HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

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

View Poll Results: What is your preferred choice of smartcard name for the entire region?
Umbrella Card 47 29.75%
Otter Card 49 31.01%
George Card 13 8.23%
Compass Card 49 31.01%
Voters: 158. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2007, 10:39 AM
Bert Bert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 411
Just by riding the thing on a semi-regular basis, and seeing a number of spot checks on the train where EVERYONE has paid (not all the time, mind you), I'd say the current fare evasion rate is way closer to 5% than 30%.

Falcon is just making up stories.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2007, 6:25 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,236
*l* when you see the spot checks of course everyone has paid because everyone coming into the station can see them doing the spot checks from far away. I bet if you watched when they do spot checks on the train you'd find they catch alot of people, too bad it's rare. Their mandate is not to catch people (although they do both), they are instructed to stand at the top of the escalator and be visible so that people are forced to buy tickets. It's safer for them to be a deterrent then to be confrontational.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2007, 8:36 PM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,456
^ It sounds like what a fare gate would do!

Also watch next time on skytrain for the fare-dodger - guys who stand at the door and always scans the station when the doors open. People who do this on an empty train are a dead giveaway. Anecdotal, but I see this a lot, and will never be counted by uniformed staff.

In the end it boils down to enforcement of fares. how much security resources are spent profiling/checking dodgy types and not checking fares for everyone? a fare gate would automate this process and help ensure wide-spread enforcement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2007, 9:01 PM
lightrail lightrail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 773
Just a thought - but since when was Falcon declared "Dictator of Translink"? Why is it because this idiot says he wants something on the transit system, he gets it.

I thought we were a representative democracy? So how come this Nazi gets to dictate what he wants to Translink? They disagree with him and he declares them dysfunctional and then gives them the boot. What am I missing?

I've had enough of Falcon.

Let's hope our useless little dictator doesn't decide to go to India and come back with ideas for Translink. He'll have the doors on the trains removed and hire armed guards to patrol the platform and hit people trying to jump on a crowded train at the last minute.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2007, 9:07 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,806
Cost of turnstiles greater than losses from unpaid fares
Transport minister wants them but board worries about funding

Frank Luba, The Province
Published: Thursday, November 15, 2007

Installing turnstiles in SkyTrain and Canada Line rapid-transit stations will cost about $14 million more a year than the turnstiles will recover in previously unpaid fares, TransLink estimates show.

"Where's the money to pay for this expensive technology?" TransLink chairman Malcolm Brodie asked yesterday after the second-to-last meeting of the TransLink board, before it's replaced by a board of professionals.

Brodie referred questions about turnstiles to the B.C. government.

Based on what he saw of transit systems on a recent trip to Europe, Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon revealed last week he wants turnstiles at all rapid-transit stations.

On Tuesday, Falcon said the process to acquire the security and fare-evasion-prevention system will begin in 2008.

TransLink previously grappled with the security-gating issue in December 2005 as it pertained to the now-being-built Canada Line.

While making sure gates could be added to the new line, the board then decided on a variety of other measures, such as having more police and going to prepaid fares.

The extra costs of gating were a key factor in the decision.

A 2005 report indicates gates would require extra staff that will cost $25.1 million in 2009 when the Canada Line to Richmond is due to open.

Add another $3.5 million annually for the capital cost of the equipment for a grand total of $28.6 million for turnstiles.

Cheating on the two existing SkyTrain lines costs TransLink about $3.3 million annually, with the predicted evasion on the Canada Line being about $1 million.

If that total of $4.3 million is subtracted from the $28.6-million annual capital and operating cost, the annual cost for turnstiles would be $24.3 million.

But the final turnstile cost of $14.3 million can be arrived at when another $10 million is subtracted because that is the cost of the 52 police officers that will be hired, regardless of gating.

Despite the board's decision, Brodie personally supports turnstiles, saying he believes "the fare evasion is actually higher [than staff estimates]."

fluba@png.canwest.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2007, 5:36 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,524
The fare gate issue represents the classic question - Do you follow what the public wants (i.e. gates) or do you do what makes sense financially? Not everything can be reconciled on a cost effective basis (i.e. poorly used bus routes) so in those cases, the value isn't measured in dollars - it measured as an intangible that the public sees as a benefit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2007, 6:41 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
formerly tin²ium
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,146
I wonder how a distance based system would really work on the buses?

