|
Fine-able Offense posted:I will use small baby words for you: every person who rides a bus, even if they don't pay a fare, is one less person in a car. Every person on a bus and not in a car saves us all a lot of money. Therefore, free bus rides are still cheaper than the alternative. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that a $3 transit fare is limiting transit use? Because I really, really don't think it is. The issue is capacity, frequency and routes; we need more of all three. To make more of all three, we need more money. Do you follow me? I think a good way to get the money we need is to charge people who are using the system and can afford to pay. I believe this is a better plan than raising taxes further. To say that a $3 transit fare discourages ridership, we'd have to assume that the alternative is not an order of magnitude more expensive. If you drive your car, you will pay $3 to park for one hour (if you find a spot). The only alternative that's cheaper is walking or biking, both of which are probably better still than transit. PT6A fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Oct 23, 2013 |
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Helsing posted:Unless they can't afford 1200 a year Or they don't have much say in their work schedule. All the pre-7AM transit fares in the world isn't going to make the bank open earlier or close later. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you have any evidence whatsoever that a $3 transit fare is limiting transit use? Because I really, really don't think it is. The issue is capacity, frequency and routes; we need more of all three. To make more of all three, we need more money. Do you follow me? I think a good way to get the money we need is to charge people who are using the system and can afford to pay. I believe this is a better plan than raising taxes further. There's a community group in Jane-Finch that I've had the opportunity to sit in on from time to time. Almost everyone there lives in the neighbourhood and they are all extremely cash constrained. They get a bit of money from the York faculty union which is used to give everyone who needs it a travel levy to cover the cost of the TTC. Without it probably more than half the group would not be able to afford to attend. You're seriously the epitome of clueless privilege. You don't think a $6 round trip is prohibitively expensive for a lot of people? Wake the gently caress up. edit - quote:
Do you live in a mental universe where everyone can afford a car, is fit enough to bike or lives within walking distance of their work (as well as their grocery store)? Seriously, what the gently caress? Do actually poor people just not count in your ideal transit policy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you have any evidence whatsoever that a $3 transit fare is limiting transit use? Victoria Transit Policy Institute posted:In most communities (particularly outside of large cities) transit dependent people are a relatively small portion of the total population, while discretionary riders (people who have the option of driving) are a potentially large but more price sensitive market segment. As a result, increasing transit ridership requires pricing and incentives that attract travelers out of their car. Combinations of fare reductions and discounted passes, higher vehicle user fees (such as priced parking or road tolls), improved transit service, and better transit marketing can be particularly effective at increasing transit ridership and reducing automobile use (VTPI 2002). Also this (protected PDF so I took a screenshot): 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:There's a community group in Jane-Finch that I've had the opportunity to sit in on from time to time. Almost everyone there lives in the neighbourhood and they are all extremely cash constrained. Yes, they do. That's why I've repeated, over and over, that they should be given free or discounted transit passes! This should be subsidized by the people who can afford to pay, which is exactly what I've been suggesting all along. I'm explicitly saying that people who cannot afford the fare should be subsidized by the people like me who can. You seem content to ignore this suggestion, based on your idea that user fees are somehow inherently evil. EDIT: Also, discourage car use or at least encourage carpooling by removing the subsidies to cars. Discretionary riders may be a price-sensitive population, but as long as driving a car is an order of magnitude more expensive than using transit, I'm guessing a $3 transit fare isn't going to make them get in their car and drive, unless of course they're irredeemably stupid. It might make them choose to walk or bike, though, which is even better than transit use because it means that transit is not as congested. PT6A fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, they do. That's why I've repeated, over and over, that they should be given free or discounted transit passes! This should be subsidized by the people who can afford to pay, which is exactly what I've been suggesting all along. I'm explicitly saying that people who cannot afford the fare should be subsidized by the people like me who can. You seem content to ignore this suggestion, based on your idea that user fees are somehow inherently evil. Well you are explicitly wrong, since the people who can afford it are called "discretionary users", and they are the ones you are trying to lure by being cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Forget it. It's impossible to discuss transit with Calgarians. This town doesn't even have HOV lanes for christ's sake. I have a colleague based in Calgary who refuses to take the sky train even though his client is located right at a station. He'd rather get a hotel in loving Burnaby and drive to the client's office.