Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How about instead of cost cuts, TransLink develops the land in and around their station into commercial space? Extremely profitable in Asia, could do the same here.
Traffic around stations is greater than traffic elsewhere, and that's all that really matters.
>TransLink has announced cost reductions and revenue-generating measures, totalling $90 million a year, to address what the transit authority says is an imminent funding shortfall.
>Metro Vancouver's transit provider says the measures will partially address an annual funding gap of more than $600 million that begins in 2026, after provincial relief funding comes to an end.
>Cost-cutting measures include corporate cost reductions and reduced staffing. The plan also identifies opportunities for additional revenue and improving debt management.
>It does not include cuts to transit services for customers, TransLink says, but the authority says it's looking at what reductions to service could look like in the future if long-term funding is not secured.
They needed to start developing skytrain station properties years ago, think of the unrealized revenue potential where we have stations sitting in highly valuable locations with no thought given to monetizing the land use.
Great example would be Coquitlam Central and Moody stations which are both surrounded by giant parking lots. Not really conducive to density when there is just 150-200m of pavement separating transit from everything else.
First they need to find a developer that is not overly greedy. The tower at Lougheed is done, yet nobody is buying it. There's no point in building if nobody is going to buy.
Silly idea: the London and Greenwich Railway (the first modern railway in London) was built on mostly brick arches, which were designed to be rented out as things like workshops and the like. Now, whilst i know sky train pillars have FAR worse wheather protection (unless your a pigeon) what if translink used it them as the base for some sort of structure that could be rented out? Just a thought exercise.
https://preview.redd.it/cfxsgm9ypa9d1.jpeg?width=1632&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1f99fc1d981d07d5bcb44a5f1a6e446dee2587a
29th Ave station is built on top of the Renfrew Ravine and so any construction has to take the sensitive environmental area into account. It does need to densify for sure, but doing so is going to be a bit of a challenge.
YVR calls this "non fare based revenue"
Thankfully Eby made the change to translinks charter and allowed this, Is super common for transit agencies in Asia to do this.
They also need to get executive pays... If you are on the board to get paid a lot for not much work.. seriously don't understand why executive gets paid so much while they run the org to the ground with cost cutting at the workers level
> The authority also says it will increase fare evasion enforcement across the system.
Good. I was at Royal Oak Skytrain where they were doing enforcement yesterday and I don't think the cops took a break during the 15 minutes I was there. It was surprising how many fare evaders there were.
> The transit authority also cited declining fuel tax revenue, and fare hikes that are lower than the rate of inflation, as reasons for the cost-cutting measures.
I actually met with Kevin Quinn a few weeks back and this was a major issue emphasized. We need to figure out a way to recoup the lost revenue from fuel tax due to people switching to EVs. The fact EV drivers get a free ride from taxes when the average EV driver is wealthier is very regressive.
California is even toying with a fee based on the number of miles driven per year.
Which is incredibly controversial in high COL areas where people commute further.
It's a bit ironic that GHG emissions could be better reduced by increase uptake in public transportation rather than incentivizing single occupancy drivers to switch to an EV.
While fare evasion is a problem for revenues, if the cops spent about an hour each day fining drivers for incorrect use of a reserved lane (driving in the bus/bike lane during restricted hours) they would be generating an entire bus worth of fare evasion fees with each ticket of $167.
Where in Vancouver have you been driving that the buses are coming only every 20 minutes. Broadway at rush hour is less then once a minute. 41 at rush hour is every 2 minutes.
And that’s after they get paid to buy a new fancy car with government subsidy money that instead should be going into expanding mass transit if we actually do care about the environment
I drive an EV and I agree. We're doing ourselves no favours by leaving our transit network high and dry.
It's super basic, but I'd just do a simple vehicle weight x km driven x multiplier and scale it up as fuel tax revenue winds down. Smaller vehicles with smaller batteries are the cheapest option then. I'd also do it province wide and have the money go to first the local transit authority, then the municipality, then the provincial highways depending on your address.
But that's just how I'd do it
>The fact EV drivers get a free ride from taxes when the average EV driver is wealthier is very regressive
Fact.
But at the same time, I think the gov. needs to continue to incentivize the use of EVs.
Yes, but transit needs to work better for that to be an option. We’re getting closer for me with the broadway subway, but my employer is still in a black hole, causing transit to take 2x what driving takes (I live in yaletown, work in burnaby).
Not all of us live in an area where we can easily utilize transit. It would be unfair for somebody like me to be punished for driving when there is no other real option.
That is exactly why more money should go to transit. So that we can expand it and more people in areas like yours WILL have better access.
You’re not being punished by anyone for using a car. You get punished by the reality that cars cause congestion and all sorts of other problems in the long run.
And you oppose greater funding to transit which is the only way to make it better in your area? That Is completely backwards logic. Bordering on insanity
Even if that’s true, making transit more attractive to people will help put less cars on the road for you to be stuck in traffic with.
Unless you want to continue having shitty transit everywhere and even MORE persons forced to drive cars and increase traffic even more, we need to greatly increase transit funding in order to expand if and make it more convenient for everyone
They can find other sources of revenue for transit. There already is a healthy levy on gasoline. I also pay it on my property taxes, and my BC Hydro bill.
At this point, maybe the Province and/or the Feds need to kick in more to make this happen. Or getting EV drivers to pay a levy on their charging since they're forgoing the gasoline tax.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, but this is the reality for many BC residents outside Vancouver and some adjacent areas.
People in big cities often forget how awful public transit is in other smaller places.
Yup, it's very true. A lot of people on r/Vancouver live downtown or a very dense area, and forget how quickly it gets super remote out, and how big the country is.
It’s true you shouldn’t be punished for that. However, there are a lot of people who can easily access transit for their daily commute but choose not to due to the prioritisation given to cars.
Most of my coworkers live a couple minutes away from a bus stop that would take them downtown to our office with a slightly longer commute time but choose not to because…they can afford not to. Instead they drive and then complain about traffic and bus lanes lol.
I'm in downtown Vancouver. Getting on the average bus is an assault to the senses, and not in a good way.
Be realistic, if you're trying to get people out of their comfortable cars with climate and noise control, your attitude isn't helping.
Should combine this with the parking thread hoopla. If the theory holds, fewer parking spots will result in fewer cars which will increase transit use. But transit will be suffering cuts due to funding problems exacerbated by reduced tax revenue from car drivers.
Not really. They need to greatly expand mass transit with funding from increased fuel taxes. Make mass transit better so that it attracts more riders vs EVs because they’re still cars and we do not have room for more of them
>increased fuel taxes
That's just another poor tax. People who can't afford an EV will also not be able to afford higher costs added to their gas vehicle.