Let's think about this:

You get on the bus... say each stop is recorded by some kind of GPS system... how does the customer know how much it will cost him in the end?

The only way I see that working is having a flat max rate with discounting for shorter trips. All trips cost $2.50 but the shorter the trip is, the more discount you get when you get off (and scan your card at the door). Also, if you don't scan your card at the door, you're charged for the whole amount.

For the skytrain it would work the same... full price if you don't scan your card on the gates on the way out. This could mean unlimited rides users (month passes) don't need to scan on the way out, just to enter the system.

How do you think you could "reasonably" implement a distance based system on buses and trains?

Perhaps buses will retain flat-rate pricing, separate from train pricing... which will be distance based and FULL price ($5.00?) if you don't scan on the way out (hop the gate)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2007, 7:00 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by tintinium View Post
I wonder how a distance based system would really work on the buses?

Let's think about this:

You get on the bus... say each stop is recorded by some kind of GPS system... how does the customer know how much it will cost him in the end?

The only way I see that working is having a flat max rate with discounting for shorter trips. All trips cost $2.50 but the shorter the trip is, the more discount you get when you get off (and scan your card at the door). Also, if you don't scan your card at the door, you're charged for the whole amount.

For the skytrain it would work the same... full price if you don't scan your card on the gates on the way out. This could mean unlimited rides users (month passes) don't need to scan on the way out, just to enter the system.

How do you think you could "reasonably" implement a distance based system on buses and trains?

Perhaps buses will retain flat-rate pricing, separate from train pricing... which will be distance based and FULL price ($5.00?) if you don't scan on the way out (hop the gate)?
That's an absolutely brilliant implementation of the system! I really like that. It would encourage people to be honest and use the system fairly and properly, and they would be 'rewarded' with a discount for checking-out when they get off. Like it.

How to work out the prices though? I think one fair way would be this: calculate how far a $2.50 ticket could feasibly take somebody today (e.g., on the number 9 bus, from UBC to Boundary along Broadway would equal $2.50 worth of bus-ride). Let's say, for simplicity, that distance is 10km. Then, take percentages of that to calculate a fee. So, for example, a 1km journey should be worth about $0.25, a 5km journey would be worth $1.25, etc.

A minimum fee would have to be implemented (e.g., anything less than 1km will be a flat fee of $0.25 - would also help to encourage people to walk short distances and keep buses filled with people utilising the system for longer journeys)

I'd love to see how this does actually get implemented.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2007, 8:27 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
formerly tin²ium
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,146
I'd set a minimum charge somewhere around a $1.

One option is Different buses could be branded as long-distance or short-distance, with different pricing (and perhaps different branding... as most of them will be the types that go from city centre to city centre... from surrey to Coquitlam, for example... or Metrotown to UBC.

Commuter buses are blue (eg. White Rock - Downtown), Long range buses are yellow. Local buses are Red... or something like that. The Maximum price is incurred unless you get off early... enabling you to take a bus like the 98-bline only one stop or two.

Smart cards could be discounted... if you put 50$ on the card, you get $55 worth or something.

Additionally, even if a smart card has $1 and you get on a $3 bus, you can still get on, but if the user doesn't swipe before upon exit (or before the 90min), you go into negative (in this case $2). Some will choose to throw away the card and get a new one, but the cards will have a nominal fee of $2 or something, to avoid this from happening often.

One more thing. Cash fares for buses are still available, of course... but the full charge is always incurred. This encourages people to use the smart card system.

Note, this system DOES require education of the public to be popular, but can be used "with" OR "without" gates.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2007, 8:31 PM
lightrail lightrail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by djh View Post
That's an absolutely brilliant implementation of the system! I really like that. It would encourage people to be honest and use the system fairly and properly, and they would be 'rewarded' with a discount for checking-out when they get off. Like it.