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Well you are explicitly wrong, since the people who can afford it are called "discretionary users", and they are the ones you are trying to lure by being cheap. You're not going to lure discretionary riders unless the system is significantly improved anyway. You cannot improve it without funding, and a good way to get funding is to charge the people who are using the system. I'm not anti-transit. When I travel, I like to use transit as much as possible and I've never rented a car in my life. When I lived in Montreal, I never owned or drove a car. When I had to commute to the U of C, I used the train on all but a handful of occasions, usually due to time constraints (largely due to the expensive parking at the university, which is a great example of how we can encourage transit use by making car usage more expensive to account for the negative externalities). I think transit is wonderful, and the many advantages of a well-designed transit system are something that I'm willing to pay a fair price for. PT6A fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, they do. That's why I've repeated, over and over, that they should be given free or discounted transit passes! This should be subsidized by the people who can afford to pay, which is exactly what I've been suggesting all along. I'm explicitly saying that people who cannot afford the fare should be subsidized by the people like me who can. You seem content to ignore this suggestion, based on your idea that user fees are somehow inherently evil. Or, rather than setting up a complex administrative system that has to determine who can afford to pay how much we could just do the same thing we did with roads and pay for it with general taxation. But no, you're right, its far better to make low income people apply for a special exemption. Your 'solution' is needlessly complicated, would probably end up stigmatizing the people who rely on it, would be easier to attack politically, and cuts against your stated desire to lure car drivers onto transit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You're not going to lure discretionary riders unless the system is significantly improved anyway. You cannot improve it without funding, and a good way to get funding is to charge the people who are using the system. How much money do you think you're going to get out of people, especially since you're agreeing that we should heavily subsidize low income users? You seem really attached to user fees on principle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You're not going to lure discretionary riders unless the system is significantly improved anyway. You cannot improve it without funding, and a good way to get funding is to charge the people who are using the system. No no it is a bad way to get funding, that's the entire loving point of this stupid derail. I'm going to drop it since this is as dumb a derail as the smoking argument was, but: funding transit through user fares is loving pants-on-head stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, the best way to get the money we need to do that is spend the transit budget making it free for everyone! That's a loving excellent solution. Except people who can barely afford it as is need to use it during peak times too. Not everyone uses transit for shits and giggles or when they feel like it; some people rely on transit and suffer considerably at its failings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Or, rather than setting up a complex administrative system that has to determine who can afford to pay how much we could just do the same thing we did with roads and pay for it with general taxation. But no, you're right, its far better to make low income people apply for a special exemption. Okay, pay for it out of general taxation. Taxes go up, driving people into separate municipalities with lower taxes. They drive into the city either all the way, or use the now-free transit system after parking at a station. You now have more congestion on the roads, and less money from taxation in general as well as no income whatsoever from transit fares. If all-free transit is such a great idea, why doesn't it exist anywhere? Are all the great cities of the world conspiring to eschew this wonderful idea just to spite you, or is it possible that it's not actually a very good idea? Even socialist countries still charge for transit. PT6A fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
I'm not a transit-scholar but I've read quite a few studies and papers and "experts" all coming out against totally-free transit. I used to be very pro-free transit but apparently even a tiny user cost vastly effects peoples "pathfinding ai" or what ever. Now I have more mixed feelings on it. Although the bottom line should be that how ever the system is set up, it should be cheap, efficient, and hopefully pleasant. Have most of the costs paid for via taxes and the rest via tickets and passes. But then again I've also read some pretty compelling arguments that getting rid of fare boxes and turnstiles and the entire fare-collection infrastructure is also a huge cost savings. If your system is already so supported by taxes rather than fares it will end up costing more to collect and enforce the fares than it brings in. I think if totally free transit was the norm and people were used tot his, coupled with the fact that other hosed up poo poo in our society was fixed as well, like addressing homeless problems and crime, a free system could work out fine. One of the biggest criticisms of a totally free system is that homeless people and "undesirables" might use it frivolously or even use them as housing. But if your garbage country actually solved those problems you wouldn't have to worry about them clogging up your lovely metro. What I do find hilarious is that many of the people who are the most vocally