No Free Lunch!

I fail to see the logic in the concept of providing no cost transport.

Doesn't the associated equipment, infrastructure and manpower have significant costs attached ?

Why not simply charge enough to cover the costs ? What incentive is there to reduce usage when there is no cost charged ?

And the comparison of subsidies is shallow at best. Consider the 13-15% taxes charged on the purchase of a car, the 35-60% taxes on fuel, and many other hidden fess and the car is really a cash source for government.

I'm all for mass transit, but the moment you say it's free, you're living in a dream world. We need to have as a goal the realization of the real costs of transportation, both financial and environmental.

Smarter options: congestion tolls; carpool; telecommute; move.

Yes, this is a huge scam. But instead of fixing the car scam, you want to increase the transit scam as well!

It's better to eliminate both scams and require that both car users and transit users pay their own way. One of the few exceptions should be medically-related transportation for people who are carrying highly-contageous airborne diseases such as antibiotic/vaccine-resistant tuberculosis (a growing problem), people with compromised immune systems due to organ transplant drugs (a growing demographic), cancer treatments, old age (another growing demographic), very young age, AIDS, etc.

Subsidizing transit to get people out of cars creates a false polarization, a false belief that cars and transit are the only two options available. In fact, there are many better options available, including:

1) More student housing within walking distance of universities.

2) Walking school buses and better street security. Many younger school kids are within reasonable walking distance of school, but their parents prefer that they take a bus because they're concerned about street safety. Other kids are just plain lazy. For them, subsidizing transit amounts to subsidizing obesity. That's the last thing we should be doing.

3) Satellite university campuses with teleconferencing links to central campuses. The education system should provide students with real-world skills. More and more business is being transacted through teleconferencing, online sales, and other telecommunications methods. Telus says over 40% of their employees could telecommute. TeleParticipation also opens-up educational opportunities for people in remote native villages.

4) Peak traffic tolls for large, single-occupant vehicles. With peak tolls, people can make rational decisions that fit their personal needs instead of being forced into a one-size-fits-all transit approach. Some may prefer a small, single-occupant electric commuter car. Others may prefer to carpool, telecommute, move closer to work, or take a combined approach. During off-peak hours, fuel-efficient cars are much cleaner and more time-efficient than huge 20-ton diesel buses driving around with one passenger in the back or zero passengers in the back.

5) Reduce taxes (including property taxes) on low-income working people and offer lower off-peak transit rates for non-working people. Individuals can then decide for themselves whether they want to spend their retained tax money on somewhat more expensive accommodation closer to their jobs instead of having government bureaucrats forcing them to spend 4 hours a day sitting in a bus.

Free Buses

Bravo:

I think that the key here is to look at the overall cost of transportation in the region rather than focusing on the cost of each mode. If this is done, free public transportation would actually reduce transportation costs

I wish folks were smart enough to go for this

Something interesting to me was that one of my university economics profs was strongly in favour of free transit. And he was certainly no left winger... not even close.

For any of you folks who think that the car driving public is NOT heavily subsidised please give your head a shake. 40%-60% of the land surface is developed as car space in the 'modern' city (now that we have google maps you no longer have an excuse to be ignorant of this). All the police fire ambulance service that is required is no small cost (yet if I have an accident in the backcountry people seem to think I should pay for that). The health costs of treating the sedentary car lifestyle and the effects of the poison the car emits also factor into that subsidy. If you think that car culture is a boon for the government then it is likely that you haven't thought too deeply upon all this.

As for making people pay the full cost of both cars and transit... if that was the case I suspect we would have neither cars nor transit... which would be great for me and my bike... but not everyone can bike to work.

Cycling Commuter: great

Cycling Commuter: great comment; I agree that healthy and sustainable community development will take into consideration many different transportation options (including eliminating wasteful transportation - 4 hours on the bus between work and back as one outrageous example), and will fund strategically to see that all of them grow to be effective.

However, I do believe that fare-free transportation would be a giant leap in the right direction. There's more to life and the life of a healthy community than work and school; fare-free transportation picks up where other options drop off (you can't telecommute to the grocery store, for example - and young females may feel threatened walking or cycling for any distance late at night). Fare-free transport works for the elderly, for the differently-abled, and for parents of young children - people who are commonly excluded from vital community life for various reasons, not the least of which is unaffordable or unsafe transportation.