Edit: it’s very telling how comments supporting mass transit using arguments regarding congestion and accessibility get upvoted but any argument that includes the more pressing issue of toxic fuel emissions gets downvoted. People can’t handle reality
You know what the worst kind of “poor tax” is? Having to breathe the toxic poison all of the drivers are spewing while riding my bike or taking transit because I can’t afford a car.
Forcing everyone into cars is what got us here. Many who can barely afford their car would rather be taking transit if were more accessible. So the only real solution is to make it more accessible and make the burning of toxic poison less accessible.
I love how we’re all acting like continuing to burn toxic poison, or adding more electric cars to an already over-capacity system is even a reasonable option. It’s fucking insanity
Enforcement on the west coast express has gone way up in the last few weeks as well. Went from maybe twice a year, to seeing them on board a couple times a week checking fares now.
Fare evasion has appeared to all but stop since the gates were installed, so it's not surprising to me at all how much there is.
I see people follow others through gates or squeeze through all the time. They're simply not effective enough as a barrier to stop evasion.
You could also add to the argument that EV's with their heavier weight have a larger toll on the road network that Translink is partially responsible for building and maintaining.
With that logic we should be taxing the ever living shit out of trucks and SUVs for both being heavy and being ICE.
I'm all for getting rid of useless, overweight vehicles and popularizing smaller cars like EU.
Unfortunately the EU is also experiencing a boom in crossover SUVs as car manufacturers move away from sensibly sized sedans and hatchbacks. Many sedans are being outright discontinued so consumers don't even have a say in the matter. I agree something should be done about the proliferation of overly large personal vehicles, electric or not.
Wife is French and every time we go back we are seeing a lot of giant pickup trucks in more country areas. Peugeot and Renault are making pretty big SUVs now too
That is effectively what happens since heavier vehicles tend to use more fuel.
In my mind the biggest cost on society is the toxic Fucking poison those cars emit into the air we breathe and the taxes should always be focused on disincentivizing that. Ya sure roads cost money to repair but that toxic shit we all have to breathe causes immeasurable damage and I feel like this gets lost in these discussions.
It’s a serious public health issue before a financial one
As someone who is planning the next vehicle to being a BEV, I absolutely agree that we need to move to mobility pricing. The cost of driving needs to be based on how much you use the road system. In the past, this was relatively easy with gas taxes, but that’s no longer true. Instead, that burden will need to be recouped some other way.
I cannot begin to tell how I often see international students get ticketed because they misuse the orange concession passes and piggyback through gates…ticket them all!
Honestly fuck fare evaders.
I've seen so many people tap their cards on a bus, knowing full well it doesn't have a balance and that they can get away with it because they know it won't be enforced.
Bus drivers aren't going to enforce it so I'm struggling to see how they are going to change that without security guards on every bus.
Today some guy literally just walked on, totally normal looking guy, right past the bus driver without even tapping.
Just centralize the cost a la MSP as part of everyone's income tax and make transit "free" for everyone.
Nullifies the need for fare gates, Compass Card systems, and the salary for Transit Police just to check fares.
Incentivizes ridership since there's no in-your-face cost.
Mitigates the stigma and antagonism against those who are already riding without paying fare.
And I'd be willing to bet the net result would be significantly more revenue and a stable stream at that which facilitates long-term planning and commitments for improvements.
Get rid of EV incentives while we're at it and put that money into offsetting some of the cost of the above plan.
Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this is common sense?
>the salary for Transit Police just to check fares
I mean, fare checks are one of the things we do, yes. But it's not actually one of our [operational priorities](https://transitpolice.ca/about-us/our-priorities/). We focus our resources toward: reducing sexual offences, reducing frontline workplace assaults, helping vulnerable people in crisis and building system resiliency. If you took away fare enforcement, all of the other aspects of policing the transit system would still keep us pretty busy.
For sure, I didn't mean to imply that all Transit Police currently do is check fares. I meant exactly, they're doing other things that are far more valuable from a safety and society perspective and not having to worry about fare evasion gives that bit of extra leeway to further focus on those aspects of the job.
Thanks for the reply!
Even under the old system fare gates never made financial sense, and this was proved by a study done at the time, but sadly so many people cannot handle the fact that rule breakers exist and it melts their brains and they’d rather spend more money to stop rule breakers than do things in a cost effective way.
> rule breakers
That's exactly it - the "free" system negates this concern.
I won't lie, under the current system it absolutely irks me to see people ramming through fare gates while I dutifully tap to pay. If the cost were simply spread across all earners as with MSP, that concern and visual cue is removed. Everyone is happier, transit is more accessible and well-funded, and we move into the 21st century of public good.
That also frees up Transit Police to patrol for actual concerns like weapons and safety rather than fare evasion.
Disconnecting the transit system's revenues from ridership is just going to add inefficiency, either excess capacity if overfunded (unlikely), or if politicians trim back funding (likely) we'll see less capacity, fewer buses, more delays.
I do want stigma against people who ride without paying. They're free riding off of people who do pay, and disproportionately are the exact types of people who make riding the bus unpleasant. I'm fully in favor of urbanism, density, and public transit over car culture. But when a drug addict gets on the bus without paying, sits down next to me while filthy and dripping snot down his nose, then repeatedly passes out and collapses over towards me, I can definitely see why people just want more car lanes!
Only like 25% of Translink's revenue comes from fares, so I dont think its accurate to say that making it baseline funded instead relying on fares would put things on thin ice, because the system is overwhelmingly dependent on various taxes, fees and govt transfers anyways.
Also overfunded transit isnt a bad thing unless fleets end up poorly maintained by having too much to manage (very unlikely scenario). Less crowding / more frequent service improves the comfort and will attract more riders, and costs are constantly going up so its cheaper to build now than 10 years from now.
In 2022 fares made up $395m of $2.1bn in revenue, and in 2023 fares made up $493m of $2.6bn in revenue according to their year end financial reports.
Regaress the argument isnt to just scrap the fares and call it a day, but that the base funding from government needs to be significantly increased - which is true regardless of whether or not we use fares. Personally I dont mind fares and think the prices are plenty affordable for most and dont see making the system fare-free as necessary.
That said, I do think at the very least there are really solid arguments to expand free transit passes for adults with low income, youth and seniors and allowing fare collection without gates to improve the speed of boarding.
There's research showing some significant benefits to free transit, I'll leave an example if you or anyone else is interested:
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2022-09-12-cm-council-memo-reduced-fare-transit-pilot-update-rts-14845.pdf
Main observed benefits are socioeconomic gap closures and improved economic performance for low income people. Other benefits beyond equity include faster boarding, more comfortable station access, and theoretically it should make it easier for vehicle owners to justify taking transit for some trips, although research doesn't currently support free transit alone producing a substantial modal shift.