against transit subsidies and spending and rant and rave that it should be 100% user-fee supported or it shouldn't exist are totally fine with roads. I've seriously had a "discussion" with someone about transit spending who launched into a tirade about "why should I pay for something I don't use and don't want to use!!" and when I asked him if people who don't drive should get to opt-out of taxes put towards road building and upkeep, or if we should put GPS in everyone's cars and bill them for their road usage every month he went on about how "Roads are a common good that benefit everyone even people who don't use them! How do you think your products got to the shops! Mobility is essential for the economy and roads are good investments with real economic returns!!" without a hint of irony. And yes I tried to explain how pretty much all his reasons for supporting "free" roads could be used to support "free" transit but he wouldn't have it. "Everyone NEEDS roads but only certain people CHOOSE transit! It would be taxes subsidizing a minority and a certain lifestyle." and no, free roads are NOT a government subsidy for car-centric urban sprawl, that's just "democracy" and people "choosing where they want to live". Also something something social-engineering. If anyone thinks internet socialists over-use "neo-liberal" you need to talk to some hard-workin' suburban conservatives and the amount of times they say social-engineering. Smoking laws are social engineering! Transit subsidies are social engineering! Modern urban planning is social engineering! Any level of government ever favouring one thing over the other in a super clear case of public well being is SOCIAL ENGINEERING. Seriously, it's the new "nanny state". Watch for disparaging references to "social engineers" in your favourite news article comments!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Nobody is advocating a completely free system, because a nominal fee has all kinds of secondary effects tragedy of the commons blah blah blah. Just make it a 50 cent per trip cost and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
It should be paid for out of provincial or federal funds not municipal ones. Placing the burden for infrastructure improvements on municipal governments is regressive and creates all kinds of opportunities for idiotic tax wars. Also: quote:On 1 January 2013, Tallinn, Estonia became the first European capital to extend free public transport to all of its residents. The results so far have been encouraging. The Tallinn authorities believe that, if done right, free public transport schemes can encourage a shift from cars to buses and trams, can cut congestion and traffic emissions, and can boost economic development.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:But then again I've also read some pretty compelling arguments that getting rid of fare boxes and turnstiles and the entire fare-collection infrastructure is also a huge cost savings. If your system is already so supported by taxes rather than fares it will end up costing more to collect and enforce the fares than it brings in. The cost of installing fare-taking systems is one thing, but I don't think enforcement is really a huge additional cost considering that we would still need Transit Peace Officers to maintain a visible presence for the sake of security (and, frankly, we already have too few; Transit is sketchy as gently caress at night). Whether they're checking tickets on their patrols or not, they still need to be present.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Geoid posted:The only way to reduce congestion is to improve public transit. Anytime you widen a road the traffic expands to fill the container. More people on buses and public transit means overall lower costs for road maintenance and repair, shorter wait times for those blessed to have a vehicle, and a happier city. While it's unassailable that public transit reduces congestion, more lanes don't do anything insofar as "move over" rules aren't enforced. If left lanes are kept for passing only, the phenomenon you're referencing whereby cars fill up all the empty space no longer happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
a primate posted:While it's unassailable that public transit reduces congestion, more lanes don't do anything insofar as "move over" rules aren't enforced. If left lanes are kept for passing only, the phenomenon you're referencing whereby cars fill up all the empty space no longer happens. Traffic actually increases with increased capacity, just like transit usage increases with increased capacity. If traffic is lovely you might not choose to go out that way for dinner, or visit a friend, or take the train instead. If the highway suddenly has an extra lane, hey, driving is a pleasure again, I'll do it more often! Additionally one of the only forces restricting sprawl is commutes people are willing to endure. Every time you widen a highway developers just build more houses farther away and the capacity is very quickly filled back up. You don't build capacity reactively, you build capacity as part of an actual growth strategy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
a primate posted:While it's unassailable that public transit reduces congestion, more lanes don't do anything insofar as "move over" rules aren't enforced. If left lanes are kept for passing only, the phenomenon you're referencing whereby cars fill up all the empty space no longer happens. This doesn't make any sense. If "left lane for passing only" implies that it should be nearly empty in times of congestion, you've effectively made things worse (or the same if you have just added a lane) by jamming everyone into the remaining lanes. Moreover, I'm pretty sure "keep right" laws don't exist in Canada. They definitely don't exist in Alberta. Certain US States do have it on the books, but it's less than half of them. At any rate, Baron has already explained why you're wrong in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:55