Moreover, fare-free transportation does not merely pry people from their cars and plop them into busses and skytrains - it may shatter the misconception that vehicles are the only safe and comfortable option, e.g., an able-bodied individual who uses public transit for short trips to the grocery store will figure out pretty quickly that a bicycle could make the trip more quickly, conveniently, and enjoyably.

In all, I agree whole-heartedly with your suggestions, but do believe that there are some pretty big benefits to fare-free transportation above having all transit-users pay their own way.

Truly Public...

If Mayor Sam's "ecoDensity" (tm)(c)(All Rights Reserved) plan were actually a plan and not just a trademark, he'd be pushing the GVRD along in this direction already.

Higher residential density AND a truly public - low cost / no cost - transit system is the way to achieve dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis.

Take substantial numbers of cars off the roads and economic benefits would mushroom, not only from cost savings had from reducing road infrastructure spending but from new business generated by the opportunities presented by ecoTransit (tm pending).

We'd see the return of residential retail; we'd see businesses wanting to locate in Vancouver again, rather than forcing their employees to chug along clogged freeways in Calgary or Toronto.

Imagine, we'd see community returning as people emerge from their metal shells.

We'd certainly see even more cycling in the city, too.

Lets start paying for this future today by adding increasingly larger license costs for operating a vehicle in the GVRD.

It's free already

Now that all buses are declared fare paid zones, you apparently don't need to show your pass when you board (though not all drivers seem to have got the same message). There is no one to check the fares, so why bother to buy a pass?

Of course, the other way to get a free ride on any bus is to look dishevelled, dirty or a little desperate and beg the driver for a ride. You won't be refused.

"It's just like Skytrain," say those drivers who are keen to announce that you don't need to show the pass. Great! In almost a year of riding Skytrain steadily, I have been asked to show proof of payment twice. I've yet to figure out what the job description is of Skytrain staff. On the rare occasion you see them, they are standing in groups of 2 or 3 chattng away. (Unless the system has broken down, then they are in groups of 5 or 6.) The only people they seem to approach are young males who look on the scruffy side.

It seems to me that if Skytrain staff were actively deployed to check fares consistently, Translink could substantially increase its revenue without have to raise fares. No need for fines, filling out forms, or intimidating people with guns. Just make sure they pay before getting on. It seems to work in other transit systems. Why not here?

More Granola Dreams

Oh wouldn't life be so easy if the congestion problem could be solved by making public transit free. Can you truly make the connection between rising transit fares and less ridership? The simple fact is that even if it made free, alot of people will not ride on buses. The reason is that people drive in the Lower Mainland because it is more convenient to do so. Convenience and comfort are the key factors not price.

There are lots of people in jobs where they need to drive and can't be bothered standing around waiting for a bus to connect to skytrain- no matter how cheap the price. Really, who wants to stand out in Vancouver's wet and cold winters.

And what about the trucks and vans carrying goods? They need more roads and that's what the govt is giving people. And who is going to pay for expanding transit if it is free? Only when you have transport coming right to your front door will people flock to it.

Since when did car users not pay their own way?

Cycling Commuter

The taxes I pay when I purchase both the vehicle and the fuel to run it cover both my way and subsidize public transit as well. Not only that they also contribute to the public safety infrastructure.

Eliminate or significantly reduce private vehicles and the tax burden will have to be moved to the shoulders of others who may or may not be able to afford it.

I don't object to covering my own costs. What I do object to is getting ripped off to cover the costs of those who deem themselves as less fortunate and feel that everyone else must provide for their needs.

If free public transit is to be put in place I have no problem with that but everyone should share equally the tax burden it would create, not just a select few.

Silly article

But nice artwork! Whoever does the graphic design for Tyee is first class.

This article is poorly written and not well researched. It is also a little bit silly!

Free Bus?!?! The demand for something that is free is unlimited. Just imagine a gridlock of large buses on the street with nothing moving...Buses slow down traffic and result in even more greenhouse emissions, especially those pathetically slow trolly buses.

Make the bus free, and pretty soon someone will be complaining of bus abuse and people riding the bus that don't need to ride the bus, resulting in more and more buses on the road.

Besides, the buses are almost free anyway. Look at what public transit costs in Europe. alot more than here, I can tell you that. And they have economies of scale, such as denser populations in smaller spaces to make bus service more efficient that we don't have.

Externalities of auto use

Dave Olsen wrote:
Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute has estimated that in 2000 the government subsidy to each private vehicle owner was about $5,378 in Canadian dollars.