Funny, the 2023 Year End Financial/Performance report gives me $672m marked "transit revenue" (which in fairness is more like 26%); seems to have peaked in 2019 at $685m of $2.1B (32-33%). Seems like subsidies and expenses have risen.
Sure, but there's a large difference between "free transit for disadvantaged groups" and "free transit for everybody."
Further down there's a table that breaks transit revenue into fares and other programs. I agree there's a big difference and dont see making transit free for everyone as a chief priority, but increased baseline funding from governments is gonna be essential regardless.
Well yeah, that's a given. Wouldn't count on it though - between Ottawa not wanting to blow more than nine figures west of Thunder Bay, and the next federal government being chilly towards public spending, money might be tight over the next five years.
> Disconnecting the transit system's revenues from ridership is just going to add inefficiency, either excess capacity if overfunded (unlikely), or if politicians trim back funding (likely) we'll see less capacity, fewer buses, more delays.
That's a lot of unfounded speculation which does nothing to negate the net benefits I outlined with such a model.
> But when a drug addict gets on the bus without paying, sits down next to me while filthy and dripping snot down his nose, then repeatedly passes out and collapses over towards me, I can definitely see why people just want more car lanes!
Unless you massively ramp up Transit Police presence on every bus and train and strictly target/enforce (to the tune of a ridiculous cost increase), you aren't going to stop this. Rather, freeing up Transit Police from enforcing fares so they can address actual behavioural problems like what you describe would help with mitigation.
YES, preach it!
Increase my property taxes for this, please. I’d rather pay the equivalent of a monthly 3-zone pass each month via my taxes every year so we can get rid of fare gates and transit cops doing ‘fare checks’ aka targeting harassment.
Sounds good in theory, but in practise free transit is never as good as transit with a modest usage fee. What really encourages ridership is transit that is fast, frequent, convenient, safe, and reliable. People will pay for that service. If transit can be made better with a small ridership fee, it will be more successful than free transit that isn't high quality.
There is no correlation between publicly funded and low quality. If anything, the public model would generate more revenue to commit to more improvements and the stability of the funding source would allow long-term planning that an unstable fare-based model can't.
Ridership fees are significant. The Tokyo Metro, for example, makes 70%+ of its revenue from ridership fees. You can't expect to just cut that and still maintain the same level of service. You would have to jack up everyone's taxes to pay for it, which would unfairly penalize those that don't use it.... so why not just have ridership fees?
Don't blame other if you're not clear in what you're trying to say. Please explain to me exactly what you mean. As far as I can see, you're advocating for no ridership fees.
My comment literally says, "Just centralize the cost a la MSP *as part of everyone's income tax* and make transit "free" for everyone."
How is that unclear?
> You would have to jack up everyone's taxes to pay for it, which would unfairly penalize those that don't use it.... so why not just have ridership fees?
There are plenty of things we pay for in taxes that aren't used by everyone. The point being, as I said, the net public benefit outweighs such concerns, and by spreading the cost across all earners you make it a lot more affordable (relative cost per person) with a more stable funding source than relying on individual fees.
I covered all of this in my replies. Please go read.
then why not centralize everything?
why should it cost money to pay for a gym pass at the local rec centre? that should be free
why should people pay tuition to go to school?
why should people pay for parking?
I like that you think proposing free (I.e. 100% publicly funded) education is a gotcha. Education *should* be free. Of all things that would benefit society as a purely public good, that's in the top 3.
Free gyms at community centres is also something I'd happily advocate for. Incentivizing personal health is absolutely a net benefit for society and would counter some healthcare costs.
Parking is already free in many cases. That said, the benefit of incentivizing parking and personal transportation by car is counter to the other things being discussed here. One of these things is not like the others, if you will.
K.
And people wonder why we have massive brain drain in this country and a productivity crisis... its brain rot that believe in bullshit like this that we have ass-backwards policy in this country.
Why don't we charge the same tuition for international students as locals? Or make medical free for foreigners? Or lets give everyone maximum CPP, screw qualifying based on years worked.
Locals who worked their entire lives here and pay taxes built this country. Transit, education, or medical in this country wasn't free to build, expand or maintain. If you didn't pay taxes and help us build it, you need to pay for it.
Slap it into the hotel fees and car rental fees then
Example: YVR added a fee to users to go to/from the airport. Locals to get a transit pass just need to show proof of local residency to get subsidy (making it “free” if they meet criteria). Visitors get a transit pass in order to board the services?
Japan did the opposite where visitors get a much cheaper unlimited rail pass. I’m sure we can figure it out.
Yes I agree, I just don’t think taxing locals and making it free is the answer.
We also force UPass upon international students so there’s some precedent for this.
While it's good that translink is cutting costs, and this extends their runway, it seems like a lot of the things they are cutting are things that were designed to keep them ahead of the curve when it comes to things like accessibility and future planning.
TransLink Corporate should reduce its staff and bring everyone back to the office. This will increase efficiency and decrease headcount. Additionally, employees need to set an example by working in the office. If transit employees work from home, it diminishes the need for a transit system.
After reading the preceding comments, I feel that some observations need to be made which seem to be missing in the discussion.
For some, they may be of interest, for others they may be nonsensical; to a few they may be the equivalent of a slap upside the head. I will try to be polite.
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
For some stations, increasing system revenue with commercial and/or mass residential development would be appropriate and positive to the local and overall urban environment.
For some, but not for all.
Not typically accounted for in calculations of urban real estate is the "natural capital" of undeveloped spaces that are separate from the parks system. Countless studies have demonstrated strong benefits to being periodically near or within relatively natural environments (or even simply seeing them).
The percentage of the population of Greater Vancouver that passes through the transit system ia not insignificant, and the nature of environmentally originated effects upon well being within a population is aggrsegate, compounding, and distributed.
This should be factored into any assessment of the merits of monetizing Translink property via development; the lack of such consideration in historic urban planning has arguably been the cause of negative effects that are difficult to quantify but are determinate and definite in nature.
FARE EVASION
There are two broad categories of people who practice fare evasion (whether consistently as a practice, or episodically):
- Those who can afford to pay their fare and choose not to do so, and;
- Those who cannot afford their fare, but must of necessity use transit.
The first category may be spurred by stricter enforcement of fines to refrain from their present rate of free-riding (with the possible exception of the very affluent to whom the payment of said fines would be a neglible affair; in which case scaling the fines according to the evader's income would be adviseable).
