HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

View Poll Results: What is your preferred choice of smartcard name for the entire region?
Umbrella Card 48 26.37%
Otter Card 54 29.67%
George Card 15 8.24%
Compass Card 65 35.71%
Voters: 182. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 10:40 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine View Post
^^ but these measures makes things much more complex - on the spot fine collection? I've never heard of that in North America and certainly ripe for problems, like theft by staff. Sharp penalties like driving licence restriction for fare evation will probably be challenged - and may push people away from transit instead of car use. And arresting repeat offenders for fare evasion will either be ineffectual and done rarely, or if we do put ppl behind bars draconian and probably not the best use of legal resources.



As I've posted earlier, free transit in large metropolitan areas have been tried before in North America and have been unsuccessful.
On the spot fine collection is usually used when is is assumed that the person is unlikely to pay and has the money on him at time of the fine. Police officers "should" be trusted enough, not to mention that a payed fine should come with a recite a be entered in to the system so there is not much opportunity to rip money off. Drivers license restrictions are already in place, a transit fine is treated like any auto fine. Arrest should be used in extreme circumstances like that person who has thousands of dollars of fines, refuses to pay, and appears like he should be able to pay. The arrest would not only be a way to get him in front of a judge but it would also act like a deterrent. Like all else though it should be used in moderation and the right benefit/costs level should be reached.
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 10:55 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 2,940
Obviously I can't vouch for the veracity of the following statement from the Pelalusa blogspot, but curiously interesting nonetheless:

My mom told me about taking the B-Line (a long accordion bus) from downtown. When it reached the middle of the Granville Bridge it deliberately stopped. A fare inspector walked through the bus, fining anyone who was cheating on their fare. He told my mom that there were 40 such people on that bus. That would be a minimum of 25% of the people.

http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2007/11/bus-story.html
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 11:44 PM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Blazed Member - Citygater
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 5,403
^^ awesome!
__________________
http://www.votesmartbc.com
http://www.riskydix.ca
http://www.dixshiddenplan.ca

Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 6:12 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
On the spot fine collection is usually used when is is assumed that the person is unlikely to pay and has the money on him at time of the fine. Police officers "should" be trusted enough, not to mention that a payed fine should come with a recite a be entered in to the system so there is not much opportunity to rip money off. Drivers license restrictions are already in place, a transit fine is treated like any auto fine. Arrest should be used in extreme circumstances like that person who has thousands of dollars of fines, refuses to pay, and appears like he should be able to pay. The arrest would not only be a way to get him in front of a judge but it would also act like a deterrent. Like all else though it should be used in moderation and the right benefit/costs level should be reached.
if we had more transit police I would like to keep our current system. I see your point and saw your point before. And better news: driver licenses would be more "advanced" in the future - US is now accepting advanced driver licenses with ID, etc.

Notice Falcon is not only introducing faregates but also a newer/better way of identifying the fare evaders and arresting them. Is there a law that if you don't have "ID" with you, you can be charged? I know they have it in other countries...
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 6:52 AM
fever's Avatar
fever fever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post
Obviously I can't vouch for the veracity of the following statement from the Pelalusa blogspot, but curiously interesting nonetheless:

My mom told me about taking the B-Line (a long accordion bus) from downtown. When it reached the middle of the Granville Bridge it deliberately stopped. A fare inspector walked through the bus, fining anyone who was cheating on their fare. He told my mom that there were 40 such people on that bus. That would be a minimum of 25% of the people.

http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2007/11/bus-story.html
The 98 is front door boarding only. A few people sometimes sneak on through the back doors but it isn't common, and it's obvious...
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 1:56 PM
hollywoodnorth's Avatar
hollywoodnorth hollywoodnorth is offline
Blazed Member - Citygater
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Downtown Vancouver
Posts: 5,403
you can and I do board the 98 B line from the back along with lots of others during busy times at Burrard Stn or Bway@Granville........
__________________
http://www.votesmartbc.com
http://www.riskydix.ca
http://www.dixshiddenplan.ca

Quote of the Decade on SSP: "what happens would it be?" - argon007
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2007, 9:08 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth View Post
you can and I do board the 98 B line from the back along with lots of others during busy times at Burrard Stn or Bway@Granville........
that's if the driver opens the back doors....they sometimes do it for the UBC loop.
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2007, 8:59 AM
bugsy bugsy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 319
It's about time. 30 years late, but better late then never.