How many daily auto users in Vancouver and Victoria? 500,000? Doing the math on just those users in 2000 dollars gives a whopping $2.7 billion per year! I am confident that the number is much, much higher. Can't afford free transit? B.S!

I ride my bike all the time, and have for 28 years. Most of those years there was ZERO infrastucture for bicycles anywhere in BC. How much of my taxpaying dollars subsidised the auto culture? I would be more than happy to see my tax dollars be uesd for public transit, in that it would become fare free.

A public transportation, (or education, or healthcare for that matter) that requires the ability to pay perpetuates the class society. A society that gives preference to the most expensive form of transportation, the auto, benefits the wealthy watever the cost, they can afford it. And if public transit were fare-free, the wealthy get to enjoy that too!

Some of you have been hoodwinked

Free transit is no more a scam or a giveaway than our medicare system, tax system or school system. Its an investment in a sensible future vision. Big city public transit should be enshrined as a right and leading/central mode of transportation infrastructure. It pays for itself and saves society trillions, whereas cars cost the health, tax incentives, sustainability and safety of canadians.

Good article and I look forward to reading

the future installments.

But! My opinion is that poor people are interested in free transit. People with bucks and good jobs and first class sound systems in their beamers and such don't give a darn about saving a few bucks.

I'd estimate that there's only an approximation of 10% (plus or minus, eh) of private vehicle owners who could be enticed to ride free transit even if they were sent cheques in the mail for every free ride taken.

Free ridership would be great as a courtesy to poor people but I'd like to be convinced that it will have a significant effect (preferably downsizing) on the use of private vehicles in this part of the world with our peculiar class and wealth- conscious society.

Note the parallel with free tuition...

Analagous arguments are made regarding the elimination of university/college tuition, i.e. the economic benefits of increased access to education trump the loss of revenue from the tuition.

That seems to work in other political jurisdictions, just like free transit. Although I have a hard time imagining that the vocal anti-socialist hordes in Canada would accept transit funded purely out of taxes.

flattax

I think it was a great article, and a wonderful idea - for anyone who's spent any time in Europe the value of a vital public transit system as a real alternative to suffocating cars is crystal clear.

If free transit won't get the bimmer drivers out of their vehicles then bring in a London style program of charging them every time they cross an electronic barrier into each city centre. If they want to keep driving, so be it, but the daily charges will go to paying for free transit.

There is more than one way to deal with dinosaurs.

Fares Please! You want good transit......

The novice in providing better public transport always brings up the 'old saw' of free transit. Doesn't work. The idea has been studied to death.

Problem:

Auto congestion and pollution.

Solution:

Provide a transit solution that will attract the motorist from the car.

Vancouver's solution:

Build hugely expensive metros.

Result - high transit fares and a stagnating ridership. No modal shift from car to SkyTrain.

World's solution

Build cost effective light rail.

Result - Affordable transit fares and modal shifts up to 30%, less traffic, less pollution.

A note to Dave Olson, please read Bus or Light Rail: Making the right choice.

Even though I currently pay

Even though I currently pay over $1,000 per year in transit fares, that is probabably prefereable to what would happen if Vancouver transit was free... during the cold and wet months it would become a homeless shelter on wheels.

We Need a Lot More Funding for Transit First

Dave is right that free transit would encourage use but first transit supply needs to dramatically increase first. The provincial government needs to step up and provide TransLink the funds it needs to dramatically increase the number of buses and to add more rapid transit lines. As Dave mentioned, stopping Gateway and using the funding for transit would be a great start.

Another great opportunity to contact Premier Campbell and other Liberal MLAs.

Premier Gordon Campbell
MLA Vancouver-Point Grey

604 660-3202

Other MLAs can be found at:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/index.htm

An array of remarks

Some of the comments I just read make me shake my head in disbelief. A careful read of Olsen's article will tell you he's not suggesting these things happen overnight or without other measures in place, as a couple of you have assumed he said. Articles I've read in the past have emphasized the need for comfort, reliability, and transit-friendly roadways (e.g. much of Surrey is NOT).

Some commenters also interpreted "fare-free" as "free." Olsen stresses it's not FREE; the funding just comes from other sources instead of user fares. I think the taxing of drivers and tolls are a great idea. With the fare hike, I was thinking the elimination of fare zones might be a good idea. Who is going to pay $5 to go from Surrey to Vancouver or vice versa? (I use a farecard.)

Bobby Peru said trucks carrying goods need more roadways: no, they need less cars. In the long run, Gateway will solve nothing, but politicians think as far as their term goes rather than the future. By politicians, I mean specifically Mr. Falcon who, by the way, drives an SUV.