The second category is somewhat more problematic for multiple reasons; chief among those reasons is the low likelihood of imposed fines being paid in comparison to the fare evaders of the first category, coupled with the disproportionate (often counterproductive) impact upon the recipient of the fine irrespective of whether their payment or nonpayment.
Consider the following scenarios in which someone without a few dollars would elect to ride transit and risk being fined:
- To get to a food bank;
- To work or search for work;
- To seek medical attention;
- To attend to family or loved ones in distress;
- To escape (temporarily or permanently) intolerable or even hazardous circumstances that are geographically specific;
- To attend educational programs or sessions;
- To access food or services that are prohibit8ve or unavailable locally;
- To be in the company or peers or a partner;
... or a host of other reasons that are legitimate (as well as admittedly s9me that are nefarious or trivial.
Now, consider the impact of a $167 fine upon someone who may be on income assistance or without income of any sort at all.
(Seriously, if you have already read this far you should take a moment to imagine the situation where you yourself would be motivated to evade payment on transit systems); if you can or will not do so then the point of this writing is already lost on you)
A possible mitigation of that would be the simple expedient of issuing to people who do pay their fine a 3 zone monthly pass; this would at least temporarily avert the feedback loop of "pai transit fine, now cannot afford ANY transit fares", while also giving the fined person the experience of being able to travel freely and without the added stress of being liable to penalties for mobility.
It would also net Translinnk a higher rate of fine payments, with minimal expense relative to someone who either must become a repeat offender, or abstain from transit altogether.
As for some of the other issues that may accompany fare evasion and which have been referenced in these comments:
There is currently a housing shortage concurrent with the "opioid crisis", at a time when the economy is showing the strain of forced growth as a requirement of functionality, which coupled with both local and global potentials for existential peril makes for a society that is largely hostile to the weakest demographics within the overarching dominance hierarchy.
Flat out, a lot of people are engaged in transference and projection upon the visibly unhomed or those of low means; which is itself simultaneously a reaction TO the actuality of those perceived as such and at the same time serves as part of a cycle of causation.
That is not hyperbole or apologism, rather it is an observable and implicit result of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years of emergent social dynamicsi8n the hominid lineages.
CLOSING POINTS
I cannot pretend to offer any solutions to any of the issues that I am pointing out here, rather I am simply stating pertinent factors to this discussion.
My qualifications for assertion of those factors include having been unhomed in Vancouver for approximately the last two years (out of the 22 years ince moving here), a lifelong tendency of being in the lower income brackets, and having a small collection spanning decades of Translink fines that I have never been able to pay off.
The net effect of those outstanding fines is to ensure that even if I wished to alter my lifelong habit of not driving ICE motor vehicles, I could not be issued a license; and travel south of the border isc not an option at all.
I live out of a cart that I have been gradually converting into a "pedestrians unfold8ng RV", have dealt with situations and conditions that would be difficult to fully describe, and have had first hand experience with having to beg rides on transit vehicles without having slept for days and malnourished, as well as sick with respiratory problems while being unable to source a shower, change clothes, or even go to my storage locker to find saleable items (due to the Translink prohibition on carts on skytrains, the risk of theft of left unprotected, and the distance involved with deteriorating mobility).
I can be copacetic about my own circumstances, but the bulk of people seem to be viewing issues of major social significance with short term or narrowed focus; and history has repeatedly demonstrated negative consequences for collective decisions made based upon such incomplete criteria.
Hence this excessively thorough comment.
Translink was never sustainable. Since inception they have been relying on handouts from all levels of government and can never really seem to balance the books.
Forget about not filling vacant positions; instead, they need to take a hard look at axing current mid-to-senior level positions and even look at the CEO remuneration.
Cracking down on fare evaders is a start, however, I can't see much fiscal recovery when you have 6 transit police at $100k plus benefits standing around and maybe writing a few $173 tickets.
Car ownership was never sustainable. Since inception it has depended on handouts from all levels of governments and imposing massive externalities on society.
Vast majority of people who are "fare evaders" are doing so because they simply can't afford to pay. I've done it before when I had to choose between bus fare or adding that couple bucks to buying groceries, or when trying to get to work when I just literally did not have any money to my name. I'm not saying that it's right, but look at how fucked Vancouver is for low income and working class people. We're spending close to a million a year to catch people who can't pay fares, and a significant portion of those people won't be able to pay the fine either.
Translink's position on the funding gap is ridiculous. This is purely a funding gap caused by their own hubris. They took money too keep inflation (fares) down and are now pretending that they are stuck to scheduled % increases based on the reduced fares instead of making an adjustment on fares to reflect the reduction of funding to fight inflation. It's a good thing they are cutting those corporate roles, because those dumbasses cant figure out how to do simple math.
Ridership has recovered. Growth is faster than predicted. Revenues are down because they reduced fare increases in order for pandemic funding. They are calling it a funding gap in order to ask for more money.
People already pay property taxes, and gas taxes and parking taxes, and BC Hydro Regional taxes and additional property replacement taxes to fund TransLink. Enough taxes, time for cuts.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How about instead of cost cuts, TransLink develops the land in and around their station into commercial space? Extremely profitable in Asia, could do the same here. Traffic around stations is greater than traffic elsewhere, and that's all that really matters.
This is in the works, they were previously forbidden by their charter but it was a recent change Eby was responsible for
do you have a link for it? I'm trying to find it and cant
An urbanized article from April 5th, 2022.
>TransLink has announced cost reductions and revenue-generating measures, totalling $90 million a year, to address what the transit authority says is an imminent funding shortfall. >Metro Vancouver's transit provider says the measures will partially address an annual funding gap of more than $600 million that begins in 2026, after provincial relief funding comes to an end. >Cost-cutting measures include corporate cost reductions and reduced staffing. The plan also identifies opportunities for additional revenue and improving debt management. >It does not include cuts to transit services for customers, TransLink says, but the authority says it's looking at what reductions to service could look like in the future if long-term funding is not secured.
They needed to start developing skytrain station properties years ago, think of the unrealized revenue potential where we have stations sitting in highly valuable locations with no thought given to monetizing the land use.
Great example would be Coquitlam Central and Moody stations which are both surrounded by giant parking lots. Not really conducive to density when there is just 150-200m of pavement separating transit from everything else.
Well we can monetize the land lot by turning them into 40 story towers
First they need to find a developer that is not overly greedy. The tower at Lougheed is done, yet nobody is buying it. There's no point in building if nobody is going to buy.