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Moreover, I'm pretty sure "keep right" laws don't exist in Canada. They definitely don't exist in Alberta. Certain US States do have it on the books, but it's less than half of them. It's enforced extremely rarely, but I believe it does exist. Hence the signs to that effect along the Trans-Canada (and possibly other highways). That being said, his post is still wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Although mass-transit is a much better way of dealing with sprawl, I am somewhat weary of the consequences of making it zero-cost. You'd still be subsidizing outward expansion and it's still better to have people avoid commuting at all if it can be helped. Of course usually it can't be helped, and moreover people still "pay" for commuting in terms of their own time, so maybe that's not really worth worrying about. On the other hand, doing away with user costs would also do away with all the expenses associated with ticket vending and enforcing - e.g. compass, faregates and so forth. That is all just deadweight loss if you can collect from existing taxes instead. On yet another hand, you do want to encourage spreading your commuter congestion around, but on yet another other hand, again, a "free" commute is never really free if it takes 4 hours and is cramped and uncomfortable. People do try pretty hard to avoid rush or commute against it even though it costs the same. So yeah, free is probably the way to go. And yes of course it only makes sense when implemented in a revenue-neutral way. Austrian mook posted:Living in Vancouver, absolutely. gently caress Translink. Plz do not gently caress Translink. Translink isn't perfect but overall they are a very fine and competent organization that does a pretty drat good job given the resources and constraints they have to work with. Just as an example: Translink wanted to do the Compass integration primarily as a way to make ticket vending easier and improve their data gathering (they've certainly proven themselves at making excellent use of data collection - GPSing all the buses has been a huge success in terms of planning and scheduling!). It was going to be a fairly affordable upgrade (the ticket vending machines are breaking down anyway and you have to replace them with something). What made it an expensive clusterfuck is the BCLP's insistence on also adding fare-gates which require substantial reconstruction on on all the stations and there is no way this will pay for itself before they need replacing or expansion. I like Translink  , they is good people. (gently caress the BCLP though, but that's old hat)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Right now this story here is a tech issue, but with the proper fanning it could also become a political issue.  This is an insane breach of privacy! Holy poo poo. This needs to be so illegal. This is like Prism-level amount of data collection, but without even the veneer of "fighting terrism" or whatever. Thank god https is becoming super wide-spread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Bell is a bad company. Avoid doing business with them when possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
THC posted:Bell is a bad company. Avoid doing business with them when possible. Not empty quoting but hoooollyy gently caress yes Bell is a lovely as gently caress company
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
THC posted:Bell is a bad company. Avoid doing business with them when possible. "When possible" is kind of the hard part here; not only in considering their almost-absolute reach over not just the market, but also what exists of the finite network resources. It's kind of to the point where you can't necessarily avoid them because of their omnipresence on the matter. Bell itself might actually be the safest part of the news here, as odd as that may be. While they're almost definitely in the terrible for even doing this in the first place, at least they're the one known entity complicit in the matter. The fact that the collected data would then be aggregated to whatever other company is well pocketed enough to afford it introduces plenty of unknown elements here. At least we can be certain that Bell's doing this for the purposes of simply trying to sell us stupid things. What intentions we cannot be certain of, however, lie in whatever other companies and organizations that would be willing to join in this privacy-undoing feast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
lol say goodbye to $7 million, CPC donors. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-campaign-database-fiasco-costs-party-millions-1.2187603 quote:The Conservative Party of Canada has scrapped a multi-million dollar database paid for by money raised through supporter contributions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's enforced extremely rarely, but I believe it does exist. Hence the signs to that effect along the Trans-Canada (and possibly other highways). I know there are signs that say "Slow vehicles keep right" or what have you, but seeing as it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Alberta Driver's Guidebook anywhere, I'm pretty sure it's actually just a recommendation they only enforce when people are causing a serious problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Stephen Harper posted:lol say goodbye to $7 million, CPC donors. From the article I read it sounds like everyone that was using it hated it. Surprised it took that much money and that long to ditch and go back to the old system. But man would I not want to be a fly on the wall of the meeting that asks "how are we going to justify asking our base for money when we do stuff like this with it".