How to work out the prices though? I think one fair way would be this: calculate how far a $2.50 ticket could feasibly take somebody today (e.g., on the number 9 bus, from UBC to Boundary along Broadway would equal $2.50 worth of bus-ride). Let's say, for simplicity, that distance is 10km. Then, take percentages of that to calculate a fee. So, for example, a 1km journey should be worth about $0.25, a 5km journey would be worth $1.25, etc.

A minimum fee would have to be implemented (e.g., anything less than 1km will be a flat fee of $0.25 - would also help to encourage people to walk short distances and keep buses filled with people utilising the system for longer journeys)

I'd love to see how this does actually get implemented.
I think it would be unworkable. The European distance based system uses Fare Stages - and the only person who understands them is the bus driver. Seriously, you have to ask the driver unless it's a trip you take frequently. Try this with Exact Fare (i.e not giving change) and you're asking for trouble (Scotland operates Fare Stages and Exact Fare Only - which makes no sense to me as I don't know the fare before a board the bus).

With Distance based systems you don't get a transfer - you pay again when you board the second bus. The exception to this is on the trains, where unlimited connections can be made provided you stay behind the barriers. Scan your ticket on entry and on exit - pay the difference if you bought the wrong ticket.

London uses a Fare Zone system - similar to, but more complicated than Translink. The fares are different for the Underground and buses.

Oyster Cards in London are scanned on entry and on exit. You pay for each journey but there is daily price capping - so the Oyster in London if you use it a lot acts like a day pass, or a monthly pass.

I think it would be unworkable. The European distance based system uses Fare Stages - and the only person who understands them is the bus driver. Seriously, you have to ask the driver unless it's a trip you take frequently. Try this with Exact Fare (i.e not giving change) and you're asking for trouble (Scotland operates Fare Stages and Exact Fare Only - which makes no sense to me as I don't know the fare before a board the bus).

With Distance based systems you don't get a transfer - you pay again when you board the second bus. The exception to this is on the trains, where unlimited connections can be made provided you stay behind the barriers. Scan your ticket on entry and on exit - pay the difference if you bought the wrong ticket.

London uses a Fare Zone system - similar to, but more complicated than Translink. The fares are different for the Underground and buses.

Oyster Cards in London are scanned on entry and on exit. You pay for each journey but there is daily price capping - so the Oyster in London if you use it a lot acts like a day pass, or a monthly pass.

Here's how I see it working in the lower mainland:

Start from home, scan Smart Card on the bus - you're charged the max amount for that's buses trip (i.e if the bus is two zone, you get charged two zones). Now, do we require a scan on exit to correct the amount? There wold need to be a checkout option, otherwise people would be overpaying on multi-zone buses if they're only going within one zone. SO lets say the Smart Card has charged $3.25 (and this is time stamped)

You then connect on to Skytrain and scan your card again - seeing that you've already paid within the last 90 minutes - there is no deduction here.

You then scan on exit in downtown Vancouver and the smart card see that you've now crossed another zone - so it charges the additiona amount (an extra $1.25 for a total of $4.50). The card doesn't care how long it takes you to exit the system - only the time you enter based for transfer.

Later in the day you take another trip - as the "transfer period" has expired, you pay again - another $2.25 deducted for a total of $5.50 for the day)

Then you travel home by Skytrain - scan on entry - no deduction made - just a time stamp and wentry location stamp. On exit, it caculates your distance and charges accordingly - so for two zones $3.25 for a total of $8.75 for the day). Now here's where it gets interesting - the policy is that there is a maximum charge per day of $9.00 (assumption) - so the card will max out at $9.00. When you transfer to your next bus, it charges nothing - remember the transfer period). When you exit and it sees you've crossed another zone boundary - it charges $0.25 which brings you to the maximum charge for the day- and all subsequent trips that day are then free.

As you use the card on following days, you may find you hit the maximum charge for the month (let's say $105 for three zones) - and all travel after that is not charged. Given the current practice of different prices for passes depending on the number of zones you cross, I assume the technology could account for this in the travel and set the monthly maximum accordingly - if you never cross a zone boundary in the month, the maximum charge per month might be $65. Or if always cross the same boundary you're paying a maximum of $85 for the month.