Last edited by bugsy; Jan 28, 2008 at 12:35 AM.
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2007, 6:30 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,674
well supposedly, you aren't supposed to board on the back of the bus on any bus route except for the 99 B-Line. That's just TransLink's rules. But often times, many of the bus drivers just want u on the bus as quick as possible, and they open the back doors to let people on (this goes for many busy routes)
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2007, 9:23 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 28,953
so what happenned to the old rule where bus drivers couldn't turn anyone down if they didn't have the full fare?

I remember back in the day catching the bus and he would let on loads of people along east hastings who would show him some pennis and whatever and he would let them get on because he couldn't refuse them a ride
__________________
belowitall
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2007, 1:06 AM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
so what happenned to the old rule where bus drivers couldn't turn anyone down if they didn't have the full fare?

I remember back in the day catching the bus and he would let on loads of people along east hastings who would show him some pennis and whatever and he would let them get on because he couldn't refuse them a ride
They would show the driver their PENIS to get on the bus?!
Sounds about right for East Hastings...

jk
(yeah, I know it's a typo)
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2007, 1:56 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 28,953
haha

memories of the no 14 on a saturday night
__________________
belowitall
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2007, 12:01 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,877
Los Angeles has also decided to install turnstiles on the Red Line - and at many light rail stations:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us...in&oref=slogin

An End to the Free Ride on Trains in Los Angeles

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
December 3, 2007

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 2 — It may be hard to fathom for subway riders in cities like New York, Chicago and Boston, but the transit system in Los Angeles has no turnstiles, gates or other barriers where tickets are collected or checked.

Under a proudly distinct honor system intended to buck East Coast practices and reduce operating costs, riders buy their tickets, get on the train and present them to a sheriff’s deputy or civilian inspector — if any happen to ask.

But after 14 years of trust, Los Angeles is preparing to join those cities where slipping past, under and over transit turnstiles and gates is an art form.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted last week to take the first step toward installing 275 ticket gates on the entire 17.4-mile subway and at many light-rail stations.

The move came after a study given to the board in October found that some 5 percent of people who rode the subway, light rail and a new rapid bus line on weekdays did so without paying the fare, $1.25 one way or $5 for a daily pass. As a result, the report said, the authority lost about $5.5 million in revenue annually.

Fare-collecting gates, which could cost $30 million to install and $1 million a year to maintain, would yield an extra $6.77 million in recovered fares and other savings, according to the report. The board voted 11 to 1 on Thursday to have staff members write a plan for installing the gates, with final approval expected in January.

Some saw the move as another sign of the shifting ecology of Los Angeles.

“Unfortunately, as L.A. gets to be more urban, it has these breakdowns of trust that happen in big cities,” said Joel Kotkin, a Los Angeles resident and author of “The City: A Global History.” “It’s the flip side of all the good things.”

At the Wilshire/Vermont station Friday, with a steady stream of people walking past vending machines and under a sign reading “Ticket required beyond this point,” riders who have looked suspiciously at their brethren applauded the move.

“We all should know and respect the law,” said Maria Cervantes, 43, a dressmaker buying a ticket at the station. “I see a lot of people just walk on, and I don’t think it is because they have the day or month pass.”

But other riders were skeptical, saying they had watched inspectors walk the trains checking tickets without catching many people.

“I would like to know if the money gained is really more than the money they are going to spend,” said Jacob Holloway, 24, a graphic designer with a monthly pass.

The board member who voted against the proposal, Richard Katz, shared the sentiment.

Mr. Katz, a former member of the California Assembly, said he feared that the turnstiles would impede evacuations in emergencies. He said he also doubted that the struggling agency could afford the cost, which he predicted would escalate and wipe out potential savings. The agency’s $3 billion budget is expected to have a $75 million deficit next year.

“Dollars are very tight,” Mr. Katz said.

But agency planners said that the gates would eventually pay for themselves and that something needed to be done to control scofflaws on the rapidly expanding system. The gates could also improve security and be used for smart cards, passes with computer chips in them that would make it more practical to charge distance-based fares and give riders more options to pay beforehand.