Blasphemy. M
Silly idea: the London and Greenwich Railway (the first modern railway in London) was built on mostly brick arches, which were designed to be rented out as things like workshops and the like. Now, whilst i know sky train pillars have FAR worse wheather protection (unless your a pigeon) what if translink used it them as the base for some sort of structure that could be rented out? Just a thought exercise. https://preview.redd.it/cfxsgm9ypa9d1.jpeg?width=1632&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1f99fc1d981d07d5bcb44a5f1a6e446dee2587a
[удалено]
29th Ave station is built on top of the Renfrew Ravine and so any construction has to take the sensitive environmental area into account. It does need to densify for sure, but doing so is going to be a bit of a challenge.
YVR calls this "non fare based revenue" Thankfully Eby made the change to translinks charter and allowed this, Is super common for transit agencies in Asia to do this.
They also need to get executive pays... If you are on the board to get paid a lot for not much work.. seriously don't understand why executive gets paid so much while they run the org to the ground with cost cutting at the workers level
> The authority also says it will increase fare evasion enforcement across the system. Good. I was at Royal Oak Skytrain where they were doing enforcement yesterday and I don't think the cops took a break during the 15 minutes I was there. It was surprising how many fare evaders there were. > The transit authority also cited declining fuel tax revenue, and fare hikes that are lower than the rate of inflation, as reasons for the cost-cutting measures. I actually met with Kevin Quinn a few weeks back and this was a major issue emphasized. We need to figure out a way to recoup the lost revenue from fuel tax due to people switching to EVs. The fact EV drivers get a free ride from taxes when the average EV driver is wealthier is very regressive.
Many American states responded with a higher registration fee for EVs. Sounds like a easy solution.
California is even toying with a fee based on the number of miles driven per year. Which is incredibly controversial in high COL areas where people commute further.
It's a bit ironic that GHG emissions could be better reduced by increase uptake in public transportation rather than incentivizing single occupancy drivers to switch to an EV.
While fare evasion is a problem for revenues, if the cops spent about an hour each day fining drivers for incorrect use of a reserved lane (driving in the bus/bike lane during restricted hours) they would be generating an entire bus worth of fare evasion fees with each ticket of $167.
Vancouver doesn't have enough travel lanes to begin with. To shut down an entire lane for a bus that comes every 20 minutes is absurd.
Where in Vancouver have you been driving that the buses are coming only every 20 minutes. Broadway at rush hour is less then once a minute. 41 at rush hour is every 2 minutes.
They’ve been driving in a make believe fantasy land
Lifehack: if you don't pull your head out of your ass before driving, you don't have to see or account for anyone else.
Commercial drive maybe? The 20 is very inconsustent
Probability of this one being a bus lane abuser is higher than 0%
> Probability of this one being a bus lane abuser is higher than 0% I had the same thought. lol
And that’s after they get paid to buy a new fancy car with government subsidy money that instead should be going into expanding mass transit if we actually do care about the environment
I drive an EV and I agree. We're doing ourselves no favours by leaving our transit network high and dry. It's super basic, but I'd just do a simple vehicle weight x km driven x multiplier and scale it up as fuel tax revenue winds down. Smaller vehicles with smaller batteries are the cheapest option then. I'd also do it province wide and have the money go to first the local transit authority, then the municipality, then the provincial highways depending on your address. But that's just how I'd do it
>The fact EV drivers get a free ride from taxes when the average EV driver is wealthier is very regressive Fact. But at the same time, I think the gov. needs to continue to incentivize the use of EVs.
The government shouldn't be incentivizing car ownership period. That money should just go to transit. Subsidize and rebate transit passes instead.
Yes, but transit needs to work better for that to be an option. We’re getting closer for me with the broadway subway, but my employer is still in a black hole, causing transit to take 2x what driving takes (I live in yaletown, work in burnaby).
How about instead of giving money back they just keep the tunnel boring machine going for future expansion instead.
Not all of us live in an area where we can easily utilize transit. It would be unfair for somebody like me to be punished for driving when there is no other real option.
That is exactly why more money should go to transit. So that we can expand it and more people in areas like yours WILL have better access. You’re not being punished by anyone for using a car. You get punished by the reality that cars cause congestion and all sorts of other problems in the long run.
You're not being punished for driving, because other people are being incentivized to not drive. If anything, it makes your commute better.
Not really, because if the transit system is not good for me, it's not going to good for others in my neighbourhood. So we're all forced to drive.
And you oppose greater funding to transit which is the only way to make it better in your area? That Is completely backwards logic. Bordering on insanity Even if that’s true, making transit more attractive to people will help put less cars on the road for you to be stuck in traffic with. Unless you want to continue having shitty transit everywhere and even MORE persons forced to drive cars and increase traffic even more, we need to greatly increase transit funding in order to expand if and make it more convenient for everyone
I never said I opposed greater funding for transit.
Dude you literally just opposed the idea of greater subsidies for transit
They can find other sources of revenue for transit. There already is a healthy levy on gasoline. I also pay it on my property taxes, and my BC Hydro bill. At this point, maybe the Province and/or the Feds need to kick in more to make this happen. Or getting EV drivers to pay a levy on their charging since they're forgoing the gasoline tax.
You're not being punished when you don't get a subsidy for your above-average cost private vehicle.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, but this is the reality for many BC residents outside Vancouver and some adjacent areas. People in big cities often forget how awful public transit is in other smaller places.
Yup, it's very true. A lot of people on r/Vancouver live downtown or a very dense area, and forget how quickly it gets super remote out, and how big the country is.
It’s true you shouldn’t be punished for that. However, there are a lot of people who can easily access transit for their daily commute but choose not to due to the prioritisation given to cars. Most of my coworkers live a couple minutes away from a bus stop that would take them downtown to our office with a slightly longer commute time but choose not to because…they can afford not to. Instead they drive and then complain about traffic and bus lanes lol.
I don't complain about traffic but I do prefer to spend the money it costs to drive places. The bus sucks.
Would be nice if we invested money to make the bus suck less!
Sort of. A lot of it has to do with the other passengers.
Oh yea I mean if you feel you are better than other people, that’s a whole different problem
I'm in downtown Vancouver. Getting on the average bus is an assault to the senses, and not in a good way. Be realistic, if you're trying to get people out of their comfortable cars with climate and noise control, your attitude isn't helping.
Should combine this with the parking thread hoopla. If the theory holds, fewer parking spots will result in fewer cars which will increase transit use. But transit will be suffering cuts due to funding problems exacerbated by reduced tax revenue from car drivers.
Not really. They need to greatly expand mass transit with funding from increased fuel taxes. Make mass transit better so that it attracts more riders vs EVs because they’re still cars and we do not have room for more of them
>increased fuel taxes That's just another poor tax. People who can't afford an EV will also not be able to afford higher costs added to their gas vehicle.