Smart cards can be issued to visitors and used as day passes or weekly passes. They can store large amounts and used for other Translink costs, such as bridge tolls or purchasing merchandise. The London Oyster card will hold up to 90 pounds sterling (about $180 CDN). The cards can be used to track usage of the system and also be used to track demographics of users.

I'd like to see the cards introduced.

Last edited by lightrail; Nov 15, 2007 at 8:49 PM. Reason: Added information
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2007, 8:57 PM
lightrail lightrail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 773
Quote:
Originally Posted by tintinium View Post
I'd set a minimum charge somewhere around a $1.


One more thing. Cash fares for buses are still available, of course... but the full charge is always incurred. This encourages people to use the smart card system.
And London has gone to an extreme in this case. If you take a single one-zone journey on the Underground in London and pay cash, you are charged 4 pounds sterling (just over $8 CDN), with an Oyster card the same jounrey is 1.5 pound sterling (about $3CDN). Big difference. Guess how many people still pay with cash?

For buses it is 2 pounds sterling cash and 90 pence with the Oyster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2007, 11:58 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
The fare gate issue represents the classic question - Do you follow what the public wants (i.e. gates) or do you do what makes sense financially? Not everything can be reconciled on a cost effective basis (i.e. poorly used bus routes) so in those cases, the value isn't measured in dollars - it measured as an intangible that the public sees as a benefit.
The public appears to want it only because Falcon stirred the pot with FALSE information. According to Translink studies however turnstiles are not wanted with only a small percentage wanting them. However increased presence of security and more cops on the system ARE wanted which funny enough is what a POP system accomplishes while a fare gate system does the opposite as it suck the man power of the stations and platforms. So really if we installed turnstiles some of the public right now might think thats its great and all but in the end it will only make the system for them worse. Anyways fare evasion IS low right now, if Translink wants to lower it further they just need to higher more transit cops which will as result increase security, funnily enough that is exactly in the plans so within 3-4 years we should have double the transit cops per rapid transit station in our system and that includes the evergreen line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 1:02 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,524
The public has been on the issue for years - that's why Translink studies it so often, why the M-Line was designed for them (way back in 1998/99?) and why the Canada Line was designed for them.
Ultimately, it'll be a thorn in Translink's side until they install them. There will always be people conmplaining about fare cheats, no matter how many or few there are in reality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 1:59 AM
deasine deasine is online now
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
The public appears to want it only because Falcon stirred the pot with FALSE information. According to Translink studies however turnstiles are not wanted with only a small percentage wanting them. However increased presence of security and more cops on the system ARE wanted which funny enough is what a POP system accomplishes while a fare gate system does the opposite as it suck the man power of the stations and platforms. So really if we installed turnstiles some of the public right now might think thats its great and all but in the end it will only make the system for them worse. Anyways fare evasion IS low right now, if Translink wants to lower it further they just need to higher more transit cops which will as result increase security, funnily enough that is exactly in the plans so within 3-4 years we should have double the transit cops per rapid transit station in our system and that includes the evergreen line.
Honestly, the real true number of fare evaders.... technically we dont' know. It isn't possible for TransLink to find the number of fare evaders with the low resources they have. I see your point when it comes to our honour system, and sometimes, I actually like it much more. I wouldn't mind keeping our system if we have more staff that acutally does thier job.

For now, I don't think we need all stations with turnstiles... only the major transit hubs such as Downtown Stations, Broadway-Commercial, Columbia, Surrey Central, King George, Lougheed, Brentwood, etc.

AND look at the pros again, if we have turnstiles, we will have more transit users because of their "false sense of security." Well might as well put this physical barrier then if it makes number of transit users increase.

I like that fare system idea... Instead of turnstiles and fare gates, we should have validators/fare checkers and have transit police/skytrain attendants at them to make sure people use it:



Porto Metro

Last edited by deasine; Nov 16, 2007 at 2:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 6:02 AM
Bert Bert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
*l* when you see the spot checks of course everyone has paid because everyone coming into the station can see them doing the spot checks from far away. I bet if you watched when they do spot checks on the train you'd find they catch alot of people, too bad it's rare.
But 30% of people running for the doors when an officer is seen at the next station (even if it's a low traffic station like Lake City Way)?! No, that just doesn't happen. Translink is pretty sneaky about how it does the checks. Their officers often run in at the last second before the door closes, don't care if you miss a train to check you, etc. Also, they sometimes don't enter the train, but do the checks at the down escalator instead - you don't know what they're going to do, so running out of the train when you see an officer at the next station isn't necessarily the best idea.

