History of Fare Systems

Similar documents
TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information.

Moving around Metro Vancouver: EXPLORING NEW APPROACHES TO REDUCING CONGESTION

10-Year Vision Update. Vancouver City Council May 2, 2017

9. Downtown Transit Plan

Metropolitan Council Budget Overview SFY

This is an easy to read report.

Service Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:

Fall 2018 Guide to SERVICE EXPANSION. and FARE CHANGE

What We Heard. Edmontonians in communities Northwest of City Centre share their vision of the Metro Line NW LRT Expansion

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

Welcome! Think carpool, then think bigger! Questions? Contact our Vanpool team!

2012 Water Consumption Statistics Report. Water Services Department

2.1 TRANSIT VISION 2040 FROM VISION TO ACTION. Expand regional rapid transit networks STRATEGIC DIRECTION

Advancing Electric Buses In Metro Vancouver. David Cooper TransLink, Senior Planner, System Planning Vancouver, British Columbia

Your Go-to Guide... For getting around on the new Metlink network

User Guide. handydart

5.0 Transit Discus P sion ort M P o aper ody #1 aster Transportation Plan

Newsletter. service to rider demand and ensure efficient use of its fleet. I NSIDE T HIS ISSUE

CTfastrak Expansion. Stakeholder Meeting #4 Manchester Town Hall June 3, 2016

Metra seeks your feedback!

Phase Two of the 10-Year Vision PUBLIC CONSULTATION DISCUSSION GUIDE. tenyearvision.translink.ca

Kitimat Transit handydart. User Guide

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicle Program: Present

Water Consumption Statistics Report

Click to edit Master title style

PSTA as a Mobility Manager

Dr. K. Gunasekaran Associate Professor Division of Transportation Engineering Anna University Chennai

How to favor higher car occupancy

Appendix C. Parking Strategies

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicle Program 1993-Present

The Community of Yesteryear

Frequently Asked Questions about Bus Transportation

Puget Sound Transportation Panel Factors in Daily Travel Choices September 1991

1.963 Report: A Sustainable Transportation Plan for MIT Campus May 2007

How To Start Your Own Trucking Company

STATE OF THE MTA SYSTEM REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Customers certified in accordance with ADA are eligible to use Spec-Tran.

Pedestrians, Cars, Buses and Trains? Considerations for Rapid Transit Service at Western University

EXPLORING NEW APPROACHES TO REDUCING CONGESTION

A Transit Plan for the Future. Draft Network Plan

RESIDENT PARKING IN University Village

Executive Summary. Phase 2 Evaluation Report. Introduction

UC Santa Cruz TAPS 3-Year Fee & Fare Proposal, through

2011 Saskatoon Transit Services Annual Report

Presentation A Blue Slides 1-5.

Sean P. McBride, Executive Director Kalamazoo Metro Transit. Presentation to Michigan Transportation Planning Association July 13, 2016

New York, We ve Got a Problem!

Policy Note. Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost.

Appendix C: GAPS ANALYSIS

2 EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE LEVELS

Valley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014

Georgetown Transit ADA Plan

Valley Metro. ADA Paratransit RIDE GUIDE

New York s success was built on a transportation system that was fast, safe, and fair. It s time to return to those principles.

Paratransit Riders Guide September 2014

WATFORD LOCAL PLAN PART 2. Review of Car Parking Policy and Standards. Evidence Base. February 2012

Service and Operations Planning for Ottawa s New Light Rail Line Pat Scrimgeour

1 Have you used Sun Trolley (which also includes Riverwalk Trolley)? Yes (Go to Question #2) No (Go to Question #10)

LADOT Enhancing Transit Services through Competitive Bidding

Abstract. Executive Summary. Emily Rogers Jean Wang ORF 467 Final Report-Middlesex County

7 Mass Transit. 7.1 Existing Conditions. 7.2 Transit

Jefferson Transit Authority

Chapter 4. Design and Analysis of Feeder-Line Bus. October 2016

Help shape your community investment in Wake Transit. Fiscal Year 2019 Draft Work Plan Summary