Probably one of the biggest turn-offs to using Transit is the crowding. If you've ever taken the SkyTrain at rush hour and tried to get on anywhere from Granville to Broadway, you'll know what I'm talking about. No new trains are expected until 2009.

While some of the other solutions offered are viable, a sustainable future is based on transit use, walking and cycling, not on the private car. Take a look at Amsterdam or even today's downtown Vancouver.

Congestion will, I have read, never be eliminated, but we can hope to reduce it. Meanwhile, the City of Surrey combined with a lack of funding/planning for TransLink has effectively taken a frustrating step backwards that will no doubt put more cars on the road and more angry passengers on what's left of our buses.

Benchmarking

The fare hike was approved partly based on statistics from across Canada. It follows a poor, anti-progressive theory that states that something that is will always be. It says that because Toronto and Montreal charge x amount, we can and should too -- that because we have hitherto charged less, we should consider ourselves fortunate.

I've read that Lightrail is more expensive than SkyTrain, though I'm dumbfounded as to why!

As a regular transit user

As a regular transit user and former automobile owner, i must disagree with the author. Although i agree with the concept, in reality, nothing is free. Transit fares are fair, despite what the BRU would have you believe. The problem, as has been mentioned extensively above, is that car owners/drivers, for the most part, don't actually realize just how much it 'costs' to own and operate a vehicle in the city. A tremendous amount of vehicle infrastructure is subsidized: roads (think of the thousands and thousands of kms.!), parking, maintenance, etc, etc, and that's not to mention the effects of the CO2 emissions, etc.

Point: whether you like to believe it or not, it is still relatively cheap to drive a car in Vancouver.

And also, the buses are full enough right now when i ride them, and so is the skytrain, so if anything, more cash needs to be raised so that we can expand public transit.

Just my 225 (after 6:30 pm) cents.

A few BC facts: Fuel and

A few BC facts:

Fuel and road taxes raised 2005 - $420 million
Ministry of highways spending 2005 - $980 million. Total spending by municipalities on roads 2005 - unknown.

Result: half-a-billion-dollar subsidy to cars.

Medical care fees raised from road users 2005 (essentially everyone) - $1.4 billion
Medical care spending on road accident victims 2005 - $2.35 billion

Result: billion dollar subsidy to cars.

Shall I go on? I haven't even addressed environmental or social costs yet, never mind the real costs of sourcing transportable energy like the fuel you put into your tank, all of which are highly subsidized for cars. I strongly suspect the $5,375 figure is not too far off, if a bit hard to accurately quantify.

Transit, like education and health care, is a public good. Anybody who says it ought to pay its own way hasn't the brains God gave an ant. Cars are a poor subsititute for good transit - a form of economic downloading that right-wing government started more than 70 years ago to help build the economies of countries such as Canada and the US with massive structural subsidies to business.

I just don't agree yet that it ought to be fare-free. I think it ought to be rationalized with a minimum charge, as it is in Heidelberg and other cities. Perhaps Olsen will go into that further in succeeding articles.

Grumpy

Build cost effective light rail.

Result - Affordable transit fares and modal shifts up to 30%, less traffic, less pollution.

I disagree, if only because you neglect the single biggest effect of transit losses, which is transfers. Any multi-modal system which requires users to transfer too many times still loses ridership to convenience, and I don't see having 9 LRT lines instead of 3 Skytrain lines (assuming total costs are equivalent) as making the transfer problem much less onerous.

We need better transit structure point-to-point to minimize transfers, and we'd need a helluva lot of LRT to make that work. LRT can help, but you've oversimplified the solution.

And I've worked with Dave in my neighbourhood. His degree may not be in transit management, but he is certainly not a novice. You owe him an apology.

Only in BC.....pity

Only in BC is metro (SkyTrain) cheaper than LRT. Can't have cheap light rail running about can we, 'cause it would mean that our transit planners have got it all wrong. Cheap LRT would mean the Arbutus would be used.

In other parts of the world light rail is being built for under $10 million/km, but TransLink and its chief planning guru Glen L. have a 1001 excuses for not building cheap LRT.

Let's hear all of the series first

Some comments were made that criticized the Tyee for its lack of research in this article. It's a series so let's be patient and see the rest of it before we jump to conclusions.