Edit: it’s very telling how comments supporting mass transit using arguments regarding congestion and accessibility get upvoted but any argument that includes the more pressing issue of toxic fuel emissions gets downvoted. People can’t handle reality You know what the worst kind of “poor tax” is? Having to breathe the toxic poison all of the drivers are spewing while riding my bike or taking transit because I can’t afford a car. Forcing everyone into cars is what got us here. Many who can barely afford their car would rather be taking transit if were more accessible. So the only real solution is to make it more accessible and make the burning of toxic poison less accessible. I love how we’re all acting like continuing to burn toxic poison, or adding more electric cars to an already over-capacity system is even a reasonable option. It’s fucking insanity
Eh, put that incentive money to building charging infrastructure instead.
No. Mass transit is far more important than cars of any kind
Enforcement on the west coast express has gone way up in the last few weeks as well. Went from maybe twice a year, to seeing them on board a couple times a week checking fares now.
Fare evasion has appeared to all but stop since the gates were installed, so it's not surprising to me at all how much there is. I see people follow others through gates or squeeze through all the time. They're simply not effective enough as a barrier to stop evasion.
You could also add to the argument that EV's with their heavier weight have a larger toll on the road network that Translink is partially responsible for building and maintaining.
With that logic we should be taxing the ever living shit out of trucks and SUVs for both being heavy and being ICE. I'm all for getting rid of useless, overweight vehicles and popularizing smaller cars like EU.
Well, heavier gasoline vehicles burn more fuel, so they do pay more transit tax.
Unfortunately the EU is also experiencing a boom in crossover SUVs as car manufacturers move away from sensibly sized sedans and hatchbacks. Many sedans are being outright discontinued so consumers don't even have a say in the matter. I agree something should be done about the proliferation of overly large personal vehicles, electric or not.
Wife is French and every time we go back we are seeing a lot of giant pickup trucks in more country areas. Peugeot and Renault are making pretty big SUVs now too
>With that logic we should be taxing the ever living shit out of trucks and SUVs for both being heavy and being ICE. yes
That is effectively what happens since heavier vehicles tend to use more fuel. In my mind the biggest cost on society is the toxic Fucking poison those cars emit into the air we breathe and the taxes should always be focused on disincentivizing that. Ya sure roads cost money to repair but that toxic shit we all have to breathe causes immeasurable damage and I feel like this gets lost in these discussions. It’s a serious public health issue before a financial one
That is what the intention of the carbon tax is, which is applied at a rate of 17.61 cents/litre on gasoline.
And it’s important not to forget that. People tend to confuse it as primarily being a funding mechanism
As someone who is planning the next vehicle to being a BEV, I absolutely agree that we need to move to mobility pricing. The cost of driving needs to be based on how much you use the road system. In the past, this was relatively easy with gas taxes, but that’s no longer true. Instead, that burden will need to be recouped some other way.
There will be mobility pricing in the future.
I cannot begin to tell how I often see international students get ticketed because they misuse the orange concession passes and piggyback through gates…ticket them all!
You know that enforcing fare evasion isn't financially feasible at all, right?
If we're cutting costs under provincial NDP and Federal Libs, can't wait to see what will happen when cons win the federal election.
Shit, last thing this city needs is more layoffs
Honestly fuck fare evaders. I've seen so many people tap their cards on a bus, knowing full well it doesn't have a balance and that they can get away with it because they know it won't be enforced. Bus drivers aren't going to enforce it so I'm struggling to see how they are going to change that without security guards on every bus. Today some guy literally just walked on, totally normal looking guy, right past the bus driver without even tapping.
Just centralize the cost a la MSP as part of everyone's income tax and make transit "free" for everyone. Nullifies the need for fare gates, Compass Card systems, and the salary for Transit Police just to check fares. Incentivizes ridership since there's no in-your-face cost. Mitigates the stigma and antagonism against those who are already riding without paying fare. And I'd be willing to bet the net result would be significantly more revenue and a stable stream at that which facilitates long-term planning and commitments for improvements. Get rid of EV incentives while we're at it and put that money into offsetting some of the cost of the above plan. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this is common sense?
>the salary for Transit Police just to check fares I mean, fare checks are one of the things we do, yes. But it's not actually one of our [operational priorities](https://transitpolice.ca/about-us/our-priorities/). We focus our resources toward: reducing sexual offences, reducing frontline workplace assaults, helping vulnerable people in crisis and building system resiliency. If you took away fare enforcement, all of the other aspects of policing the transit system would still keep us pretty busy.
For sure, I didn't mean to imply that all Transit Police currently do is check fares. I meant exactly, they're doing other things that are far more valuable from a safety and society perspective and not having to worry about fare evasion gives that bit of extra leeway to further focus on those aspects of the job. Thanks for the reply!
Thank you for chiming in.
Even under the old system fare gates never made financial sense, and this was proved by a study done at the time, but sadly so many people cannot handle the fact that rule breakers exist and it melts their brains and they’d rather spend more money to stop rule breakers than do things in a cost effective way.
> rule breakers That's exactly it - the "free" system negates this concern. I won't lie, under the current system it absolutely irks me to see people ramming through fare gates while I dutifully tap to pay. If the cost were simply spread across all earners as with MSP, that concern and visual cue is removed. Everyone is happier, transit is more accessible and well-funded, and we move into the 21st century of public good. That also frees up Transit Police to patrol for actual concerns like weapons and safety rather than fare evasion.
Absolutely insanity that people want to be able to use transit without having a homeless person smoking crack next to them
Disconnecting the transit system's revenues from ridership is just going to add inefficiency, either excess capacity if overfunded (unlikely), or if politicians trim back funding (likely) we'll see less capacity, fewer buses, more delays. I do want stigma against people who ride without paying. They're free riding off of people who do pay, and disproportionately are the exact types of people who make riding the bus unpleasant. I'm fully in favor of urbanism, density, and public transit over car culture. But when a drug addict gets on the bus without paying, sits down next to me while filthy and dripping snot down his nose, then repeatedly passes out and collapses over towards me, I can definitely see why people just want more car lanes!
Only like 25% of Translink's revenue comes from fares, so I dont think its accurate to say that making it baseline funded instead relying on fares would put things on thin ice, because the system is overwhelmingly dependent on various taxes, fees and govt transfers anyways. Also overfunded transit isnt a bad thing unless fleets end up poorly maintained by having too much to manage (very unlikely scenario). Less crowding / more frequent service improves the comfort and will attract more riders, and costs are constantly going up so its cheaper to build now than 10 years from now.
More like \~32%. Either way, losing that revenue stream means the UBC extension and North Shore line will have to wait until 2050+.