“We have grown substantially,” said Jane Matsumoto, a executive with the transportation authority who is working on the gate proposal. “But trying to enforce the numbers of riders over the large geography is difficult.”

Ms. Matsumoto said it would take about 18 months to phase in the gates.

The train system started in 1990 with a 22-mile light rail line from Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles. It added the Red Line subway in the 1990s, as well as several other light rail lines that now total some 90 miles. About 7.4 million people used the rail lines last month.

The American Public Transportation Association said the Los Angeles subway was the only one in the country that did not have a gated pay system, though other cities with newer and smaller light rail systems relied on the honor system to encourage ridership and to save on the cost of turnstiles and related expenses.
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Dec 30, 2007, 1:01 AM
rwiggam's Avatar
rwiggam rwiggam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6
[B]Another Example of Kevin Falcon's Incompetence[/B]

http://www.pacificmetropolis.com/200...r-example.html

For the most part, we have nothing against fiscal conservatives, as long as they govern with competence.

Unfortunately, Kevin Falcon isn't one of them.

Aside from the stupidity of twinning the Port Mann Bridge ahead of building transit alternatives for the Fraser Valley, his latest plan to install turnstiles at Skytrain stations once again reveals his poor business acumen.

According to this article from the Vancouver Sun, Translink loses approximately $7 million each year from fare evaders, who account for "roughly" 8% of all riders. For its part, Translink estimates that it loses about 4.9% of revenues to evaders.

Falcon's solution? Spend $80 million to $120 million to erect turnstiles that will supposedly reduce this figure substantially.

There's no mention of the annual cost to maintain the new turnstiles, but there's a clear argument that the cost-benefit just isn't there, according to this article from the Sun:

To begin with, Translink estimates that turnstiles would help it to recover about $2.9 million per year in lost revenues. However, in addition to the $120 million cost of installing the turnstiles, there would be annual maintenance costs, along with the need to hire an estimated 400 attendants to assist passengers at every gate.

Assuming we pay each attendant just $35,000 per year - that adds up to $14 million alone. Maintenance of the machines would probably cost another $2 million to $3 million per year, so we wind up spending $17 million (plus $120 million to install the turnstiles) to save $3 million.

While such a move certainly makes for good populist politics (what upstanding transit rider isn't irritated by the freeloader next to him who isn't paying his fair share), it's plain to see that the expenditure isn't worth the effort.

The question is, why does the Minister of Transport - who should know better - not see this?

By the way, here's how we can save $100 million, and still reduce fair evasion:

Hire 50 station attendants, and put them at key, strategic stations during peak hours, or during evenings when there is a greater security need. (ie the busiest stations, such as Waterfront, Granville, New Westminster etc.)

Then, have them check each passenger's ticket or pass before they go up to the platform and board a train - passengers can quickly flash proof of payment on their way up the stairs. Those who don't have a ticket typically don't even bother trying. Spot checks can similarily be done upon exit at high-traffic stations.


Not only does this reduce the confrontational enforcement strategy that is currently in place, it ensures that fare evaders don't get very far at all. At the same time, it accomplishes the goal of better station security, which Falcon uses - as small-minded populists typically do - to justify the added expense.

It's too bad that Kevin Falcon wasn't more thorough in his research.

If he had travelled beyond London and Amsterdam, he would have seen that such a solution already works quite well in Budapest - a place where people have to be a lot smarter, given the resourcs that they have.
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2007, 10:17 PM
Overground's Avatar
Overground Overground is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiggam View Post
By the way, here's how we can save $100 million, and still reduce fair evasion:[/B]

Hire 50 station attendants, and put them at key, strategic stations during peak hours, or during evenings when there is a greater security need. (ie the busiest stations, such as Waterfront, Granville, New Westminster etc.)

Then, have them check each passenger's ticket or pass before they go up to the platform and board a train - passengers can quickly flash proof of payment on their way up the stairs. Those who don't have a ticket typically don't even bother trying. Spot checks can similarily be done upon exit at high-traffic stations.


Not only does this reduce the confrontational enforcement strategy that is currently in place, it ensures that fare evaders don't get very far at all. At the same time, it accomplishes the goal of better station security, which Falcon uses - as small-minded populists typically do - to justify the added expense.

