Article Categories
Archives (2003-13)
Recent Articles
Recent Episodes
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
I just completed the survey. I strongly urge people NOT to support lower fares during non-busy times. That just discriminates against the “workers” and perhaps drive them back into their cars. In the end, one is asked for one’s top 4 objectives…I found that difficult.I don’t think Translink should be providing “the needy” with reduced fares – the government social safety net should provide for that kind of arrangement. A transit fare should be the same for all, with special rates for the unemployed ages – children, youth and retirees. I do agree that a longer trip should cost more but there was no comment section where I would have liked to say that fleecing tourists an extra $5 to take the Canada Line away from the airport is uncivil, unfriendly and a form of robbery. From Rosalind Kellett
I thought it made sense to have it cheaper at off peak hours. I miss the mid-day lower cost.
I like the idea of paying by the distance gone. If you go two blocks it’s cheaper than going across to another city. Much better than the zone thing.
I think the $5 extra for the airport came from the airport itself who built the airport island leg of the line (and got the ball rolling for the whole RAV/Canada Line thing.)
You urge translink to not sell excess capacity at lower prices at times of lower demand?
Distance based fares are common around the world, this zone thing is antiquated and really makes no sense.
Pretty sure all systems are zone based. London for example.
The fare for a city bus I took in Fukuoka in 1999 was distance-based. Every stop I went cost a bit more. And that was with a paper ticket, not something computerized. This focused my attention on cost, which I imagine would discourage usage. The compass card is more like gas in the tank: I don’t have to think about the fare, so I probably wouldn’t worry about exactly what a trip costs.
Yeah, there are a number of East Asian cities that do well for fare systems.
I can’t think of a single North American sysem, nor Euro, that has zones.
“Distance based fares are common around the world”
I’d like to know of a few in Europe or North America…
Munich has 4 rings. The further out, the more you pay. Berlin has three zones, kinda like MetroVan today.
Here is a map of Munich’s system, for example: https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVjaBekhXx2YAl0snnIlQ;_ylc=X1MDMTM1MTE5NTY4NwRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1tb3ppbGxhLTAwMgRncHJpZANzc1FMQVBPV1NtbVRQcHNHMUl4LlJBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzI3BHF1ZXJ5A211bmljaCUyMG12diUyMGZhcmUlMjB6b25lcwR0X3N0bXADMTQ2NDM2Nzc2Mw–?p=munich+mvv+fare+zones&fr2=sb-top-search
“I can’t think of a single North American system, nor Euro, that has zones.”
Google suggests that zone fares are used in the York region, and Montreal. Also, Paris, Zurich, London……
BART in SF is distance based.
Translink is now on to Stage 2 of their fare review. One of their stated goals is to deal with overcrowding by pricing people off of transit. From their email Our objective is to create a transit fare system that provides an exceptional customer experience, where transit fares are simple to understand, help to reduce overcrowding, and improve service.
Have your say on fare structures here.
Sydney Australia has distance based fares (sort of) If you forget log off the bus your charged to the end of the route.. Why not distance based road user fees & ICBC premiums instead
We have that. It’s called gas tax. Translink derives most of its funding this way.
TransLink portion of gas tax contributes only 23% of total revenue.
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/regional_transportation_strategy/Backgrounders/Transportation_Funding_Backgrounder.ashx
This is a bargain for drivers because the entire transit system is a subsidy for automobile transportation. If transit did not exist, driving would be impossible.
@Arno: if roads didn’t exist MetroVan would come to a halt, too. What a silly argument.
Roads = people & good movement = LIFE !!
We can debate road tolls in lieu of higher gasoline taxes, of ocurse, as an electric car clogs the road/bridge/tunnel, too !
Taxing road use, like CO2 taxes, is another form of PST or GST, as energy and transporting goods & people is in everything. As such, tax relief elsewhere, say PST reduction or income tax reduction needs to be discussed in the same breath. Is it ?
24% Arno, plus, plus, plus, from drivers: tolls, parking taxes (that’s now a biggie with the 21% Translink tax), plus my Hydro bill gives another chunk and my property taxes for my home and my business too. Easy 40%. Pretty soon you’re talking serious money.
Actually, Arno, transit is an expenditure. Without it driving would be cheaper and easier. Yes, it would sometimes be more congested and this is why, generally, drivers don’t mind contributing to the cost of transit.
But, with all taxes there is always a limit, as we see with Translink now saying they are losing some taxes because some drivers are going outside Translink’s jurisdiction to buy gas. Translink calls this ‘leakage’. Heck, I was recently across the border at the first gas station and next to me was a driver filling up wearing a Coast Mountain Bus Company jacket. I couldn’t help thinking that if I had bought my gas back in Canada then some of that cash would have gone to him so he could spend it on US gas.
Thomas, you should know by now that the BC Carbon tax is not a tax at all but simply a levy on GHG emissions. Almost all of this levy gets returned through legislated reduction in corporate and personal taxes. Just what you asked for.
And, yes, roads are used for commerce, but this is only a very small portion of traffic. For example, only 2% of Massey Tunnel traffic is heavy trucks. Why should I contribute a large portion of my taxes in order to subsidize all this car traffic?
Call me crazy, but how about we begin the whole discussion by asking what fare structure would encourage the most people to use transit the most often, assuming that moving people out of cars and onto trains or busses is, overall, a good thing.
Once you’ve got that figured out, then decide how you’re going to finance it.
The current model begins by assuming that transit has to be expensive to use, (And yeah, if you’re charging $4+, it’s expensive) or just plain unpleasant, and that no funding model exists except fares + gas tax.
Once you’ve set those as your working assumptions you invariably wind up trying to balance a lack of funding with diminishing ridership.
Or, as has been pointed out many times in the past, how come there are always a billion dollars handy to build more car bridges, but never enough money to keep transit cheap and effective?
It’s politics, and nothing else.