I do not own a car anymore and I have to rely on public transportation. When I was working for BC Children and Women's Hospital (Oak St) it took me 25-30 minutes to get there in the morning on the #17 and 1 hour +/- 10 minutes to commute home.

And that was only the time spent RIDING. The time I spent waiting for a bus sometimes took up to 45 minutes!!!

In order for free transit to work there has to be enough of it first. Right now BC Transit should be running more buses and building more transit.

However, at present I feel that the fees are way too high and so I don't travel around Vancouver as much as I would if it were free.

As far as being a homeless shelter on wheels I can see why that's a concern. I don't understand why drivers can't refuse a ride for someone who hasn't showered in 3 weeks. After all, it's PUBLIC and the public should not have to put up with someone who has no respect for others, and that goes for people who can pay for it as well. If you're not clean, you don't ride.

Just some prelim thoughts.

Zalm, think out of the SkyTrain box

First, only 5 SkyTrain type systems have been sold since the late 1970's; during the same period over 100 new LRT systems have been built with many more either under construction or in advanced stages of planning.

Secondly, 9 LRT lines would give almost unlimited route selection offering many more routes.

Let's say a transit line has 2 routes; A>B and C>D, one can run routes A>B; A>C and A>D and the same is true for B, C, D. More transit lines equates in many more transit routes to meet customers demands. SkyTrain's there and back style of operation is the Achilles heel of metro.

Here is something else to chew on; one SkyTrain line has the capacity of about 26,000 persons per hour per direction (Bombardier Inc.). One LRT line has a maximum capacity of about 20,000 pphpd. Now three SkyTrain lines (which cost about the same as nine LRT lines)has a capacity of about 72,000 pphpd, while the nine LRT lines would have a capacity of 180,000 pphpd! but that is another debate.

When it comes to metro versus LRT, LRT wins hands down; then why don't out planners and politicos get it!

Poor comparison

In that year, the average cost of providing each trip taken by transit in Vancouver was approximately $5. The equivalent subsidy for transit users would have been 1,075 free trips. Few of us could even use that many.

In fact, if the subsidy given private car owners were simply handed over to each car-free transit user, bus riders would make money for taking transit!

This is the dumbest comparison of the article. You are comparing a subsidy-per-vehicle to the cost-per-trip.

Why not compare cost per seat ?

A car has 5 seats, so thats about $1075 per seat. (Assuming the subsidy number is accurate

How much is the subsidy per bus/train ? How many seats ? I suspect it far higher.

Enough of the $10 million per km figure.

Free buses would be nice, but even then the system wouldn't be able to handle it. The incentive has to be there for people to walk and live near all their needs.

I find it funny the people who are always slagging Skytrain as the wrong choice for Vancouver. This investment was necessary for a city of this size. As for modal shifts from car to skytain, just look at housing development and densification that has happened along the Expo line and is now happening along the Millenium line. Capacity is much greater on skytrain, frequency is high, and because of the automation, the need to hire operators for off-peak demands such as sporting and cultural events isn't a problem.

The cheap LRT that many advocate would be nothing more than trolley buses on rails. They would resemble the streetcars of Toronto, stuck in the same traffic as everyone else. It would look pretty but these wouldn't fit the town center regional planning requirements. The right of ways do not exist in Vancouver for LRT.

The Evergreen line is nearly as expensive as skytrain would have been, yet suffers from longer travel time and transfers. LRT along Broadway would become obsolete by the time it was finished. It would also require another transfer.

Arbutus will one day have LRT but the demand isn't there yet.

JP - wrong

On a cost per ride basis, Arbutus would be the best bet, but the powers that be wanted a subway. This is why Puil and Dobell would not have transit experts plan for RAV and instead used trusted engineering firms to provide the subway solution they wanted.

People who defend SkyTrain forget one important thing, the metro was supposed to be carrying over 20,000 persons per hour per direction by the year 2000 and it doesn't even carry half this amount. SkyTrain was wrong and has screwed up transit and transit planning since 1986! Funny, no one else wants SkyTrain; funny the marketing name was changed 4 or 5 times (ICTS, ALRT, ALM, ART).

The same densification would have happened with light rail, as it was a zoning decision, turning former industrial land into residential land.

The so-called cheap LRV's would be modern 3 or 4 section modular articulated cars, not trolleys. (Isn't funny that people who support SkyTrain always denigrate light rail). Light rail isn't stuck in traffic if it operates on a reserved rights-of-ways and has priority signaling, in fact it has proven just as fast as a metro. The rights-of-ways do exist; Broadway, Main, Fraser, Kingsway, Hastings, all former streetcar lines, all with enough ridership to warrant modern light rail, all graded for rail. One traffic lane can carry about 1,200 persons per hour, on traffic lane with LRT can carry 20,000 persons per hour.