7 STEPS. to Buying a Compact Sedan Studebaker Rd, Cerritos, CA NormReevesFord.com1. NormReevesFord.

Getting a Car J. Folta

A PARADIGM FOR TRANSPORT REFORM JOHN GARDINER

RIO VISTA DELTA BREEZE RIDER S GUIDE

Wellington City Bus Review. What are we going to do this evening? The Review so far. Welcome. Draft Timetable Presentation April & May 2013

Onward travel. Insights from HS2 online panel

Synthesis of Cal Poly Senior Projects Relating to Public Transportation in San Luis Obispo County

Part I: Metered Rates

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

City of Minnetonka Maximum Parking Regulations Urban GIS. Group Members Brad Johnston Mark Kelley Jonathan Winge

Streetcar and Light Rail Design Differences. March 2015

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

Aren t You Really a Mobility Agency? Why The Vanpool Works for Transit

ASHPRINGTON ROAD Part 1

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Attachment A. BATA Resolution No. 128 BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY TOLL SCHEDULE FOR TOLL BRIDGES (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2019)

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives. 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives

ACT Canada Sustainable Mobility Summit Planning Innovations in Practice Session 6B Tuesday November 23, 2010

2013/2014 Strategic Priorities Fund Application Overview

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

Bay Campus Operations

Transport. Vocabulary and useful stuff Focuses on transport across land such as cars, buses and trains.

2 VALUE PROPOSITION VALUE PROPOSITION DEVELOPMENT

New York s success was built on a transportation system that was fast, safe, and fair. It s time to return to those principles.

Blue Ribbon Committee

PARKING OCCUPANCY IN WINDSOR CENTER

CONNECTING THE REGION

MEDIA RELEASE. June 16, 2008 For Immediate Release

06/05/2018. COMMUNITY SOLAR OVERVIEW For Generation Owners and Subscribers

Fremont. Emerson. Plymouth. Ramp A/7th St Transit Center 8th/7th St & Hennepin 8th/7th St & Nicollet 8th/7th St & 3rd Ave 8th/7th St & Park

Fairfield to Blacktown servicing Smithfield, Wetherill Park & Pemulwuy

Husky Stadium: TMP Modernization Project

U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A. Fall 2008 Transportation Status Report

BASIC REQUIREMENTS TO BE A DEALER. RV Trade Digest, January 1995

Transcription:

History of Fare Systems As noted in our 125 Years of Transit series, Vancouver s first public transit vehicle was an electric streetcar that rolled down Main Street for the first time in 1890. Soon, it was transporting Vancouver s early residents and visitors along nine kilometres of track throughout the city. A few months later, an expansion line was opened to New Westminster. From its earliest days, public transit in Metro Vancouver has focused on crossing municipal boundaries to connect the region. After nearly 100 years of experimenting with zones and boundaries, in 1984 a three-zone fare structure similar to the one we have today was created. From one flat fare for all trips to over 100 fares to choose from, our transit system has tried it all. 1958: 100 Fare options 1958: An 11- zone system is introduced with 100 different fare options based on where your trip starts and ends In 1958, the transit system covered a much smaller area than it does today. Transit service was available in only Vancouver, North Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, New Westminster, and a small section of Coquitlam. This area was divided into 11 fare zones that combined in different ways to offer over 100 distinct fare options.

The price of a fare in 1958 was based on both the start and end points of a trip and the amount of distance between those two points. In general, the price increased with the number of zones crossed. The price of a fare was related to the amount of distance travelled, but other factors also came into play. Direction mattered. The trip leaving home could cost more than the return trip because of the direction of each trip. Zone boundaries were inconsistent. Vancouver, for example, was a single zone while Burnaby was divided into two zones. The fare price to travel within only one zone varied based on which zone it was. Transfers were based on geography, so transit riders were required to pay an additional fare if they decided to take a different route, travel extra distance, or when they wanted to return home. Looking at the 1958 fare map today, one thing is immediately clear: it is complicated! The fare structure in 1958 is a good example of a system that captures the user-pay principle: everyone pays according to what they use. Fare prices increased with the number of zones crossed so that fare prices were tied to distance travelled. The high degree of detail that makes this system so complicated also makes it very precise. 1965: Two Fare Options