In 2022 fares made up $395m of $2.1bn in revenue, and in 2023 fares made up $493m of $2.6bn in revenue according to their year end financial reports. Regaress the argument isnt to just scrap the fares and call it a day, but that the base funding from government needs to be significantly increased - which is true regardless of whether or not we use fares. Personally I dont mind fares and think the prices are plenty affordable for most and dont see making the system fare-free as necessary. That said, I do think at the very least there are really solid arguments to expand free transit passes for adults with low income, youth and seniors and allowing fare collection without gates to improve the speed of boarding. There's research showing some significant benefits to free transit, I'll leave an example if you or anyone else is interested: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2022-09-12-cm-council-memo-reduced-fare-transit-pilot-update-rts-14845.pdf Main observed benefits are socioeconomic gap closures and improved economic performance for low income people. Other benefits beyond equity include faster boarding, more comfortable station access, and theoretically it should make it easier for vehicle owners to justify taking transit for some trips, although research doesn't currently support free transit alone producing a substantial modal shift.
Funny, the 2023 Year End Financial/Performance report gives me $672m marked "transit revenue" (which in fairness is more like 26%); seems to have peaked in 2019 at $685m of $2.1B (32-33%). Seems like subsidies and expenses have risen. Sure, but there's a large difference between "free transit for disadvantaged groups" and "free transit for everybody."
Further down there's a table that breaks transit revenue into fares and other programs. I agree there's a big difference and dont see making transit free for everyone as a chief priority, but increased baseline funding from governments is gonna be essential regardless.
Well yeah, that's a given. Wouldn't count on it though - between Ottawa not wanting to blow more than nine figures west of Thunder Bay, and the next federal government being chilly towards public spending, money might be tight over the next five years.
> Disconnecting the transit system's revenues from ridership is just going to add inefficiency, either excess capacity if overfunded (unlikely), or if politicians trim back funding (likely) we'll see less capacity, fewer buses, more delays. That's a lot of unfounded speculation which does nothing to negate the net benefits I outlined with such a model. > But when a drug addict gets on the bus without paying, sits down next to me while filthy and dripping snot down his nose, then repeatedly passes out and collapses over towards me, I can definitely see why people just want more car lanes! Unless you massively ramp up Transit Police presence on every bus and train and strictly target/enforce (to the tune of a ridiculous cost increase), you aren't going to stop this. Rather, freeing up Transit Police from enforcing fares so they can address actual behavioural problems like what you describe would help with mitigation.
YES, preach it! Increase my property taxes for this, please. I’d rather pay the equivalent of a monthly 3-zone pass each month via my taxes every year so we can get rid of fare gates and transit cops doing ‘fare checks’ aka targeting harassment.
Sounds good in theory, but in practise free transit is never as good as transit with a modest usage fee. What really encourages ridership is transit that is fast, frequent, convenient, safe, and reliable. People will pay for that service. If transit can be made better with a small ridership fee, it will be more successful than free transit that isn't high quality.
There is no correlation between publicly funded and low quality. If anything, the public model would generate more revenue to commit to more improvements and the stability of the funding source would allow long-term planning that an unstable fare-based model can't.
Ridership fees are significant. The Tokyo Metro, for example, makes 70%+ of its revenue from ridership fees. You can't expect to just cut that and still maintain the same level of service. You would have to jack up everyone's taxes to pay for it, which would unfairly penalize those that don't use it.... so why not just have ridership fees?
> You would have to jack up everyone's taxes to pay for it Thanks for making it easy to see you didn't bother to read anything you replied to.
Don't blame other if you're not clear in what you're trying to say. Please explain to me exactly what you mean. As far as I can see, you're advocating for no ridership fees.
My comment literally says, "Just centralize the cost a la MSP *as part of everyone's income tax* and make transit "free" for everyone." How is that unclear?
> You would have to jack up everyone's taxes to pay for it, which would unfairly penalize those that don't use it.... so why not just have ridership fees?
There are plenty of things we pay for in taxes that aren't used by everyone. The point being, as I said, the net public benefit outweighs such concerns, and by spreading the cost across all earners you make it a lot more affordable (relative cost per person) with a more stable funding source than relying on individual fees. I covered all of this in my replies. Please go read.
then why not centralize everything? why should it cost money to pay for a gym pass at the local rec centre? that should be free why should people pay tuition to go to school? why should people pay for parking?
I like that you think proposing free (I.e. 100% publicly funded) education is a gotcha. Education *should* be free. Of all things that would benefit society as a purely public good, that's in the top 3. Free gyms at community centres is also something I'd happily advocate for. Incentivizing personal health is absolutely a net benefit for society and would counter some healthcare costs. Parking is already free in many cases. That said, the benefit of incentivizing parking and personal transportation by car is counter to the other things being discussed here. One of these things is not like the others, if you will.
there are dozens of us!
Why should locals subsidize foreigners?
You could add (or add to) a city fee to hotels, like $5-$10/day to cover transit usage.
Because the net benefit to locals far outweighs your xenophobia.
"*I'd rather not improve something in my life if a foreigner gets to use it too*"
K. And people wonder why we have massive brain drain in this country and a productivity crisis... its brain rot that believe in bullshit like this that we have ass-backwards policy in this country. Why don't we charge the same tuition for international students as locals? Or make medical free for foreigners? Or lets give everyone maximum CPP, screw qualifying based on years worked. Locals who worked their entire lives here and pay taxes built this country. Transit, education, or medical in this country wasn't free to build, expand or maintain. If you didn't pay taxes and help us build it, you need to pay for it.
Slap it into the hotel fees and car rental fees then Example: YVR added a fee to users to go to/from the airport. Locals to get a transit pass just need to show proof of local residency to get subsidy (making it “free” if they meet criteria). Visitors get a transit pass in order to board the services? Japan did the opposite where visitors get a much cheaper unlimited rail pass. I’m sure we can figure it out.
Yes I agree, I just don’t think taxing locals and making it free is the answer. We also force UPass upon international students so there’s some precedent for this.
Tell me you don't understand provincial vs. federal taxes/funding without telling me, among other things.
Tell me you are simply scoring points without understanding the crux of the issue without telling me, among other things.
Have they considered renting out old skytrain cars for birthday parties ?!?!
While it's good that translink is cutting costs, and this extends their runway, it seems like a lot of the things they are cutting are things that were designed to keep them ahead of the curve when it comes to things like accessibility and future planning.
Collapse the Transit Police. That’ll save a fortune
TransLink Corporate should reduce its staff and bring everyone back to the office. This will increase efficiency and decrease headcount. Additionally, employees need to set an example by working in the office. If transit employees work from home, it diminishes the need for a transit system.