It's too bad that Kevin Falcon wasn't more thorough in his research.

If he had travelled beyond London and Amsterdam, he would have seen that such a solution already works quite well in Budapest - a place where people have to be a lot smarter, given the resourcs that they have.
If they're going to change the current system, than paying to have an attendant(s) checking tickets is a waste of money imo. I'd stick to the current system then. The reason barriers are a better form of security than an attendant(s), is that it's a visible and physical object. And how can one or two people check hundreds of tickets better than machines that can process information many times more faster, more efficiently, and more securely?

Far better to have a single attendant in place with the barrier so to concentrate on helping people with disabilities, supply transit info, and security monitoring. The reason why London or New York use this system, is because it works and barriers with attendants work in tandom.

Sometimes money needs to be spent on providing a thorough, secure, and efficient transport system. And why not? Isn't this beneficial to everyone involved. Going the cheap method isn't the answer and solves nothing. Haven't we seen this already with the 50m platform issue which possibly could be a problem in the future. I'd rather gamble on getting it right the first time.
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2007, 10:45 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,858
WE don't need to hire 400 new people, we can simply use the exisiting people already getting paid. There are 3 levels of Skytrain personnel, Skytrain attendants "the blue coats", Translink security and then Translink Police. There is already enought attendants to have 2 at each station, instead of having them ride the trains doing nothing, or sitting in the staff room at the stations. 2 attendants at each station is adequate, plue you can have the security and police ride the trains and attend to any problems at stations. I can't envision what we would need 400 new people for.
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2008, 9:22 AM
Hot Rod's Avatar
Hot Rod Hot Rod is offline
Big City Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle-Vancouver-Osaka-Chongqing-Chicago-OKC
Posts: 1,101
well, we could use some or all of the 400 new people for the new Canada Line of the SkyTrain.
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2008, 1:23 AM
eduardo88 eduardo88 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Berlin + Madrid
Posts: 1,024
there is no way that 400 NEW employees would be needed! that's just ridiculous. We currently have 33 stations on both lines...i would say 2 attendants, MAXIMUM 3 (maybe one could be a transit policeman) would be needed. which equals 66-99 attendants needed. 400 is a stupid number, you dont need 10 people standing and helping people swipe their tickets, we dont have THAT many idiots using skytrain...
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2008, 5:29 AM
NewfBC NewfBC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by eduardo88 View Post
there is no way that 400 NEW employees would be needed! that's just ridiculous. We currently have 33 stations on both lines...i would say 2 attendants, MAXIMUM 3 (maybe one could be a transit policeman) would be needed. which equals 66-99 attendants needed. 400 is a stupid number, you dont need 10 people standing and helping people swipe their tickets, we dont have THAT many idiots using skytrain...
Staff would be needed for more than 1 shift per day, 7 days per week.

Ron.
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2008, 5:06 PM
Hot Rod's Avatar
Hot Rod Hot Rod is offline
Big City Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle-Vancouver-Osaka-Chongqing-Chicago-OKC
Posts: 1,101
ok, so take your example 33 stations plus 17 Canada Line stations IIRC plus 7 new Millennium Line stations plus at least 5 Evergreen Line stations, that's 62 stations. Using your 3 person example (two attendants, one security per station; downtown/high volume stations having more security whereas small quiet stations have one attendant and roving security of say 6 transit officers per line),

you'd get: Avg from stations = 62X3 = 186 + Roving transit police = 6 X 4 = 24 == grand total of 210 people PER SHIFT.

Now, we have two full time and one part time shifts in a day (at least 20 hours of coverage per day), that equals 210 X 2 + 210 / 2 = 525 employees.

I know I used averages but I think the 525 number is quite close, certainly justifies the 400 number if you consider 1) people need days off 2) there needs to be more coverage in downtown and heavy volume stations 3) there needs to be more Greeter type employees at the airport plus security 4) there needs to be less employees in the quiet suburban stops 5) You need to have coverage for the full time SkyTrain is in ops (5am - 3am M-S, 6am - 12m S; I know these are changes in the hours but these are MY hours) with less coverage during the start and mid-day quiet times and more perhaps overlapping coverage during AM, PM, and Noon rush hours.

I'd consider my 535 number to be a highball estimate, probably 400 would be closer to reality.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:54 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.