And I do watch when they do spot checks; its blatantly obvious when they do catch someone - it's not a matter of not paying attention.

I maintain the evasion rate is much closer to 5% than 30%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 9:25 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Honestly, the real true number of fare evaders.... technically we dont' know. It isn't possible for TransLink to find the number of fare evaders with the low resources they have. I see your point when it comes to our honour system, and sometimes, I actually like it much more. I wouldn't mind keeping our system if we have more staff that acutally does thier job.

For now, I don't think we need all stations with turnstiles... only the major transit hubs such as Downtown Stations, Broadway-Commercial, Columbia, Surrey Central, King George, Lougheed, Brentwood, etc.

AND look at the pros again, if we have turnstiles, we will have more transit users because of their "false sense of security." Well might as well put this physical barrier then if it makes number of transit users increase.

I like that fare system idea... Instead of turnstiles and fare gates, we should have validators/fare checkers and have transit police/skytrain attendants at them to make sure people use it:



Porto Metro
Thank you for understanding a bit because this type of stuff interests me allot so I spend allot of time thinking researching etc. Ill respond again though.

The translink studies were proper studies and had a low error rate like any other professional study(sorry that I don't have the actual error rate but I really don't want to look for it). On top of it Translink does regular mini counts/reports on fare evasion etc. using their staff to have a ruff up to date idea of the numbers. This is important in a POP system and unfortunately it took a while for Translink to have a awakening and realize that in a POP system you have to constantly know whats going on and what the all the numbers are and always be prepared to adjust fines, and the number of personnel to check fares to keep everything functioning like it should. For example if transit fares keep increasing and the system keeps expanding and when you factor in infalation and what not you have to be prepared to raise fines, hire more bodies etc. otherwise fare evasion will get out of hand and the system wont function like it should. On another note this was a big problem with the provicial run transit before Translink because everyone just sat on their ass and didnt give a shit so fare evasion and crime got out of hand just like in Amsterdam. The only difference is that Translink came in to power and although they move at a snails pace they were smart enough to realize the advantages of a POP system and to start runing the POP system like it should be run. In Amsterdam however they took the easiest looking route out and installed turnstiles which obviously had a huge impact because before their system was a free for all with no real fare checks or police, however if they decided to keep their POP system and make the proper changes and adjustments their benefits would have in all probability been even greater and for a fraction of the cost. Having said this there are still many iniatives that Translik is taking and going to take to further improve our system such as increasing Transit police among other things. The past iniatives that they have taken have made a big difference already and that is to increase the number of personal, increase the fine, have the fine collectabel, have the fine collectabel by ICBC(not sure when this happend but its important and one of the kee pillars of a POP system), and create a Transit police force with Police powers.

Installing turnstiles especially at busy stations stops the station from being free flow and creates bottlenecks, frustration, inconvenience and problems. The best solution would be, and by the way is already done often is to have random checks at the top of the escalators and all entrance points. So in other words if you randomly check 1 in say 10 to 20 people you will create no bottleneck, minimal inconvenience, frustration, and minimal problems for the commuters while creating the odds of being fined such that it is impossible to save money by not buying fare, therefore fare evasion rates should be close to zero. And as a side benefit this increases the sense of security considerably as you will have actual bodies instead of a gate.

Your last point is unfortunately wrong because unfortunately a false sense of security is false therefore it might have a small initial benefit but in the long run people will realize its false and all the benefits will evaporate as the true security will become clear. The numbers from Amsterdam are misleading as i mentioned earlier because they let their system go to shits. So in other words its like us wanting to emulate the results of a government coming from anarchy, forgetting that we are not in a anarchy.