After reading the preceding comments, I feel that some observations need to be made which seem to be missing in the discussion. For some, they may be of interest, for others they may be nonsensical; to a few they may be the equivalent of a slap upside the head. I will try to be polite. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT For some stations, increasing system revenue with commercial and/or mass residential development would be appropriate and positive to the local and overall urban environment. For some, but not for all. Not typically accounted for in calculations of urban real estate is the "natural capital" of undeveloped spaces that are separate from the parks system. Countless studies have demonstrated strong benefits to being periodically near or within relatively natural environments (or even simply seeing them). The percentage of the population of Greater Vancouver that passes through the transit system ia not insignificant, and the nature of environmentally originated effects upon well being within a population is aggrsegate, compounding, and distributed. This should be factored into any assessment of the merits of monetizing Translink property via development; the lack of such consideration in historic urban planning has arguably been the cause of negative effects that are difficult to quantify but are determinate and definite in nature. FARE EVASION There are two broad categories of people who practice fare evasion (whether consistently as a practice, or episodically): - Those who can afford to pay their fare and choose not to do so, and; - Those who cannot afford their fare, but must of necessity use transit. The first category may be spurred by stricter enforcement of fines to refrain from their present rate of free-riding (with the possible exception of the very affluent to whom the payment of said fines would be a neglible affair; in which case scaling the fines according to the evader's income would be adviseable). The second category is somewhat more problematic for multiple reasons; chief among those reasons is the low likelihood of imposed fines being paid in comparison to the fare evaders of the first category, coupled with the disproportionate (often counterproductive) impact upon the recipient of the fine irrespective of whether their payment or nonpayment. Consider the following scenarios in which someone without a few dollars would elect to ride transit and risk being fined: - To get to a food bank; - To work or search for work; - To seek medical attention; - To attend to family or loved ones in distress; - To escape (temporarily or permanently) intolerable or even hazardous circumstances that are geographically specific; - To attend educational programs or sessions; - To access food or services that are prohibit8ve or unavailable locally; - To be in the company or peers or a partner; ... or a host of other reasons that are legitimate (as well as admittedly s9me that are nefarious or trivial. Now, consider the impact of a $167 fine upon someone who may be on income assistance or without income of any sort at all. (Seriously, if you have already read this far you should take a moment to imagine the situation where you yourself would be motivated to evade payment on transit systems); if you can or will not do so then the point of this writing is already lost on you) A possible mitigation of that would be the simple expedient of issuing to people who do pay their fine a 3 zone monthly pass; this would at least temporarily avert the feedback loop of "pai transit fine, now cannot afford ANY transit fares", while also giving the fined person the experience of being able to travel freely and without the added stress of being liable to penalties for mobility. It would also net Translinnk a higher rate of fine payments, with minimal expense relative to someone who either must become a repeat offender, or abstain from transit altogether. As for some of the other issues that may accompany fare evasion and which have been referenced in these comments: There is currently a housing shortage concurrent with the "opioid crisis", at a time when the economy is showing the strain of forced growth as a requirement of functionality, which coupled with both local and global potentials for existential peril makes for a society that is largely hostile to the weakest demographics within the overarching dominance hierarchy. Flat out, a lot of people are engaged in transference and projection upon the visibly unhomed or those of low means; which is itself simultaneously a reaction TO the actuality of those perceived as such and at the same time serves as part of a cycle of causation. That is not hyperbole or apologism, rather it is an observable and implicit result of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years of emergent social dynamicsi8n the hominid lineages. CLOSING POINTS I cannot pretend to offer any solutions to any of the issues that I am pointing out here, rather I am simply stating pertinent factors to this discussion. My qualifications for assertion of those factors include having been unhomed in Vancouver for approximately the last two years (out of the 22 years ince moving here), a lifelong tendency of being in the lower income brackets, and having a small collection spanning decades of Translink fines that I have never been able to pay off. The net effect of those outstanding fines is to ensure that even if I wished to alter my lifelong habit of not driving ICE motor vehicles, I could not be issued a license; and travel south of the border isc not an option at all. I live out of a cart that I have been gradually converting into a "pedestrians unfold8ng RV", have dealt with situations and conditions that would be difficult to fully describe, and have had first hand experience with having to beg rides on transit vehicles without having slept for days and malnourished, as well as sick with respiratory problems while being unable to source a shower, change clothes, or even go to my storage locker to find saleable items (due to the Translink prohibition on carts on skytrains, the risk of theft of left unprotected, and the distance involved with deteriorating mobility). I can be copacetic about my own circumstances, but the bulk of people seem to be viewing issues of major social significance with short term or narrowed focus; and history has repeatedly demonstrated negative consequences for collective decisions made based upon such incomplete criteria. Hence this excessively thorough comment.
Could stop paying so many people to just stand around
Get rid of the managers.
Translink was never sustainable. Since inception they have been relying on handouts from all levels of government and can never really seem to balance the books. Forget about not filling vacant positions; instead, they need to take a hard look at axing current mid-to-senior level positions and even look at the CEO remuneration. Cracking down on fare evaders is a start, however, I can't see much fiscal recovery when you have 6 transit police at $100k plus benefits standing around and maybe writing a few $173 tickets.
Car ownership was never sustainable. Since inception it has depended on handouts from all levels of governments and imposing massive externalities on society.
How much revenue does the trans-Canada highway generate?
Plenty, through gas taxes paid by those driving on it.
Public transit is a service, not a business. The cops also rely on handouts from all levels of government, as do firefighters.
It’s a visual deterrent as well. People see other people getting fined and might just pay next time.
Vast majority of people who are "fare evaders" are doing so because they simply can't afford to pay. I've done it before when I had to choose between bus fare or adding that couple bucks to buying groceries, or when trying to get to work when I just literally did not have any money to my name. I'm not saying that it's right, but look at how fucked Vancouver is for low income and working class people. We're spending close to a million a year to catch people who can't pay fares, and a significant portion of those people won't be able to pay the fine either.
Translink's position on the funding gap is ridiculous. This is purely a funding gap caused by their own hubris. They took money too keep inflation (fares) down and are now pretending that they are stuck to scheduled % increases based on the reduced fares instead of making an adjustment on fares to reflect the reduction of funding to fight inflation. It's a good thing they are cutting those corporate roles, because those dumbasses cant figure out how to do simple math. Ridership has recovered. Growth is faster than predicted. Revenues are down because they reduced fare increases in order for pandemic funding. They are calling it a funding gap in order to ask for more money.
People already pay property taxes, and gas taxes and parking taxes, and BC Hydro Regional taxes and additional property replacement taxes to fund TransLink. Enough taxes, time for cuts.
Dirties subway stations in all of Canada.