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Plz do not gently caress Translink. Translink isn't perfect but overall they are a very fine and competent organization that does a pretty drat good job given the resources and constraints they have to work with. Just as an example: Translink wanted to do the Compass integration primarily as a way to make ticket vending easier and improve their data gathering (they've certainly proven themselves at making excellent use of data collection - GPSing all the buses has been a huge success in terms of planning and scheduling!). It was going to be a fairly affordable upgrade (the ticket vending machines are breaking down anyway and you have to replace them with something). What made it an expensive clusterfuck is the BCLP's insistence on also adding fare-gates which require substantial reconstruction on on all the stations and there is no way this will pay for itself before they need replacing or expansion. Well Translink keeps loving raising prices so forgive me if I've hoped a few turnstiles in my day. That said, Vancouver does have a very competent transit system, I'm just sour about the prices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
AegisP posted:From the article I read it sounds like everyone that was using it hated it. Surprised it took that much money and that long to ditch and go back to the old system. But man would I not want to be a fly on the wall of the meeting that asks "how are we going to justify asking our base for money when we do stuff like this with it". Same way they justify it after "We'll just write Duffy a cheque for 90k with donor money to shut him up"
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Austrian mook posted:Well Translink keeps loving raising prices so forgive me if I've hoped a few turnstiles in my day. That said, Vancouver does have a very competent transit system, I'm just sour about the prices. Well you know, same thing there too, Translink was asked to increase service oh and also build this giant loving bridge, they asked for more funding, the provincial government said "lol no, just raise fares, poor people smell anyway" and here we are. Like not to say all of Translink's shortcomings are solely the fault of the BCLP, but like, nearly all kinda are...
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Well you know, same thing there too, Translink was asked to increase service oh and also build this giant loving bridge, they asked for more funding, the provincial government said "lol no, just raise fares, poor people smell anyway" and here we are. This. Plus they're also in a revenue trap where the more people switch to transit (and buy less gas) Translink receives less funding. Higher ridership, lower funding sources. But don't worry, there's going to be a referendum on it in a year! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
You guys talking about transit basically agree about the fundamentals, that more public transit should be used, so that's good at least. Might be going for the throat a little too much over implementation though. It boggles me you could spend 7-9 million on a database to track supporters/donators and still fail. DB data in/data out/reporting is the easiest poo poo, and with that budget your automated tests should cover every feature and edge case. Wish I put a bid in on that contract. I won't cry over wasted Conservative dollars, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
AegisP posted:From the article I read it sounds like everyone that was using it hated it. Surprised it took that much money and that long to ditch and go back to the old system. But man would I not want to be a fly on the wall of the meeting that asks "how are we going to justify asking our base for money when we do stuff like this with it". By drumming up hatred for the socialist NDP and corrupt Liberals, of course. Same as ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It should be paid for out of provincial or federal funds not municipal ones. Placing the burden for infrastructure improvements on municipal governments is regressive and creates all kinds of opportunities for idiotic tax wars. You forgot a few dozen, but I think the point is still made. THC posted:Bell is a bad company. Avoid doing business with them when possible. Telus and Rogers are just as bad. Too bad the three of them have a state-sponsored monopoly up here and there is no competition except with their own offspring. Austrian mook posted:Well Translink keeps loving raising prices so forgive me if I've hoped a few turnstiles in my day. That said, Vancouver does have a very competent transit system, I'm just sour about the prices. If only they were properly subsidized by taxes instead of having to price gouge people who already can't afford their own transportation oh wait that would hurt job creators.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
^^^: That was how I felt about the Long Gun Registry. How did you spend that much on it? less than three posted:This. Plus they're also in a revenue trap where the more people switch to transit (and buy less gas) Translink receives less funding. Higher ridership, lower funding sources. But don't worry, there's going to be a referendum on it in a year! A referendum on a tax you say. I wonder how that will go in BC. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:Telus and Rogers are just as bad. ocrumsprug posted:^^^: That was how I felt about the Long Gun Registry. How did you spend that much on it? Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:Telus and Rogers are just as bad. Too bad the three of them have a state-sponsored monopoly up here and there is no competition except with their own offspring. ocrumsprug posted:A referendum on a tax you say. I wonder how that will go in BC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Stephen Harper posted:lol say goodbye to $7 million, CPC donors. still probably better than NDP-Vote
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 04:08
|
|