Again the politicians want metro and have forbidden any planning for LRT. the Evergreen line is a hybrid light metro line with much of its route grade separated or in tunnel.

Modern transit is at-grade or-on-street, where the customer wants it. The elevated metros or subways are largely relics of very dated thinking.

Want better transit, think out of the SkyTrain box.

> Grumpy ... gd point 4 light rail ... did u know?

I was told that the old tramway tracks were taken off because the oil and gas providers pressured the government to do so!

Light rail has always been the best system as it is way cheaper than the fancy skytrain (exscpet for a few exceptions, of course).

Then only decent explanations that I can come up for the mediocre transit sytem we have is corruption from the oil and gas providers (and the Skytrain builders) who have a vested interest in keeping things not improving!

And, you thought Mexico was bad! Come on! It is not as obvious, but it is happening!

Convenience is Everything

Stepeasy is correct and observant in restating my earlier point. Convenience is what consumers desire and using a car in the Lower Mainland is far more convenient than public transit. And to make public transit match car convenience would cost way too much. It's actually cheaper to use a car.

The weather is so terrible in Vancouver that I can't imagine showing up in the office all wet from a rain storm while I'm waiting for a bus or riding a bike to work. And don't even think about the hot summers in BC where you are drenched if you walk from your house to the bus stop. Who do you think you are kidding?

Who do these public transit supporters think we are? Do they think no one works in suits or we are all video game developers? Really? There's so little thought put into their ideas that they don't even consider the common man- the guy who is an electrician or plumber.

Free buses? Like another poster said, they'll turn into mobile housing units for the drug addicts and the homeless. Luckily, the govt has enough sense to realize that the Lower Mainland needs more roads.

Bobby P. you are right about convenience

Almost every transit study done in the past decade put convenience over speed, for new transit.

This is what has made the Renaissance of LRT to striking because its there, on the street and takes where you want to go. Customers will accept a somewhat slower trip, if they do not want to transfer. Ambiance and convenience of transit system is more important than speed.

Since this article on free transit appeared, I have sent many messages to 'real' experts abroad and the short answer is, "if fares are deemed reasonable by customers, there is little complaint....but the problem in Vancouver is, you have an underused, yet very expensive metro system which your politicians deem high fares to sustain it."

'Free buses' is a concept, which time has past, those who politically want free buses are living with rose coloured glasses.

Fares are high in Vancouver and the reason is SkyTrain and with only about 12% of the population using transit, the fare issue resonates poorly with the taxpayer.

Expensive LRT

Remember this, if LRT is expensive to install, it has been designed to be expensive to install!

The Spanish town of Velez-Malaga, population 52,150, has now opened Europe's newest tramway (LRT). The total cost, including three modern low-floor cars, of the standard gauge, double track 3.1 km line was Euro (EUR) 18 million or CAD $27.1 million!

The new LRT line is designed to economically carry 1.2 million passengers per year and certain counters the political and bureaucratic inspired myth that there isn't the density for LRT in Victoria!

By comparison, for the same cost of the new Velez-Malaga tramway, one could only build 200 metres of the new RAV/Canada line subway being built in Vancouver!

The Velez-Malaga tramway is built on-street and if a rights-of-way of an existing railway were to be used, the cost for new LRT would be even cheaper!

Unlike bus based transit modes, modern LRT has a proven record in attracting the motorist from the car and at a cost of just over $9 million km to build, LRT would be cheaper than new highway construction.

Its simple

Its like the school system, you pay for it in taxes, but if you want to send your kids to private school, you have that option too (assuming you can afford it). If you dont want your power suit to get wet in the rain, you can use your Audi to get to work (umbrullas also work too...), a fare-free system wont stop you from doing that.

Once my Upass runs out, I dont know how I am going to afford transit. I usually bike everywhere (faster than taking the bus), but sometimes the weather is crummy or I dont feel like biking, and I take the bus. Im not poor at all, yet I cannot afford to drop close to five bucks a day on taking transit to work even once in a while, especially with the nasty rents in this city and my student loan.

A fare-free system would be very convenient for me.

Who will pay?

The problem with free fares is who will pay?

Do people realize the SkyTrain is subsidized by over $200 million annually and is the driving force behind the high bus fares?

