The Official Transit Thread

[ronthecivil]

But is that perceived security going to allow more people to ride transit? Or to put it another way, is the cost of installing these turnstiles going to be offset by the increase in ridership/collections?

When the answer consists of theory and perceptions you should know the answer. Translink is in a budget crunch. No wonder.

Edited December 22, 2009 by ronthecivil

[inane]

When the answer consists of theory and perceptions you should know the answer. Translink is in a budget crunch. No wonder.

It's all theory. No one knows what will happen with something as complex as this. As much as planners/engineers like to model and predict and try to best guess ridership or safety or pipe capacity or whatever the hell you want, it's still just a theory because things change all the time.

[ahzdeen]

It's all theory. No one knows what will happen with something as complex as this. As much as planners/engineers like to model and predict and try to best guess ridership or safety or pipe capacity or whatever the hell you want, it's still just a theory because things change all the time.

For me, this begs the question, why even have planners then? All you're basically doing is guessing anyway.

[inane]

For me, this begs the question, why even have planners then? All you're basically doing is guessing anyway.

You could say the same with any profession (pretty much...)

Why have lawyers? They try to persuade, give their advice, but in the end it's the judge and/or jury that decides.

Why have stock brokers? They try to persuade, give their advice, but in the end they can't know what the market is going to do.

etc etc etc

Planners, lawyers, stock brokers, name your profession. They give professional, educated advice based on as much information as possible to make an informed decision. In the end though, some other person makes the decision--and all too often politics, corruption, you name it gets in the way of rational, logical decision making.

[ronthecivil]

You could say the same with any profession (pretty much...)

Why have lawyers? They try to persuade, give their advice, but in the end it's the judge and/or jury that decides.

Why have stock brokers? They try to persuade, give their advice, but in the end they can't know what the market is going to do.

etc etc etc

Planners, lawyers, stock brokers, name your profession. They give professional, educated advice based on as much information as possible to make an informed decision. In the end though, some other person makes the decision--and all too often politics, corruption, you name it gets in the way of rational, logical decision making.

What I find odd is that you and Nitro both seem to approve of this high cost low reward gate installation program. Especially given the translink budget crunch where the money spent on this would probably be better spent on just about anything.

[Opmac]

Why aren't the 41st Ave and Broadway routes trolleys? Like most of the route has the wires, why don't they extend them and switch to trolleys?

Anyone know?

[ronthecivil]

For me, this begs the question, why even have planners then? All you're basically doing is guessing anyway.

Using logic and measuring numbers can at least point you in the general direction rather than blindly guessing. And really, at the end of the day, sometimes numbers of riders are a little high or a little low but in general you get a good back of the envelope overall scale as to what the results will be. For example, the numbers for the Canada line turned out to be a little low, but it indicated that something of that nature should be built. Overall it measures out in the end.

But for the fare gets no one is providing any real numbers for a reason. The reason is they know the numbers would tell you not to put in the gates.

In short, you should be sceptical of any number a planner or engineer gives you. You should be outright frightened when they refuse to give you numbers to be sceptical about.

[inane]

What I find odd is that you and Nitro both seem to approve of this high cost low reward gate installation program. Especially given the translink budget crunch where the money spent on this would probably be better spent on just about anything.

What I can appreciate and you seem unable to is the value of perception.

Not everything is cost/reward in a strictly financial sense. If turnstiles end up costing more money than the current system, but people feelsafer and more people ride the skytrain then it's worth it. But of course, the monetary value of people's perception of safety is unknowable, so it doesn't get put into the calculation.

Lots of things are money losers if you just look at them individually or at the numbers up front but we spend money on them because in the bigger picture they are worth it.

[ronthecivil]

Why aren't the 41st Ave and Broadway routes trolleys? Like most of the route has the wires, why don't they extend them and switch to trolleys?

Anyone know?

Broadway has trolley wires from Burnaby to the UBC loop (or at least they used to, not sure what they did with the bus loop). But either way the express buses won't use them as I bet it's way to slow.

[ronthecivil]

What I can appreciate and you seem unable to is the value of perception.

Not everything is cost/reward in a strictly financial sense. If turnstiles end up costing more money than the current system, but people feelsafer and more people ride the skytrain then it's worth it. But of course, the monetary value of people's perception of safety is unknowable, so it doesn't get put into the calculation.

Lots of things are money losers if you just look at them individually or at the numbers up front but we spend money on them because in the bigger picture they are worth it.

There's not a single example of non gated system in the world that went to gated that can be used to determine the result?

Tranlink hasn't asked in their surveys where they know that safety is a concern a follow up question along the lines of "If fare gates were installed, would this added safety measure change your mind about riding transit". It's not possible to come up with any number? I seriosly doubt that.

