Turnstiles, P3s, and Kevin Falcon
And so Mr. Falcon cried down from the heavens of Legislature, “Let there be turnstiles”. And there were turnstiles.
I really hate rants, but reading all the stories today about this, I can’t help but make sure some facts here are more clear.
TransLink has completed several studies over the years on the cost-benefit ratio of installing turnstiles on the SkyTrain system. It was found to be expensive – 1. Because the Expo Line was not designed for them, 2. Because there would need to be staff at each station in case the public needed assistance. The honour system that is currently in use allows for moderately easy fare evasion and a perception of less safe stations.
To rectify some of these issues, without installing turnstiles, TransLink hired more SkyTrain staff, and began the Transit Police (with guns!). Nowadays, there’s usually one TransLink employee at every second or third station- many times more.
But lo and behold, Kevin Falcon takes a trip to Europe, sees the lovely smart cards and turnstiles, and thinks, “hey, that’s cool, we should have that in my hometown”.
He comes back, says he wants the system in place, and off he goes to make it happen. The history behind turnstiles in Vancouver.. nope it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter that it makes no fiscal sense. What Falcon wants, Falcon gets.
Port Mann twin. Canada Line. TransLink overhaul. Turnstiles.
May 12, 2006- Falcon ruminates on the virtues of the undemocratic Chinese governance model. He states the Chinese “don’t have the labour or environmental restrictions we do. It’s not like they have to do community consultations. They just say ‘we’re building a bridge’ and they move everyone out of there and get going within two weeks. Could you imagine if we could build like that?”
Can a guy be more autocratic?
So, of course, being the BC Liberal that Falcon is, he states that the project will be a Public-Private-Partnership. A private corporation will pay the $100 million plus to retrofit all the SkyTrain stations with turnstiles, and in return they will get a share of revenue.
Now, we are entering very creepy territory here. What I’m keenly afraid of is the aftereffect of these P3s 10 years from now. The Canada Line is very much a private transit line, simply being licenced as a service under very thin contract boundaries to TransLink. If the public wants more trains, and it doesn’t make fiscal sense, inTransitBC won’t add more trains, and TransLink will be blamed, and not be able to do anything about it. The Port Mann twin will be funded by a private corp, and will be in charge of raising tolls to their satisfaction. All that money that you’ll be paying to cross the bridge… it won’t go back into improving the overall system; it’ll go to paying this private corporation for the next 30 odd years.
Private corporations exist to make money. There is absolutely no difference between public healthcare and public transportation – neither can be profit-driven, elsewise the public will, in the long term, receive a worse product overall.
Finally, Falcon seems to want this to happen immediately. In some media outlets, his estimate has been by next year. Falcon seems to always forget that, since we are in Canada, there are processes by which these projects must move through. Architectural designs, safety checks, bids for the contract, etc. Things take time. And heck, usually, projects don’t even go forward unless they make sense to build!
It’s a disaprate article, I know. But Falcon frustrates me so. And, what’s worse, is it’s likely he’ll get head office once Campbell steps down. Ugh, politics and transportation….
8 Responses to “Turnstiles, P3s, and Kevin Falcon”
Leave a Reply
Mark Allerton on November 10th, 2007
The problem with the cost-benefit analyses of subjects like this is that the cost is easy to quantify while the benefit is not. If we restrict the evaluation of the benefit purely to fare evasion and it’s impact on Translink revenues, I doubt this move makes sense.
But the current fare evasion has indirect effects too – the public perception of Skytrain being a vehicle for criminals being one of them. This perception, true or not, will actively impede future Skytrain expansion (you can hear this already in discussion about the M-line expansion westwards.) Spending the money now could be seen as a fairly small price to pay if it works to ease expansion of the network in future – and it can also be seen as fixing a previous mistake.
Regarding staffing – turnstiles obviously require staffing but only require the staff to handle the exceptions, whereas the current approach makes everyone a possible suspect. There is a trust relationship between the public and the network that must be maintained – the public needs to feel that the network is a benefit to their neighbourhood, not a liability, and this can only happen if the network is policed to prevent abuse. Turnstiles (initial costs aside) seem like a way to achieve this policing without seriously impacting honest users.
(BTW, don’t know what kind of turnstiles are being considered, but those used by the Paris metro look very effective.)
..Mark..