The previous poster wants free transit because he can not afford it, does he want free rent as well?

Transit is not a social service, but a product and until customers treat transit as a product and hold TransLink and the provincial government to account, then we are going to continue to get the expensive service we now have.

Want to reduce fares - boycott TransLink!

Grumpy

Don't put me in the Skytrain box - I'm not there at all. I've fought it at City Hall and the GVRD/Translink since 1999.

But LRT is only about 1/2 as cheap as Toytrain, which means you can't build very much more of it than you can of Toytrain. And you can't compare Spain construction with Vancouver construction. Totally different cities, totally different expectations and building codes and planning theories, never mind road design.

And you simply can't say that good transit will move people from their cars - in North America it isn't so. Our car culture is so inviolable that we require the threat of punishment - and severe punishment at that - to move us from our cars.

So go ahead - make transit attractive as well as effective. It should be anyway. But then don't go looking for crowds to stream toward it without some combination of road pricing, auto/parking/gas taxes or removal of road subsidies with some type of citizen's tax initiative a la California. Which will occur when the moon turns bright green and falls in the ocean.

Our alternative, in such a spread-out city, is to take the cheapest solution, which for now, is buses, including the double-extended Volvos carrying 270 passengers - wayyyy more than any LRT I've been on yet - and mulitply the routes and service intervals.

Then beat the various GVRD councils into proper regional planning designs.

Then, and only then, when traffic begins to rise toward the 15,000 pphpd on any given route, can you start to implement LRT effectively.

Snigger....GUFFAWWWWW!!!

More idiocy from the peanut gallery:

No, there are fewer trucks on the road serving Vancouverites now than there were in the 1970s. There are only about 60 delivery companies on the road now compared to well over 200 in the 1970s. And as the supply chain has become rationalized, fewer trucks are carrying more and more goods and making fewer trips per customer served.

What has gone up is the number of cars in the GVRD - tripled from 340,000 in 1975 to well over 1,200,000 now, while the population has barely doubled.

http://www.transportdurable.qc.ca/documents/Car_in_Canada.pdf

Bzzzt! Didn't pass Economics 100. If demand is inelastic, as with most public services, the demand remains the same no matter what the price. As in the price of rice in Asia. Or public transit in North America and Europe.

I think most people here have lives to live - there's no need to worry about free buses being plugged with joyriding transit users, sitting all day from Port Moody to Steveston with wild abandon, causing consternation among the citizenry as they decline to get off ... mmmmpphhhh .... GUFFAWWWWWW!!!

More idiocy from a writer who lives across the drawbridge in the fantasyland that is West Vancouver. If Translink had enough buses, you could put every man, woman and child in West and North Van in a seat on a bus - that means no standees - and start sending them across the Lion's Gate at 7:00 am Monday morning and be all finished before 8:30 am. And the Second Narrows would be deserted. Now don't you try to tell me that BUSES are the problem.

The problem is your choices and how they've been implemented. A more wasteful system couldn't have been designed if we held committee meetings for a year to implement a five-year plan....

[And this was a BEST COMMENT! Tyee editors, I can only conclude that the BEST COMMENT is a computer program designed to avoid profanity and obvious insults, because it's showing up on some of the worst thinking and writing I've ever seen. You need to fix this - soon.]

LRT a toy train....not! But SkyTrain is!

Actually the problems in North America and Europe are the same; You want to reduce congestion and associated pollution, then you must design a transit system that will attract the motorist from the car.

Buses just do not attract the motorist from the car, double articulated Volvo's included. Excuse me, a Volvo double artic has a capacity of about 170 persons; a Strasbourg 'jumbo' has a capacity of 350 passengers. If buses did, there would not be the rush in building new LRT around the world.

As you can not seem to read, LRT can cater to traffic loads of between 2,000 to 20,000 pphpd (the Tuen Meun LRT in Hong Kong carries over 25,000 pphpd)and the region has plenty of density to sustain the mode. The problem is that out planners have been very economical with the truth about light rail, lest it expose 27 years of purely idiotic transit planning.

LRT, according to the TTC could be installed for about one tenth the cost of SkyTrain and the only reason LRT is so expensive here, is that it is designed to be expensive.

I strongly reccomend..........

I strongly recommend anyone who really wants to understand modern public transport Philosophy read, Prof. Carmen Hass-Klau's (Prof. of Urban Transport, University of Wuppertal) four highly acclaimed international transit studies, starting with 'Bus or Light Rail, Making the Right Choice'

They can be purchased through the Light Rail Transit Associations web site at
www.lrta.org

Cant people read???