And I completely appreciate that some things can be money losers individually and can be parts of a greater good, but in the case of skytrain isn't the greater good the objective of getting cars off the road by providing an alternative? Sure, adding gates might increase ridership, but how would it compare with say using the gate money to buy more skytrain cars. What's a bigger issue, even perception wise, with skytrain? Security or crowding? I am willing to bet that for everyone concerned about security I could find at least an equal amount sick to death of extreme crowding and pass-ups.

I understand perception just fine thanks.

[ahzdeen]

What I can appreciate and you seem unable to is the value of perception.

Not everything is cost/reward in a strictly financial sense. If turnstiles end up costing more money than the current system, but people feelsafer and more people ride the skytrain then it's worth it. But of course, the monetary value of people's perception of safety is unknowable, so it doesn't get put into the calculation.

Lots of things are money losers if you just look at them individually or at the numbers up front but we spend money on them because in the bigger picture they are worth it.

But you just put a monetary value on it right here. Wouldn't it be the increase in revenues from the people who will ride the skytrain more because they feel safer? Because if people are riding the skytrain even if they feel unsafe, it's obviously not enough of a hindrance to sway their decision. Maybe I'm just biased. I want my damn evergreen line.

[inane]

There's not a single example of non gated system in the world that went to gated that can be used to determine the result?

Tranlink hasn't asked in their surveys where they know that safety is a concern a follow up question along the lines of "If fare gates were installed, would this added safety measure change your mind about riding transit". It's not possible to come up with any number? I seriosly doubt that.

And I completely appreciate that some things can be money losers individually and can be parts of a greater good, but in the case of skytrain isn't the greater good the objective of getting cars off the road by providing an alternative? Sure, adding gates might increase ridership, but how would it compare with say using the gate money to buy more skytrain cars. What's a bigger issue, even perception wise, with skytrain? Security or crowding? I am willing to bet that for everyone concerned about security I could find at least an equal amount sick to death of extreme crowding and pass-ups.

I understand perception just fine thanks.

I don't know about examples, I'm not with translink nor is that my area of work.

Buying more skytrain cars might get those who are fed up with waiting to their destination faster, but buying more skytrain cars isn't going to get a bunch of new people to take transit. Some people who don't take transit aren't taking it because they think it's too busy, they don't take it cause they think it's unsafe. Whether it is or isn't is irrelevant, as long as they think it's unsafe, it is. And whether or not turnstiles make it safer or not is also irrelevant, if people think it does, it does.

This is all just my perception, I could be wrong. But I would bet your typical non-transit user, when asked why they don't take transit, would more often than say safety rather than crowded. Infrequent service, and takes too long would probably be ahead of crowded too!

[inane]

But you just put a monetary value on it right here. Wouldn't it be the increase in revenues from the people who will ride the skytrain more because they feel safer? Because if people are riding the skytrain even if they feel unsafe, it's obviously not enough of a hindrance to sway their decision. Maybe I'm just biased. I want my damn evergreen line.

Right, but it's hard to put a value on that short of polling every person who takes transit as to whether or not they took it before and whether or not it's because of the turnstiles. And it would also be worth it because (in theory) you'd have fewer cars, more people walking, etc etc etc... You can try and put a value on all those things, but it's difficult. So typically people just look at the cost of turnstiles vs the cost of not and use that number as the value. When really it's just a superficial number that's pretty meaningless.

[ronthecivil]

I don't know about examples, I'm not with translink nor is that my area of work.

Buying more skytrain cars might get those who are fed up with waiting to their destination faster, but buying more skytrain cars isn't going to get a bunch of new people to take transit. Some people who don't take transit aren't taking it because they think it's too busy, they don't take it cause they think it's unsafe. Whether it is or isn't is irrelevant, as long as they think it's unsafe, it is. And whether or not turnstiles make it safer or not is also irrelevant, if people think it does, it does.

This is all just my perception, I could be wrong. But I would bet your typical non-transit user, when asked why they don't take transit, would more often than say safety rather than crowded. Infrequent service, and takes too long would probably be ahead of crowded too!

Judging by your two bolded lines, I would think that it's at least worth looking into as to what would be a better use of money no? Why is it that the gates and smartcard introduction isn't getting the same sort of cost benefit analysis that every other major transit decision goes through? If they did, I bet it would show that my guess that spending it on just about anything else would be a better use of money.

For example, as noted above, would using that money towards getting the evergreen line built have a bigger impact on increasing transit ridership than adding the gates?

[ronthecivil]

Right, but it's hard to put a value on that short of polling every person who takes transit as to whether or not they took it before and whether or not it's because of the turnstiles. And it would also be worth it because (in theory) you'd have fewer cars, more people walking, etc etc etc... You can try and put a value on all those things, but it's difficult. So typically people just look at the cost of turnstiles vs the cost of not and use that number as the value. When really it's just a superficial number that's pretty meaningless.

Translink polls people all the time how would this be any different. FYI it's probably better to poll them BEFORE the giant capital outlay. It wouldn't be that difficult to determine the incremental increase in ridership and fare collection (although would the fare evaders simply not take transit anymore, that would have to be part of the number).