Also you talked about staff doing their job. Well unfortunately the skytrain attendants have no power to give fines, stop people or anything, all they can do if you ignore them is to warn you that you may be checked by a officer and fined. This is why they dont check fares BUT assist officers often when there are fare checks. Personally I dont have a huge problem with this as they are not police so should not have the power to detain, there fore any fare checking they would do would be pointless. However they should assist Transit police more so anytime there is a 2 $30-$40per hour transit officers checking fares there should be at least 2 $18-$20 per hour skytrain attendants assisting. Also when the officers do escalator checks at stations the skytrain attendants at the stations should be also checking fares and handing out tickets as it makes better use of the employees translink has and makes everything more efficient. So in other words you can accomplish the same goals and have virtually the same results with less employees and lower costs if you do things smartly and efficiently and the whole no detaining power for skytrain attendants doesn't really become much of a issue.

Also the pictures you posted above is exactly what i had in mind in one of my earlier posts for the smart cards, a free flow POP system with plenty of validaters that are conveniently located all over the place.

this is gotta be my longest rant yet....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 9:45 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,806
^ that's a reasonable argument. but you have to admit the existing fine system is flawed. the officer's have no way to see if the names/addresses of the people they fine are right nor do people take fines seriously since they are not enforced. last year, 30,000 people were fined - and only about 1/10th partially paid or paid the entire bill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 10:30 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
The fare gate issue represents the classic question - Do you follow what the public wants (i.e. gates) or do you do what makes sense financially? Not everything can be reconciled on a cost effective basis (i.e. poorly used bus routes) so in those cases, the value isn't measured in dollars - it measured as an intangible that the public sees as a benefit.
You posted a link on the first page but im not sure if you have read it. In fact I would recommend all read it before forming a opinion because it gives a good summary of the current situation.

Anyways out of 500 people interviewed about suggestions for improving security on the skytrain only 5% said turnstiles should be installed while 65% said to hire more security personal, 9% to increase police presence, 8% to increase the number of cameras 10% said other and 11% didnt know. Guess what the public doesnt want it like you say. While sure the sugestions for reducing fare evasion had 58% sugest turnstiles and only 38% to increase farechecks/staffing the problem with this is that fare evasion is not a problem and the slightly higher perception of fare evasion(which coincidently is that 27% avoid paying fares) is not important and even if it had some small level of importance can be fixed by better educating and informing the public of the true numbers. In any case what I think you were trying to talk more about was the perceived benefits of security which unfortunately seems to be very low, in fact insignificant at 5% according to a reliable survey. On another note the rating for a feeling of security on skytains and at stations was around 7.6 out of 10. That in my books is a very very good rating by the people surveyed, and in fact is probably much better then most similar systems around the world.

Also the costs of operating a turnstile system - the reduction of fare evasion(which like i have said many times is not real as it pushes people unable to pay to theft/crime, probably around stations) is coincidently just about the same as hiring 180, yes thats 180 transit police. Today our system should have 102 transit police so in other words for the price of gates we could almost triple the number of police officers on our system. So I ask you what do you want, gates, or triple the police officers. I know what I would choose, and I think most people would choose the same.

Lastly I think Translink should make a attempt to better educate people about the facts and become a bit more in touch with the media and citizens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 11:18 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
^ that's a reasonable argument. but you have to admit the existing fine system is flawed. the officer's have no way to see if the names/addresses of the people they fine are right nor do people take fines seriously since they are not enforced. last year, 30,000 people were fined - and only about 1/10th partially paid or paid the entire bill.
I dont have the numbers but ill take a stab at this.

I assume that a disproportionate number of those fines are going to be youths and high school students who will realize that they will have to pay if they ever want to have a car. It might take them a few years but they will pay sooner or later.
I assume that a disproportionate number of those fined are going to be repeat offenders, generally people who cant pay and don't care. These people will never pay no matter what you do because their disconected form society and don't work.
In fact I would think that generally most of those fined that haven't payed fall within these categories. The rest just don't own a vehicle and these people are the biggest problem.
In the end I would think that all these groups of people would be the most likely to be fined and at the same the slowest to pay. But the youths wont be youths for ever and this will catch up with them in a few years, those who are adults with out a vehicle will also probably pay at some point in their life. And those who cant pay, well at least they didn't mug someone, or brake in to a car for loose change or suck a extra dick or commit some type of money making fraud or crime to get from point A to point B. And if they ever change then most of this will also catch up to them.