David Pereira on November 10th, 2007
I agree with Paul.. sorry Mark. I don’t think turnstiles is the way to go. Don’t quote me, because I’m too lazy to go back on my research at the moment – but I found out a couple years back while writing a research paper – that one of those aforementioned studies indicated that we have a SkyTrain compliance rate of over 75 or 80 percent. That means that a maximum of 25% or riders are evading the system – I’m sure it was even less than that, but I’m being very conservative here. Whenever I’m on the skytrain, and there are fare checks, I rarely see more than two people pulled aside out of a car set of maybe less than hundred people. The cost-benefit analysis here I think, should not be forgotten.
And – considering that the Minister is considering turnstiles run by a private company – I have great reservations at how this may turn into being a slipperly slope. I would venture to say that the Minister doesn’t ride SkyTrain much – as he so loosely refers to “thugs, punks, whatever they may be, [who] don’t pay to go cause trouble for other people.” In my experience, I’ve rarely if ever come across people who are on the platform just to annoy others. This sounds a little sensationalist, and I wonder whether its purpose is to scare people into helping push this very questionable, and subtly (or not so much) ideological agenda.
Erika Rathje on November 10th, 2007
The Stephen Rees blog post Paul linked to is a good one. It really brings to light how much crap Falcon talks. I’d personally like proof that Falcon has ever been on transit, SkyTrain or otherwise. The man drives an SUV. I’ve seen a few people caught by Transit officials/police and they’re usually haggard-looking people who are obviously too poor or ill to want to pay the $2.25 or $4.50. I make a good living myself and I’d rather it be fare-free. As I commented on the Province article (which seemed to conflict the Sun article I read next), the last thing I want to do is fight through a turnstile when I’m in a big hurry sprinting to the platform to make my connection. Mornings at King George are crowded enough that sometimes one can get stuck at the top of the escalator with nowhere to go! It’s interesting that Falcon is quick to jump on a P3 partnership to install these things and yet won’t realise or admit that the Valley IS dense enough for SkyTrain and NEEDS it NOW. The people in the community his office is in got completely screwed by TransLink/City moves and he hasn’t made an attempt to help us (no surprise there). I can make it from Surrey to Vancouver in half the time it usually takes me to get from Langley City to Cloverdale… a 10 minute drive. Sigh. / End rant
paul on November 10th, 2007
@ Mark.
I disagree with almost everything you stated quite eloquently. While David refuted most of your points, I’ll just go over them myself as well.
“But the current fare evasion has indirect effects too – the public perception of Skytrain being a vehicle for criminals being one of them.”
Generally speaking, most riders of SkyTrain know that it is a safe system. Very rarely does it feel dodgy, and even so, there’s plenty of systems in place for your personal security, including the silent alarm strips, direct contact feed to SkyTrain control, the Transit Police, and CCTV. It is those who don’t use the system regularly that think, as I said in the article, that SkyTrain is as bad as the New York Subway.
The one public perception that is off is the number of riders that *seemingly* don’t pay. But, just because you’re not stopping at a machine to buy a fare doesn’t mean you aren’t paying for your ride. Many, many people have monthly passes, or are transferring from buses, or, heck, have a U-Pass.
One way to change perception is to make sure the clear facts are available to the public, something TransLink, I don’t think, has pushed hard enough at providing, and something Falcon is particularly good at hiding (thus allowing him to twist the story his way). And it doesn’t help that the media doesn’t do any real investigative reporting anymore.
“This perception, true or not, will actively impede future Skytrain expansion (you can hear this already in discussion about the M-line expansion westwards.)”
I have not heard anything about security or safety in the very small discussion about the M-Line extension. They are usually talking about what route it’ll take, what technology it’ll be, and when it will happen.
Furthermore, SkyTrain itself is a very expensive proprietary technology from Bombardier, and beyond expansion west from VCC-Clark (which only makes sense because the line is basically half complete, and you don’t want to throw in another transfer if you don’t have to), I very much doubt we will be seeing anymore SkyTrain expansions in our region. Because it is proprietary, it is extremely expensive, as the economies of scale never ended up reducing cost for the company. Just look at the Canada Line – there’s a reason Bombardier didn’t win the contract.