And even if you say it's worth it if it has even a limited impact on getting cars of the road, if the money was spent in a different way, a way that took far more cars off the road, would it still be worth it?

[inane]

Judging by your two bolded lines, I would think that it's at least worth looking into as to what would be a better use of money no? Why is it that the gates and smartcard introduction isn't getting the same sort of cost benefit analysis that every other major transit decision goes through? If they did, I bet it would show that my guess that spending it on just about anything else would be a better use of money.

For example, as noted above, would using that money towards getting the evergreen line built have a bigger impact on increasing transit ridership than adding the gates?

Well, it would for the people in the NE I would imagine.

Safety is an enormous issue--people are scared of transit for whatever reason. It's very difficult to put a monetary figure on the feeling of safety.

[inane]

Translink polls people all the time how would this be any different. FYI it's probably better to poll them BEFORE the giant capital outlay. It wouldn't be that difficult to determine the incremental increase in ridership and fare collection (although would the fare evaders simply not take transit anymore, that would have to be part of the number).

And even if you say it's worth it if it has even a limited impact on getting cars of the road, if the money was spent in a different way, a way that took far more cars off the road, would it still be worth it?

I don't know why translink didn't poll this specific thing...it does seem they should have, but we all know it's run by retards so it's anyone's guess.

As to where the money should be spent, it depends what your purpose is. There is a group, I think bigger than you realize who will not ride transit because they are scared. Scared of crime, the dark, whatever the hell else. You could have a skytrain on every street in town and they still wouldn't use it. If getting those people to ride the train is your objective, then yes, turnsties are worth it over some other project. If your intent is simply to get as many people on who aren't afraid, then sure, there might be a better project for your cash.

[ronthecivil]

Well, it would for the people in the NE I would imagine.

Safety is an enormous issue--people are scared of transit for whatever reason. It's very difficult to put a monetary figure on the feeling of safety.

It's not that difficult. There are for sure examples around where agencies have dramatically stepped up security and no doubt have numbers to show how the increase in security upped ridership. You can poll people and ask them if putting in these gates would influence how often they took transit. It's possible to come up with a number based on something rather than nothing.

I might add I already pointed out one way to increase safety in a manner that makes money.

The ONLY way this makes sense for translink if it's a stealthy way to dramatically increase fares using their distance travelled system. Stealthy or not though any increase in fares is going to lower ridership.

[ahzdeen]

Right, but it's hard to put a value on that short of polling every person who takes transit as to whether or not they took it before and whether or not it's because of the turnstiles. And it would also be worth it because (in theory) you'd have fewer cars, more people walking, etc etc etc... You can try and put a value on all those things, but it's difficult. So typically people just look at the cost of turnstiles vs the cost of not and use that number as the value. When really it's just a superficial number that's pretty meaningless.

Not really that hard. Number of riders after - number of riders before - expected growth = number of new riders due to perceived safety. I'm sure there has to be other cities that have done this that we can draw examples from.

I don't know why translink didn't poll this specific thing...it does seem they should have, but we all know it's run by retards so it's anyone's guess.

As to where the money should be spent, it depends what your purpose is. There is a group, I think bigger than you realize who will not ride transit because they are scared. Scared of crime, the dark, whatever the hell else. You could have a skytrain on every street in town and they still wouldn't use it. If getting those people to ride the train is your objective, then yes, turnsties are worth it over some other project. If your intent is simply to get as many people on who aren't afraid, then sure, there might be a better project for your cash.

Irrational fear is irrational fear. Turnstiles aren't going to fix that. Do the turnstiles in NY fix the perceived problems/safety concerns there? My mom was still scared to ride the subway in Korea (which has turnstiles and is relatively well lit, and i admit her fear is irrational). I don't think turnstiles themselves increase perceived safety. I think having cops around increases perceived safety.

[ronthecivil]

I don't know why translink didn't poll this specific thing...it does seem they should have, but we all know it's run by retards so it's anyone's guess.

As to where the money should be spent, it depends what your purpose is. There is a group, I think bigger than you realize who will not ride transit because they are scared. Scared of crime, the dark, whatever the hell else. You could have a skytrain on every street in town and they still wouldn't use it. If getting those people to ride the train is your objective, then yes, turnsties are worth it over some other project. If your intent is simply to get as many people on who aren't afraid, then sure, there might be a better project for your cash.

I think the objective should be to get as many people on transit as possible period rather than try to go through demographic lines (though the scared non scared one is a new one).

You do point out what I already feel about people that are too scared to ride transit. Putting in the gates isn't going to stop them from being scared to ride transit. They are still going to have to do some walking, probably in the dark, probably alone to get to their final destinations. That's why you poll them, to see if it would actually have an effect.

Oh, and translink probably did do polling but this is a political decision so why bother with the numbers, right or wrong? (Good bet they are bad numbers or they would be trumpeting them though).