train. Taking transit to the movie theatre is using transit for what it's meant for, taking you and your things from one place to another.

[Tvisforme]

Sorry, but these two:

Originally Posted by chowhou

Things like taking transit because you feel like it for a ride, or for a place to sit for a while....

are very different from this:

Originally Posted by chowhou

....or to harass people on the bus/train....

I don't see the problem with going for a ride; isn't that better than doing the same thing in a car?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Sorry, but these two:



are very different from this:



I don't see the problem with going for a ride; isn't that better than doing the same thing in a car?

Nothing wrong with it per se, but is it in the system's best interest for it to be free?

[Changing City]

Real world experiments of offering free transit have generally seen very little change to overall mode share. More people use the system, so the buses and trains are more crowded, so some riders actually switch back to driving. There are extra riders, but they're almost all people who would have walked, used a bike, or just not travelled at all.

Loading times aren't improved much, if at all, because more people are getting on and off (especially for short journeys that they might have walked when it cost money), so even without having to tap on, dwell times are no shorter.

Obviously the system faces greater pressure for service, with reduced revenue, so subsidy has to increase even more than the previous revenue, just to maintain service. If demand is high enough, on some routes, service can seriously deteriorate. Imagine 25% more riders wanting to catch the 99?

[Migrant_Coconut]

No fare revenue also means more provincial funds get diverted to operating costs and less gets spent on capital costs (i.e. less expansion). Transit's useful, but not "free" useful.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

No fare revenue also means more provincial funds get diverted to operating costs and less gets spent on capital costs (i.e. less expansion). Transit's useful, but not "free" useful.

Exactly... the costs are born somewhere. And although in some cases it may be good to offer it free or low cost to increase ridership in a low-ridership area... completely free isn't as... appreciated.

On the other hand, the U-Pass is effectively FREE and it works well as a piece of policy.

BC Bus passes are $50 yearly (basically free) and useful as well.

When people say "transit should be free" what they mean is... transit should be paid for by everyone.

And when things are paid for by everyone, it's either overused or under appreciated...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Not through tolls [farebox]... but other tangeable benefits are what it returns. The fares on highways don't come close to paying even for their maintenance... because... well, there are no tolls... We build them for the knock-off benefits.

How many highways or road expansions would we have to build without our rapid transit system? How much valuable real-estate would be devalued or just expropriated?

Roads provide economics returns too. I'm not getting into that argument, just responding to the initial comment.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Things like taking transit because you feel like it for a ride, or for a place to sit for a while, or to harass people on the bus/train. Taking transit to the movie theatre is using transit for what it's meant for, taking you and your things from one place to another.

That's ridiculous, why would you ride transit for fun? I hate riding public transit and only take it if my destination is too far to walk too in a reasonable time.

Why would you ride transit because you need a place to sit? There are places to sit everywhere, sit at a starbucks and have a drink, enjoy the wifi, charge your phone.

Why go on the bus and train specifically to harass people? There are plenty of people who aren't on transit that you can harass.

All your points are room temperature IQ. Imagine comparing transit to water or electricity, things that can ACTUALLY be wasted.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

That's ridiculous, why would you ride transit for fun? I hate riding public transit and only take it if my destination is too far to walk too in a reasonable time.

Why would you ride transit because you need a place to sit? There are places to sit everywhere, sit at a starbucks and have a drink, enjoy the wifi, charge your phone.

Why go on the bus and train specifically to harass people? There are plenty of people who aren't on transit that you can harass.

All your points are room temperature IQ. Imagine comparing transit to water or electricity, things that can ACTUALLY be wasted.

No need to be rude about it. All of those things are perfectly expected when transit is free. I think transit is a public utility but to say you can't waste it is pretty reductive.

This is like saying you can't waste water, because there's no point leaving the tap on. Well, people do that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

That's ridiculous, why would you ride transit for fun? I hate riding public transit and only take it if my destination is too far to walk too in a reasonable time.

Why would you ride transit because you need a place to sit? There are places to sit everywhere, sit at a starbucks and have a drink, enjoy the wifi, charge your phone.

Why go on the bus and train specifically to harass people? There are plenty of people who aren't on transit that you can harass.

All your points are room temperature IQ. Imagine comparing transit to water or electricity, things that can ACTUALLY be wasted.

Hm, so because you hate taking transit, the entire world must consist of people who must also hate taking transit, and nobody ever takes transit for the sake of it? Or to get off the street?

I hate driving. It doesn't mean I think the world is full of people who think like me. I'm fully aware that there are weird people out there, who love it.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

That's ridiculous, why would you ride transit for fun? I hate riding public transit and only take it if my destination is too far to walk too in a reasonable time.

Why would you ride transit because you need a place to sit? There are places to sit everywhere, sit at a starbucks and have a drink, enjoy the wifi, charge your phone.

There are likely dozens (dozens!!!) of people who ride buses and trains in Vancouver for fun. I base this on the incredibly popular transit ride along videos on YouTube.

And while I would never ride Vancouver's transit for fun, I remember riding the entire length of the Vienna subway system when I was visiting there because I was tired and at a loss for what else to do, and because it's a great way to tour a city. Especially outside of peak times I really enjoy riding a bus or train with a good book or podcast handy.

That being said, I doubt the $3 bus fares prevent transit fanatics from riding. Same for people that sleep on the train (if a fare is such a barrier, they would likely just breach the gates).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Somehow I doubt sightseeing passengers would overcrowd transit any more than the rush hour crowd does already. The homeless, maybe.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Somehow I doubt sightseeing passengers would overcrowd transit any more than the rush hour crowd does already. The homeless, maybe.

IMO it wouln't be about overcrowding, just not much social value in making it free or potentially negative value.

[WarrenC12]

If something is free, people will think of it as having zero value.

One problem with the free needle exchange programs in Vancouver is you see used discarded needles everywhere.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

One problem with the free needle exchange programs in Vancouver is you see used discarded needles everywhere.

To be fair, the discarded needle problem was with us long before the harm mitigation programs were launched. Perhaps it's worse now, but it's not a new problem.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

To be fair, the discarded needle problem was with us long before the harm mitigation programs were launched. Perhaps it's worse now, but it's not a new problem.

You could argue the same thing with cheap vs. free transit and homeless riding it for a place to stay warm.

But there's a reason you don't see any empty bottles or cans laying around.

[twoNeurons]

Interesting points here about whether or not Transit should turn a profit or not. Is Reece here on SSP?
• Video Link

[Migrant_Coconut]

Reecemartin deleted all his posts and effectively left the site a while ago. Doubt he'll be back.