You’re already seeing it with the Evergreen Line. TransLink has minimal funding, and looking at what they could afford, at-grade LRT made the most sense. Also, in the current discussions for rapid transit South of the Fraser, even TransLink themselves are not planning on extending SkyTrain – they are looking at BRT, and a future upgrade to LRT, on the 104/King George route.
“Regarding staffing – turnstiles obviously require staffing but only require the staff to handle the exceptions, whereas the current approach makes everyone a possible suspect.”
You seem to write it off as a minor expense, but the fact is, more staff will be required, at least one at every station, as long as it is open to the public.
“Turnstiles (initial costs aside) seem like a way to achieve this policing without seriously impacting honest users.”
As I said before, there are additional costs. Beyond the initial costs of installing them, which has been stated anywhere from $30 million on the Millennium and Canada Lines, to $100 million on the Expo Line… well, now there’s going to be higher operating costs because of all this additional staff. And who’s going to pay for this?
We know Falcon wants a private company to pay to install the turnstiles. But what about the aftereffects of all the additional staff? I seriously doubt TransLink has the money at this point to have more SkyTrain attendants, otherwise we would already have one person at each station.
TransLink loses $2-7 million annually. The fare evasion tickets that are paid go into provincial coffers. Just that weird loophole alone, provides very little incentive for TransLink to go after people – it’s not like they are getting that money back.
$2-7 million annually. Versus $100 million + to retrofit stations, not to mention additional operating costs, and the money to fasttrack and develop a smart card system (which Falcon also wants in place).
@ David.
Excellent comment. The hit all the right points. And I’m pretty sure the percentage of evaders was either 1-2%. Definitely not as high as 25%. And yes, Falcon is being sensationalist, and playing with people’s emotions to get them to agree with his proposals.
Mark Allerton on November 10th, 2007
@Paul
“Generally speaking, most riders of SkyTrain know that it is a safe system.”
I’d agree, but you’re missing the point. It’s the people who DON’T ride Skytrain whose perception you need to fix, either because we want them to become riders or because their support is needed for the system’s existence.
@David
A 20%+ evasion rate sounds pretty high to me, is that factoid supposed to be supporting your case?
On a general note, it seems like much of the resistance here is more to do with P3 financing rather than whether turnstiles would have a positive outcome. They are two independent issues to my mind. I am not really a fan of P3s either, but they are pretty much an unavoidable fact of the current political environment, and you might be better off fighting battles you have a chance of winning.
paul on November 10th, 2007
@ Mark.
“I’d agree, but you’re missing the point. It’s the people who DON’T ride Skytrain whose perception you need to fix, either because we want them to become riders or because their support is needed for the system’s existence.”
Personally, and this is just my own feeling, you can’t really increase ridership at this point too dramatically through just security improvements. What I mean is, people take SkyTrain either because it goes where they need to head, or because is part of their transit route. Things like U-Pass, or SkyTrain extensions, or B-Lines, or new high-rise developments near stations… these things will increase ridership. I admit that adding turnstiles will make some feel that the system is safer, but will that encourage a huge amount of people to take it who currently aren’t… I doubt it.
And if you are about to pull that statistic from Amsterdam where ridership increased like 30% – and I could just be pulling this out of my ass, but it could have to do with the pre-existing system being very unsafe, and major improvements after the turnstiles.
It’s different in Vancouver, just because I think that most who are willing to ride already take SkyTrain, and because it is a very safe system as it is. So all this investment, where in the short term through public funding, or in the long term through private investment (with rate of return through the public system)… the cost-benefit ratio just doesn’t make fiscal sense.
Erika Rathje on November 14th, 2007
Update: TransLink directors didn’t like it! http://www.cknw.com/news/news_local.cfm?cat=74281090912&rem=79387&red=801109023aPBIny&wids=410&gi=1&gm=news_local.cfm
Anon on November 15th, 2007
Sorry Paul,
I have to completely disagree with you on this one. I’ve travelled around the world and NOWHERE is there an honour system in place to take a metro system. Look at London, Sydney, Paris, Berlin…
All of them have great transit systems and one of the commonalities, beyond more routes, is that there are gates. I think turnstiles are a necessity in an era of security and public perception. I know MANY people, in particularl women, who feel unsafe on the SkyTrain at the stations – but if you create a fare paid zone with security personnel @ the gate the system will take care of itself.
While I agree re P3s, I also think that they are a fact of life at the moment…