No one is suggesting transit be free! Yes, the main reason I want it to be fare-free is because the current fares dont work with my tight budget, but I also think it makes sense for the whole system for many of the same reasons that the article mentions.

experimenting with LRT

Grumpy, you are probably correct with your cost and ridership calculations regarding LRT (i'm certainly not one to argue), however, skytrain is here, it's being expanded, and yes it's as expensive as hell, but one thing i think that is very positive about it-it doesn't interfere with traffic and it's quick.

Now if i was a transit planner i would definitely opt for trying out an LRT line or two. In fact I would have a line run from UBC all the way east, onto Broadway, and then change direction at Kingsway and head down in that direction all the way to New West. Just that one line could probably move thousands and thousands of people a day with great efficiency.

As has been stated already though, with regards to this article, transit fares are fair (in my opinion). The issue is, as i see it, if you're travelling two zones or more on a daily basis, it's almost, (not quite but approaching almost) as affordable to drive an old beater that's great on gas, than it is to take transit. I know because i did this.

Great article!

I am a student as well, and since I live close to campus and bike all the time (I’m in Southern California, so the weather is not a concern), I don’t use transit all that often. Fortunately for me, when I do, I can just show my student ID card; I would be much less likely to use the bus ever if this were not available. Along with the student who posted previously, my case is an example of when demand is definitely elastic. When I’m in Hawaii, I live very close to bus stops, but I’m much more likely to drive if I don’t have a pass at the time.

I’m also very appreciative of new search tools, such as this http://maps.google.com/transit, and I’m sure that as more software for phones comes out, it will get even better. One of the primary things I would like to see is an easy way to choose the best route – this will then help buses match the spontaneity of using a car. Hopefully less than five years from now it will be possible to check on one’s phone to see if a bus is behind schedule, allowing one to stay in the store a bit longer or catch a bus you thought you were too late for, as the case may be.

Finally, I think this is a very good idea – even though I don’t have to worry about paying for the bus now, additional ridership that forces them to increase the frequency of service can only benefit me, and it will progressively make the option of riding the bus more and more attractive, in what I hope would be a dizzying upward spiral.

it's not the cost...

I used to ride transit exclusively...now I can't.

For me it's not the cost, it's the simple inconvenience. I'm disabled, but not in a wheelchair (and don't LOOK disabled)...and where I'm located, it's SRO to downtown.

NOT an option.

Now, if they maybe made transit a bit more accessible, a bit more frequent, a bit more reliable...

Even without the physical problems, it takes 3 times as long for me to commute as it does to drive, simply because of all the transfers. The new Canada line won't help much either, for all that I'm in Richmond.

I know I pay more to drive to work (well, not to drive, but to park) but spending all that time standing and waiting then standing and riding just isn't an option...

Add a few more park & rides (safe ones, thanks...), and enough buses so that it's NOT SRO, and maybe then I'll consider it.

The cost of transit has never been the issue for me, or for anyone I know...it's the lack of accessibility on multiple levels.

Free transit

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but there is no such word as FREE. "Free Transit" means that Vancouver residents don't pay to ride their buses; everyone else would pay, instead. That is a Free Ride, but why should everyone else in BC pay for one city's bus service?

As a Nanaimo resident, I can't agree with that proposition. Neither, I suspect, could the residents of any other city.

"Good Transit" and "Free Transit" are not the same thing at all. Don't take it personally, Vancouverites. They have the same problem in Toronto. Just because the Gardiner Expressway or the Don Valey Parkway is backed up, it doesn't mean the entire province of Ontario is congested.

Driving out of Thunder Bay, years ago, on my way back to Calgary, I was comforted to hear the Toronto traffic report on CBC radio. It confirmed my decision.

In Nanaimo, it is life-affirming to hear that West Broadway is backed up for miles. It just confirms my choice of residence.

Please don't try to saddle me with your transit problems. I didn't cause them and I can't cure them either. You can, so please do. Without my help.

"No fares" anti-cycling, walking; pro-waste

The complete lack of fares would discourage cycling and walking. Recognize that we're all a little lazy sometimes. Having to pay has often spurred me to walk or cycle instead.

Also, some people would ride around all day for amusement, or to get out of the cold (if you're homeless), which would waste fuel.
Otherwise the article is good. So how about a compromise?:

$1 fares and $2 all-day passes!