Also the fines are just as enforcible as any type of traffic fines, though I think we all see the small problem here. Regarding the whole fake name thing, well they have police powers so they can ID you or call your name in and charge you with obstruction of justice or what ever they call it and arrest you.

But I do agree with you that more could be done and more should be done.

My suggestions would be.
A)allow on the spot fine collection
B)enforce fine collection more, maybe you could use collection agencies, arrest people like some places do with parking fines, make it easier to garnish it of your wages, i really don't know the feasibility of many of these but you get the point.
C)educate people more about the fines and consequences and especially educate the youth at high schools about the consequences. Thats important because youth are generally poor at thinking of the future and need to be explained that there will be no car, no insurance and no drivers license if they get a fine and don't pay. This doesn't even have to cost much if schools just cooperate and share the costs because it is education and to the benefit of the students.
D)People on welfare and such services should receive monthly bus passes and the government should reimburse Translink just like our Universites for their U-Passes. Now yes I know what your thinking, most of them will just sell them off. But hey if you have smart cards use those but with some personnel info and a picture like a drivers license. What would be even better if this was stored on the welfare smart card and readable and displayable with the officers scanners/pilots making the card unsellable. This could also be a optional security feature for regular smart card holders. also I think this would have great social benefits.
E)have incentives to pay your fine early like many traffic fines. personally I cant believe translink hasn't done this as its is extremely simple, costs nothing and does have decent effect.
F)Back to the youths, likely one of the main offenders you could go after their parents if their under 18 for cash.
G)also back to the arrest repeat offenders this would work great with those people who have jobs and lives but no vehicle and incentive to pay.
E)um, anyways I think with many of these things you could really reduce the problem though I would assume that many of these would be hard to implement as they would require the courts/politicians etc. to change some laws etc.
F)im out of ideas right now and freekin tired.

by the way if transit was free like it should we would not be having these problems, if only you could somehow slap a little extra on to the provincial income tax for people living in this region to pay for the fare revenue that would be lost then that would be the greatest and fairest way, though you would have to catch and punish cheats again though when it comes to lost tax revenue the province is very efficient at hammering that out of people, with interest. By the way there really should be a regional income tax just like a provincial and federal income tax. The regional income tax should simplify things and not complicate as it would eliminate many bandage taxes and stop the whole city funding, transit funding issues in their tracks.

ok im done to much posting.

Last edited by cornholio; Nov 16, 2007 at 12:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2007, 8:48 PM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
My suggestions would be.
A)allow on the spot fine collection
B)enforce fine collection more, maybe you could use collection agencies, arrest people like some places do with parking fines, make it easier to garnish it of your wages, i really don't know the feasibility of many of these but you get the point.
C)educate people more about the fines and consequences and especially educate the youth at high schools about the consequences. Thats important because youth are generally poor at thinking of the future and need to be explained that there will be no car, no insurance and no drivers license if they get a fine and don't pay. This doesn't even have to cost much if schools just cooperate and share the costs because it is education and to the benefit of the students.
D)People on welfare and such services should receive monthly bus passes and the government should reimburse Translink just like our Universites for their U-Passes. Now yes I know what your thinking, most of them will just sell them off. But hey if you have smart cards use those but with some personnel info and a picture like a drivers license. What would be even better if this was stored on the welfare smart card and readable and displayable with the officers scanners/pilots making the card unsellable. This could also be a optional security feature for regular smart card holders. also I think this would have great social benefits.
E)have incentives to pay your fine early like many traffic fines. personally I cant believe translink hasn't done this as its is extremely simple, costs nothing and does have decent effect.
F)Back to the youths, likely one of the main offenders you could go after their parents if their under 18 for cash.
G)also back to the arrest repeat offenders this would work great with those people who have jobs and lives but no vehicle and incentive to pay.
^^ 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.

Quote:
by the way if transit was free like it should we would not be having these problems
As I've posted earlier, free transit in large metropolitan areas have been tried before in North America and have been unsuccessful.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.