1965: A 4-zone system is introduced with only 2 fare options: valid for a single zone or the entire area It may come as no surprise that after seven years with a fare system as highly complicated as the one from 1958, the next fair system introduced made one big change: it was simpler. In 1965 a new and simpler fare system was introduced. The 11 zones that had existed were redrawn to four, and transit riders could purchase one of only two fares available: a Single Zone Fare, which allowed for travel within one zone, or an Area Fare, which allowed for travel that crossed any number of zone boundaries. Changes were also made to make transit more affordable for students by expanding the student discount. This option was much more simple to use and understand than the previous system. However, these new, larger zones were a less precise measurement of distance. For example, someone who wanted to travel a short distance that crossed a zone boundary was required to purchase an Area Fare for the same price as someone else who took a long trip that covered a greater distance and crossed multiple zones. 1976: The Common Area

1976: A Common Area is introduced for short trips that cross a zone boundary In 1976, a new fare system introduced a solution to short trips that crossed a zone boundary were charged the same fare as a long trip that travelled through multiple zones. This new fare system divided the region into just two zones: Zone A and Zone B. Between Zones A and B was a Common Area, which was tacked on as an extension of the zone where each trip started. For a trip to be charged a two-zone fare, it would have to start in one zone, cross through the Common Area, and end in the other zone. This was an attempt to make the zone boundaries less rigid. However, as the next example illustrates, decreasing the total number of zones can often mean that those who travel the shortest distances pay the most for what they receive. 1981: One Flat Fare In 1981, a new system was introduced that eliminated fare zones and charged just one Flat Fare for travel anywhere on the system. Discounts remained for children, students, and seniors. Ninety-minute transfers were introduced to allow for adequate time to complete a trip on the transit system that now covered more area than ever before. For frequent users of the system, such as commuters, a new monthly pass was offered. The pass was priced at the equivalent of 40 trips per month, equal to 2 trips per day, Monday to Friday. A Flat Fare system is one of the simplest forms of transit fares. With the exception of a few types of riders who receive discounts (students, children, and seniors), everyone pays the same fare regardless of the distance or direction travelled. The monthly pass made things even simpler for frequent users by providing an option to pay just once per month. This was the simplest fare system Metro Vancouver has ever seen. When only one fare price exists for transit, the price set is an average price. Though a longer trip is more expensive for the system to deliver than a shorter trip, all riders pay the same price. As a result, transit riders taking shorter trips end up subsidizing those longer trips taken by other riders.

1984: 3 Zones+ 1984: A 3-zone system is introduced (a simplified version of which we still use today!) In 1984, zones were reintroduced along municipal boundaries. This was intended to be more fair than the Flat-Fare system of 1981 and tied prices more closely to distance travelled. These zones were in effect only during Peak Hours, those times of the day when transit is the busiest. To increase efficiency, an off-peak discount was introduced in the early morning, middle of the day, and late evenings, to encourage flexible transit riders to take trips at less busy times of the day when each additional passenger costs the system less.

Today: 3 Zones Our current system we re all familiar with. Today s fare system is a simplified version of the 3-zone fare structure introduced in 1984. Zones 2A, 2B, and 2C were combined into Zone 2, a change that also took place by combining Zones 3A and 3B into Zone 3. This made the system less complicated, easier to understand and helps transit riders predict their fare price in advance. The mid-day discount was also eliminated in 1997. With the exception of these two changes, the system remains largely the same. Based on our discussions of trade-offs gleaned from historical examples, where do you think this system excels and where could it improve? The transit system in Metro Vancouver in 1984 was essentially a network of buses and the SeaBus. Skytrain was two years away from completion and the West Coast Express and Canada Line were still far-off dreams. The system has grown, but the 3-zone fare structure has remained the same. Does this structure work for travelling on our system today? Or is it time for something new?